Due to Yuan’s reference to Goodnow’s idea for his ensuing restoration of emperorship (1915), Goodnow fell in infamy and faced critiques and censures by many Chinese, including Liang. Pointing out the paralleling analyses leading to similar conclusions in Liang and Goodnow’s writings, this paper tries to identify both personal and theoretical reasons for Liang and Goodnow’s divergent positions in 1915. It concludes that although Liang and Goodnow’s pro-monarchical arguments shared many insights and also weaknesses, they demonstrated ultimately distinct political visions – presented as “particularism” in different lights.
Liang’s perspective should be understood as a “progressive particularism” shaping the agenda of an engaged reform activist, whereas Goodnow’s “particularist progressivism,” haunted with its elitist prejudice, led to his defeatist realism characteristic of a detached spectator. Examining this intellectual dialogue can offer valuable insight into China’s complex history of constitutional development and holds potential relevance for understanding the world’s rapidly evolving political landscape today.
