A portrait of Dean Lung at Columbia University Photo: PROVIDED TO CSST

---

How can China, while learning from other civilizations, adhere to its own cultural subjectivity and actively participate in the construction of global civilization? Existing research highlights the importance of “cultural awareness” theories, which call for both introspection and communication. Scholars note that “communication is realized through cultural interpretation,” highlighting the crucial role intellectuals play in cultural interpretation. However, a gap in specialized research of cultural patterns and their symbolic interactions persists, particularly in terms of specific social events and cultural contexts.

This article discusses the famous “Dean Lung donation incident” in the cultural exchange history of China and the United States, and its impact as a legendary case study still relevant more than a century later. It explores how intellectual elites from China and the United States engage in cultural interpretation through symbolic representation within this specific case study, revealing the symbolic logic of cross-cultural communication mechanisms and the role of intellectuals in the construction of national images.

Deng Lung legend

Dean Lung, or “Ding Long” according to modern Chinese transliteration, was a normal Chinese worker who immigrated to the United States in late Qing Dynasty. Dean, born in 1857, real name Ma Wanchang, was employed by General Carpentier and reportedly came to the United States to travel and study. In 1890, Dean appeared in the New York census report as “Chinese Help.” In June 1900, Dean appeared in the New York census records as a “companion,” listed under the household of General Carpentier. On June 8, 1901, General Carpentier wrote a letter to Seth Low, the president of Columbia University, enclosing a $100,000 check explicitly designated for “the founding of a department of Chinese languages, literature, religion and law, to be named the ‘Dean Lung Chair Professorship.’” Along with this donation was a lengthy statement from General Carpentier expressing deep appreciation for Chinese culture and the vision of China.

A second donation letter came from Dean Lung himself on June 28 of the same year, which was accompanied by a check for $12,000. In the letter, he wrote: “President Columbia University, I send you here with a deposit check for $12,000 as a contribution to the fund for Chinese Learning in your university. Respectfully, Dean Lung, a Chinese person.”

This is the only known letter personally signed by Dean Lung. Following the donation, the last record of him appears in the June, 1905 census data from Gallup, New Mexico. On June 27 of that year, Dean Lung departed the United States for China. A letter from General Carpentier, published in Columbia University Quarterly, December 1905, revealed the reasons for Dean’s departure, confirming the injustices he faced in the United States and expressing the highest praise for him.

Dean Lung himself left few words other than those in his donation letter. In the 20 years following the donation, narratives focused less on Dean himself and more on a narrative paradigm that treated the “Dean Lung Chair Professorship” as one of General Carpentier’s numerous charitable projects in memory of loved ones, albeit this time in honor of a Chinese employee.

The year 1905, when Carpentier wrote his letter, coincided with a rising anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. Decades before Dean Lung’s donation, proactive Chinese immigrants in America had already realized that promoting and disseminating Chinese culture could effectively counter cultural biases. The establishment of the professorship chair was a transformative step from fragmented individual efforts to institutionalized integration within the American higher education system.

Carpentier’s lengthy donation statement also clearly articulated this initial intention. Despite the isolated and marginal nature of Carpentier’s affinity for China amidst surging anti-Chinese sentiment, a broader perspective reveals that the concept of Chinese civilization, particularly associated with Confucianism and the figure of Confucius, was not uncommon among American elites in the 18th and 19th centuries.

First impressions

Positive views of China in the United States can be traced back to the descriptions and work of Jesuit missionaries in the 16th and 17th centuries, which primarily studied Confucius and Confucian symbols. From the 18th century onward, utopian descriptions of China flooded the United States, portraying it as an ancient, civilized, and wise Confucian empire.

However, perceptions drastically changed around the time of the Opium Wars. First, severe anti-Christian and isolationist policies employed by the Qing court hindered the efforts of early American missionaries. Shortly thereafter, the First Opium War erupted, exposing China’s weakened state and shattering the idealized image of this celestial empire in the eyes of Westerners, including Americans. Caricatures denigrating China began to appear in major newspapers. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, this did not entirely erase China’s once-positive image.

During the implementation of the “Chinese Exclusion Act,” American essayist, poet, and popular philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–82), for example, deconstructed the term “heathen” as applied to the Chinese, and found positive meanings. In 1838, Emerson wrote in his diary, “Thus we fly to the heathens and quote the names of Socrates, Confucius, Manu, and Zoroaster; not because they are as good as Jesus or Paul, or even better.” Similar conflicting perceptions persisted during the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

In addition to the conceptual dichotomy of “prosperous” versus “decaying” perceptions toward China, there exists another crucial channel for understanding China — direct interaction with Chinese descendants, especially through prolonged and close daily contact, such as the case of Dean Lung and Carpentier. Carpentier, a typical American nouveau riche of the time, reportedly traveled to China in 1880 and developed a deep admiration for Chinese civilization thereafter. 

