The “unsanitary Chinese” was a topic widely discussed by both Chinese and foreigners in modern times, and was subject to constant debate. This paper revolves around three aspects of the topic. First, the “unsanitary Chinese” seen as the origin of the plague and the introduction of modern bacteriology. Second, the amelioration of unsanitary sights in the foreign Settlement and the reform of Chinese society. And third, the feelings of cultural superiority, nationalistic claims, and struggles for sovereignty that appeared during these debates. From the opening of the treaty ports in 1842, foreigners were deeply worried about the high rate of disease and mortality among foreigners in China. Through the scientific observations of professional doctors, the application of demographic research, and the introduction of the modern bacteriology, the foreigners believed it was the “unsanitary Chinese” who caused epidemics, and Chinese elites subsequently accepted this view. With the development of urban public sanitation reform in the International Settlement, a sharp contrast emerged with the “unsanitary” Chinese communities, which stimulated Chinese elites to contemplate the backwardness of their own society, advocate the emulation of foreign sanitary institutions, and promote the political reform and enlightenment of Chinese communities. 　　In the context of an expanding system of colonialism and imperialism, foreign narratives of “unsanitary Chinese” and related notions cultural superiority also provoked a sense of nationalism among Chinese elites. In addition, the foreign municipality sought to assert authority over sanitation in the Chinese-run parts of Shanghai in the name of good hygiene, which further prompted Chinese leaders to emphasize the development of hygiene to maintain Chinese sovereignty. In this sense, narratives related to “unsanitary Chinese” were complex and diverse. Although it was a product of cultural discrimination and national oppression, the foreigners’ narrative promoted the introduction of Western and modern concepts of public hygiene into China and helped to improve local sanitary conditions. However, the Chinese elites’ acceptance of the narrative of the “unsanitary Chinese” was not a simple internalization and regurgitation of the hegemonic colonial discourse but rather involved a re-cognition, re-meditation, and re-criticism of their own society as well as of colonialism. The Chinese narrative thus inevitably included the introduction, acceptance, and imagination of a new culture. Although differences between Chinese and foreigners often resulted in competition and conflict, the historical intertwining of foreign and Chinese narratives also initiated and promoted the modern development of Chinese hygiene.

　　The central tenets of the New Culture movement can be subsumed under the ideas of “new,” “West,” “modern,” and “progress.” Hu Shi, for instance, adopted a “critical attitude” and the concept of “transvaluation” to evaluate the Chinese tradition, on the one hand, and introduced Western thoughts, literature, and perspectives on the other hand. In opposition to the New Culture movement, however, were such famous men of letters as Lin Shu, Yan Fu, Zhang Shizhao, as well as the members of Critical Quarterly, who have been labeled “cultural conservatives.” These people have been dismissed as going against the current of their times and trying to revive tradition.

     Even though the Critical Quarterly proclaimed that it would appraise the best ideas of previous thinkers to fully develop Chinese learning, the proponents of this quarterly consistently used the ideas of Western classicism to criticize the romantic stance adopted by the New Culture movement. What they wanted was a combination and merging of Western and Chinese cultures to form a new kind of syncretic culture that could serve China. Their thought was in fact an important part of the early Republican intellectual scene, and we should not quickly forget them.

　　Despite their own long historiographical tradition, Chinese historians by and large entered the modern era and are following the West’s lead. Although none of Leopold von Ranke’s major works were rendered into Chinese, the German historian’s positivistic view of history and methods left undeniably influenced modern Chinese historians, who dutifully cherished archival sources and evidential research. But just as Chinese historians re-oriented themselves and faithfully sought scientific, objective, truthful history, historians in the West started changing course. Objective truth in the Rankian mode was being questioned, and at last “that noble dream” was broken. Since the 1980s, moreover, the postmodern view of history, which proclaims the end of historical objectivity and empirical research, had turned the world of modern Chinese historiography upside down. A nightmare in effect followed the broken dream.

     Modern Chinese historians now face an unavoidable question: whether they should slavishly follow the West’s lead or start thinking of history as a discipline of their own by taking a new look at the long Chinese tradition of historical thought and writing. The tradition of Chinese historiography, having arguably lasted several thousand years, is a distinct cultural legacy, and it deserves reconsideration through the perspective of cultural pluralism. By looking back, however, does not mean to ignore the modern West. Postmodernism, however devastating, seems to have positively inspired many excellent studies in the flourishing field of new cultural history. Reconsideration of traditional Chinese history in reference to theories and methods cherished by new cultural historians may launch modern Chinese historiography on the road toward fruitful research and writing.