{"title":"“动物福利”对中国来说是舶来品吗?","authors":"Junfeng Wang, Qinghua Chu, Lu Liu","doi":"10.1111/ajes.12634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>While Chinese culture has long emphasized “<i>Tian ren he yi</i>” (the oneness of nature and humanity), promoting animal welfare in China remains a challenge. This article suggests that the widespread view of “animal welfare” as an inherently foreign concept plays a significant role in this difficulty, as it implies that Western notions of animal welfare are irrelevant to Chinese society and thus may not warrant serious consideration. We argue that although the term “animal welfare” originated in the West, its underlying principle—compassion for animals—is closely aligned with traditional Chinese philosophy. Concern for animal welfare has deep roots in Chinese culture, as reflected in the teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, as well as in historical practices. Unfortunately, this cultural tradition has been overshadowed by a modernization drive that has adopted a dismissive attitude toward tradition and an imperialistic attitude toward nature, often equating modernization with Westernization. To truly advance animal welfare in China, it is essential to revive traditional Chinese values, particularly the notion of harmony between humans and nature, which could serve as a solid theoretical foundation for the animal welfare movement.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47133,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","volume":"84 4","pages":"605-611"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is “Animal Welfare” a Foreign Notion to China?\",\"authors\":\"Junfeng Wang, Qinghua Chu, Lu Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajes.12634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>While Chinese culture has long emphasized “<i>Tian ren he yi</i>” (the oneness of nature and humanity), promoting animal welfare in China remains a challenge. This article suggests that the widespread view of “animal welfare” as an inherently foreign concept plays a significant role in this difficulty, as it implies that Western notions of animal welfare are irrelevant to Chinese society and thus may not warrant serious consideration. We argue that although the term “animal welfare” originated in the West, its underlying principle—compassion for animals—is closely aligned with traditional Chinese philosophy. Concern for animal welfare has deep roots in Chinese culture, as reflected in the teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, as well as in historical practices. Unfortunately, this cultural tradition has been overshadowed by a modernization drive that has adopted a dismissive attitude toward tradition and an imperialistic attitude toward nature, often equating modernization with Westernization. To truly advance animal welfare in China, it is essential to revive traditional Chinese values, particularly the notion of harmony between humans and nature, which could serve as a solid theoretical foundation for the animal welfare movement.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Economics and Sociology\",\"volume\":\"84 4\",\"pages\":\"605-611\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Economics and Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12634\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12634","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
While Chinese culture has long emphasized “Tian ren he yi” (the oneness of nature and humanity), promoting animal welfare in China remains a challenge. This article suggests that the widespread view of “animal welfare” as an inherently foreign concept plays a significant role in this difficulty, as it implies that Western notions of animal welfare are irrelevant to Chinese society and thus may not warrant serious consideration. We argue that although the term “animal welfare” originated in the West, its underlying principle—compassion for animals—is closely aligned with traditional Chinese philosophy. Concern for animal welfare has deep roots in Chinese culture, as reflected in the teachings of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, as well as in historical practices. Unfortunately, this cultural tradition has been overshadowed by a modernization drive that has adopted a dismissive attitude toward tradition and an imperialistic attitude toward nature, often equating modernization with Westernization. To truly advance animal welfare in China, it is essential to revive traditional Chinese values, particularly the notion of harmony between humans and nature, which could serve as a solid theoretical foundation for the animal welfare movement.
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) was founded in 1941, with support from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, to encourage the development of transdisciplinary solutions to social problems. In the introduction to the first issue, John Dewey observed that “the hostile state of the world and the intellectual division that has been built up in so-called ‘social science,’ are … reflections and expressions of the same fundamental causes.” Dewey commended this journal for its intention to promote “synthesis in the social field.” Dewey wrote those words almost six decades after the social science associations split off from the American Historical Association in pursuit of value-free knowledge derived from specialized disciplines. Since he wrote them, academic or disciplinary specialization has become even more pronounced. Multi-disciplinary work is superficially extolled in major universities, but practices and incentives still favor highly specialized work. The result is that academia has become a bastion of analytic excellence, breaking phenomena into components for intensive investigation, but it contributes little synthetic or holistic understanding that can aid society in finding solutions to contemporary problems. Analytic work remains important, but in response to the current lop-sided emphasis on specialization, the board of AJES has decided to return to its roots by emphasizing a more integrated and practical approach to knowledge.