Whether or not Carpentier actually visited China, these accounts attest to a strong belief that he had a direct and intimate connection with China and its culture, which he openly cherished. Many other Americans who knew and appreciated China circulated in Carpentier’s social class. Their positive impressions, formed through direct or indirect contact with Chinese people, not only reinforced Carpentier’s perception of Dean Lung as “upright, gentle, prudent, brave, and dedicated,” but also resonated deeply with the Enlightenment-era European imagination of China as a moral nation centered around Confucius and Confucianism.

The pre-existing cultural framework symbolized by Confucius and Confucianism was thus reactivated within Carpentier’s circle of acquaintances who largely shared his affinity for China, and this framework was appropriated through the establishment of the Sinology chair, earlier envisioned by Dean Lung.

The appearance and development of the “Dean Lung legend” were closely tied to the rise of positive perceptions of China in America in the early 20th century, echoing the efforts of Chinese intellectuals to construct their own cultural identity in China’s modernization process. It became an event medium where “our own issues” intersected with “others” issues, generating symbolic dialogue.

Changing perceptions of China

The first boost to China’s image occurred in the early 20th century. Following the Boxer Rebellion, significant changes within China, especially the implementation of the Guangxu Reforms, prompted the Western world to take notice as they began to see China awakening and capable of self-renewal. The transformation in attitudes toward missionaries was a direct result of a changed missionary environment. In the ensuing decades, Western missionary activities in China entered a golden age. During this period, stories about the donation gradually shifted from Carpentier to Dean Lung. The agents responsible for this shift were predominantly Western missionaries and their descendants who had long influenced Western perceptions of China.

The second wave of American “China fever” occurred during the period of Sino-American cooperation against fascism in World War II. As the war intensified, American respect for China’s effective containment of Japan on the battlefield grew. In the United States, attitudes towards China entered an “admiration period,” culminating in the repeal of the “Chinese Exclusion Act” in late 1943, which had been in effect for over half a century. 

At the same time, Dean Lung’s story resurfaced in the memoir of another Columbia University alumnus, Jiang Menglin, published in the United States. This marked the first time Dean Lung was the proactive initiator of a donation and protagonist in a patriotic story, instead of a silently commemorated figure. Dean Lung was portrayed by Jiang Menglin as a modest yet highly principled laborer, and this quickly gained narrative space. 

The third wave of American “China Fever” began in the 1960s. At that time, the core capitalist countries were experiencing economic stagnation, which shook the Eurocentric capitalist discourse. Consequently, Western intellectuals began seeking an alternative ideology compatible with a decentralized structure. The image of Dean Lung gradually evolved into a relatively complete “Dean Lung legend” during the 1960s, and new stories emerged about his exemplary conduct, Carpentier’s gratitude, and his personal donations.

The image of Dean Lung, which had previously downplayed Confucian elements, entered a process of re-Confucianization as enthusiasm rose for East Asian Confucianism in the United States. 

The symbolic representation of “Confucian China” was almost inevitably re-etched in the “Dean Lung legend,” as it met the needs of Chinese intellectuals interested in restoring China’s image while fulfilling Western expectations and imaginations of China. 

From the perspective of cultural awareness, the rise of American “China Fever” can be seen as a dimension of cultural exchange, while the introspective dimension is embodied in Chinese intellectuals’ research, organization, and reflection on their own culture to construct a cultural identity that met the needs of the times. The practice of introspection and communication of Chinese culture also involved the reproduction of several historical structures concerning how China views itself and the world, and how the world views China. Intellectuals, both at home and abroad, engaged in cross-cultural communication, were precisely those responsible for producing the symbols representing a “civilized” China.

Intellectuals from China with national sentiments and foreign intellectuals knowledgeable about China, based on their intimate understanding and emotional inclinations towards China, selectively used positive Chinese symbols to express themselves. This approach has the ability to inspire great goodwill and interest from different cultures, even from within the international community, towards China. However, it also to some extent narrows the space for people’s imagination of China and limits the rich possibilities of understanding the real China, thereby restricting the depth and breadth of civilizational exchanges and mutual learning.

In this regard, recognizing the agency and limitations of subjects in producing symbols of civilization will help tell the story of China and the world with broader vision and richer wisdom. It will also assist both China and the United States in overcoming misunderstandings and frictions brought about by cultural differences in the face of great changes unseen in a century.

In fact, the year Dean Lung returned to China, US President Franklin Roosevelt predicted that “our future history will be more determined by our position on the Pacific facing China than by our position on the Atlantic facing Europe.”

Wu Huanyu is an associate professor from the School of Sociology at Shanghai University; Zhu Jiangang is a professor from the School of Sociology at Nankai University.

Edited by YANG XUE