A Rejoinder to Professor Tam
Dear Editor,
I noticed that your series has published a review of my co-authored book 近代企業的商道、商術與商法: 東京金港堂與上海商務印書館雜識 [Morality, Rationality, and Legality of Modern Cooperation: Tōkyō Kinkōdō and Shanghai Commercial Press] by Professor Tam Ka Chai (Hong Kong Baptist University). Please note that our book’s title should be 近代企業的商道、商術與商法: 東京金港堂與上海商務印書館雜識 (1875-1930). The period (1875-1930) in the title is not dispensable. We are grateful for the generous comments from the reviewer. For scholarly exchange on your platform, we would like to share our responses with your readers.
First, the reviewer rightly noted that our chapter 5 (on Commercial Press’s Chinese typewriter) did not discuss Thomas S. Mullaney’s The Chinese Typewriter: A History (2017). Readers of our book who also read Mullaney’s may however notice that (a) Mullaney’s brief account on Commercial Press’s “mass production” and marketing of the Chinese typewriter (Chapter 4, esp. p.171), probably a marginal issue in his narrative, did not mention the archival documents submitted by Commercial Press to the GMD Ministry of Finance appealing for exemption from industrial tax on their Chinese typewriter. Accessible at the Institute of Modern History Archives (Academia Sinica), the folder contains rich primary information on its money losing typewriter business. Our chapter was built entirely on these first-hand archival materials, which had not been used in previous literature regarding Commercial Press, including Mullaney’s; (b) Our narrative is not about how much Commercial Press had contributed to the quest of the machine or to promote Chinese culture. Rather, we used the case to show how Commercial Press made this difficult business decision not for making profit but for branding itself as a vanguard of national self-reliance in technology and industrial patriotism. Notwithstanding, we can appreciate the reviewer’s enthusiasm on subjects of his attention and applaud Mullaney’s exhaustive effort in the search of sources and brilliant narrative construction.
Second, the reviewer suggested to condense chapter 12 into an endnote (on company registration) and part 3 (Chaps.7 & 8 on corporate finances) into a concise table and an appendix. We cannot agree because our book is a corporation history (qiye shi 企業史) or business history, not a cultural history or publishing history per se. In corporation history, primary sources like company registration, financial reports, balance sheets, board meeting minutes, etc. are much more important and central than they are in cultural history. Yet, anyone who has ever had a hand in corporation history of modern China, or the Commercial Press in particular, knows that such crucial data are so difficult to come by. We presented the carefully selected details in the chapters rather than in endnotes, tables, or appendixes for three reasons: (a) Without such details, readers cannot figure out or verify how we came to our conclusions on some core issues in the chapters; (b) Most of the said legal and accounting data are not easily accessible to many researchers; (c) We tried to show that such corporation data are not trivial and marginal in scholarly inquiry as some thought. In any event, those not serious about corporation data may skip it. But for readers who care about such topics the details may be very helpful.
Third, the reviewer could not find “an obviously coherent study centered on a narrow topic,” or “a strong central theme.” Readers of our book may notice that our Chinese title is zashi 雜識. Our book is a collection of published and unpublished articles, or so-called anthology in English. In Chinese it may alternatively be labelled as lunji 論集. An example of zashi in Chinese book title is Shilin zashi chubian 史林雜識初編 by Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛. While English monograph or volume is normally expected to have a coherent central theme, there is no such expectation in scholarly anthology in Chinese. However, we in fact tried to convey to the readers an overarching thesis in our book, intentionally in a subtle manner though, through deliberate organization of and selected details in our chapters, and through the title, the prologue, and the epilogue of the book. In this regard, we must thank the reviewer for trying to explore the subtle moral of our story. As a Ming intellectual and legal historian by training, he excels at that game. Readers curious about our book may view the recording of our book talk on September 27, 2024, and some written replies to questions posed at the talk.
With best regards,
Billy K. L. So 蘇基朗
Please click here to download the pdf version of this rejoinder:
Comments