The preservation and institutionalization of traditional Chinese medicine during modern transformations represents not only a historically significant event in China but also a unique phenomenon of global research interest. Photo: TUCHONG

Although history is a discipline with a long tradition, it has continually found new avenues to explore. From the perspective of developments in historical studies in the latter half of the 20th century, the social history of medicine—or medical history more broadly—emerged as a newly “invented” field.

For much of the discipline’s history, disease, medical practice, and public health received little dedicated attention from historians. It was not until the 1960s and 1970s that medical history gradually took shape as a distinct field in historical scholarship in Europe and the United States. In China, research on medical history began relatively late: it initially gained momentum in Taiwan in the 1980s and 1990s, then gradually attracted greater interest among historians on the mainland. Since the early 21st century, the field has become an important component of China’s new historical studies. Early contributors largely focused on China’s ancient history, but modern history soon became the principal arena for medical social history in China. Although still somewhat marginal within the broader field of modern Chinese history, it is now widely recognized as a forward-looking and fast-developing research direction.

The sustained vitality and innovation of historical studies ultimately depend on the discovery and use of new sources, topics, concepts, and methods. Modern Chinese medical history has thrived precisely because it draws on the rich foundation of modern Chinese historical studies. At the same time, medical history has injected new energy into the ongoing development of modern Chinese historical research.

Distinctive interdisciplinary nature

Within the complex, multifaceted field of modern Chinese medical history, identifying and mapping research trends is demanding, yet several major patterns have become increasingly clear.

First, research topics have expanded from relatively narrow to rich and diverse. Studies of modern Chinese medical history first emerged in the 1990s and have grown steadily in the 21st century. Early work focused primarily on diseases—particularly epidemics—as well as Sino-foreign medical exchanges, medical missionaries, and public health issues related to disease prevention and control. As research deepened, new topics continue to appear, collectively painting a vibrant and multilayered picture of the field.

Second, the field’s concepts and methodologies have become increasingly diverse and inclusive, actively drawing on the insights of “new history.” Earlier work by historians, particularly by Chinese scholars, often approached the subject from a social history perspective. Later, with the introduction of postmodern currents in historical studies—including “new cultural history”—scholars produced a series of medical history studies grounded in social and cultural history, environmental history, microhistory, daily life studies, global history, material culture, and even the history of knowledge. The development of “history of life” approaches, focusing on the concrete realities of human life, has also gained traction.

Finally, research orientations have gradually shifted from a purely historical perspective toward an integration of “internal” and “external” approaches. While these studies remain historically grounded—exploring medical and disease-related topics—their ultimate concern is with historical understanding itself, aiming to present and interpret history in a more comprehensive and nuanced way.

As the field has developed, scholars have increasingly recognized that medical history, as an interdisciplinary domain, cannot rely solely on external historical perspectives. Without specialized knowledge in medicine and disease, it is difficult to fully grasp their impact on historical processes. At the same time, the introduction of postmodern historiographical currents has prompted scholars to acknowledge the constructed nature of concepts and theories, moving beyond a purely empirical approach.

Moreover, critiques from medical professionals who study the history of medicine—pointing out the limitations of purely external historical approaches—have motivated historians to engage more seriously with core medical issues. The growing interaction between historians and medical scholars, along with the formation of corresponding academic communities, has provided strong support for this emerging interdisciplinary research orientation.

Combining academic value with practical significance

For many years, research on modern Chinese history has largely focused on macro-level developments. Since the 1980s, however, the social history of medicine has emerged as a distinct field, steadily producing significant results within the broader field of modern historical studies. Its contributions to the study of modern Chinese history are far-reaching, not only broadening the range of research subjects but also demonstrating notable value in several key respects.

First, it has broken the constraints of traditional academic paradigms and perspectives, bringing attention to important historical events and phenomena previously overlooked. For example, major epidemics in modern China—such as the bubonic plague in Hong Kong in 1894, the pneumonic plague in northeast China in 1910 and 1911, and the globally devastating Spanish flu—along with the activities of medical missionaries, Sino-Western medical exchanges, the establishment and development of modern public health systems, the introduction of Western medicine, and debates and integrations between Chinese and Western medical practices, received little attention in conventional historical narratives. The rise of medical history has brought these issues into the scholarly spotlight, producing influential studies essential for fully understanding historical changes and the transformation of modern Chinese society.

