The Meiji Restoration (1868) and the Late Qing Reform (1898) revisited: Strategies and philosophies

What made the Meiji Restoration (1868-1912) a spectacular success? What made the Late Qing Reform (Hundred Days Reform) a failure? The interpretations vary: some are from the so-called "constructionist" perspective and others - without a preference of one over the other - are from the "de-constructionist" perspective. The former tends to offer a clear-cut explanation of the two events, while the latter does not. From the constructionist perspective, the success of the Meiji Restoration was due to the heroic deeds of the shishis, or to the efforts of the small groups of lower rank former elites. Similarly, the failure of the Late Qing Reform was attributed to the entrenched power of the conservative Empress Dowager Cixi's faction (hou dang) and the naivety of the reformers. The central argument of this study is that the Meiji Restoration and the Late Qing Reform are similar in the sense that both are attempts by the leaders of the two pre-modern East Asian countries to make structural adjustments in order to meet the challenges of western incursions in particular and modernization in general. But the strategies and the philosophical underpinnings of the two reforms are drastically different. These differences, which had roots in the cultural traditions of the two countries, may have contributed to the different outcomes of the two reforms. These strategies and philosophies are reflected clearly in some leading intellectuals' writings of the two countries during the time periods, especially in that by Fukuzawa Yukichi (1835-1901) and Kang Youwei.