Second, the continuous emergence of new research inspired by the “new history” wave has profoundly impacted the paradigms of modern historical studies. As an important branch of new history, medical history has introduced fresh research concepts and methodologies, opened new avenues of inquiry, and produced a series of highly regarded studies, thereby demonstrating the positive influence of new historiographical approaches.

Third, medical history research has promoted the discovery and utilization of new historical sources. As the field has grown, historians—leveraging their socio-cultural perspectives and expertise in source collection—have increasingly unearthed and applied an expanding range of relevant materials. Scholars have gradually realized that new concepts and methods can only achieve their full value when supported by ample historical sources, generating new questions and offering fresh perspectives.

Fostering innovation and authority

Although modern Chinese history has long served as the main field for medical history research, the prominence of medical history within modern Chinese historical studies remains limited, even marginal. Strengthening and deepening scholarship while enhancing influence and discursive authority therefore remain a central task.

While some overview studies have offered reflections on how to conduct comprehensive or thematic research in medical history, and while modern medical history is generally regarded as the core area of China’s medical history studies, dedicated discussions specifically focusing on modern Chinese medical history remain scarce. Given the distinctive features of modern Chinese history and the particular characteristics of medical history, in-depth exploration of these issues is of significant value for both modern history and medical history research, as reflected in the following research priorities.

First, scholars should endeavor to contribute to the development of new historical approaches. Considering current trends in medical history and the characteristics of modern history, at least two emerging frontier research areas deserve attention. The first is the history of knowledge. The rise of knowledge history is closely linked to postmodern currents, benefiting from sociological theories of knowledge while engaging with critical reflections on scientific modernity. Studying the history of modern medical knowledge can not only help us better understand China’s modern transformations but also shed light on the constructed nature of modern medicine, thereby enhancing our comprehension of both medicine and health and fostering mutual reinforcement between historical and medical scholarship. The second is the study of material culture, a field which seeks to move beyond textual constraints to focus on material objects that have often been overlooked by historians and explore the cultural values and meanings they embody. While medical knowledge has traditionally been text-based, one defining feature of modern medicine over traditional practices is the richness and sophistication of medical instruments. Material factors provide both justification and opportunity to apply the concepts and methods of material culture studies to modern medical history, pointing to the field’s broad potential for development.

Second, in selecting research subjects, scholars should pay greater attention to multi-dimensional explorations of the exchanges, debates, and integration between Chinese and Western medicine, as the preservation and institutionalization of traditional Chinese medicine during modern transformations—accomplished through sustained efforts—represents not only a historically significant event in China but also a unique phenomenon of global research interest.

Third, from a methodological standpoint, scholars should remain open to digital history approaches that make use of computational tools. With the increasing digitization of archival materials and the rapidly expanding potential of artificial intelligence, prospects for applying digital history methods in this field are cautiously promising.

Finally, in terms of source expansion, future research should place greater emphasis on collecting and utilizing vernacular and multilingual medical documents. Given the diversity of modern Chinese medical history, there remains considerable scope for uncovering, organizing, translating, and applying relevant sources in English, Japanese, French, German, and other languages, the potential value of which is yet to be fully realized.

In summary, the flourishing of medical history research not only enriches the scope and perspectives of modern Chinese historical studies but also drives innovation in research concepts, paradigms, and source utilization. Future studies of modern Chinese medical history must, on one hand, draw on international scholarship while, on the other hand, align with China’s historical particularities and contemporary needs, fully leveraging historical sources to reveal the complexity and diversity of modern Chinese medical history and to construct an independent Chinese knowledge system in the field.

Yu Xinzhong is a distinguished professor from the Faculty of History at Nankai University. This article has been edited and excerpted from Modern Chinese History Studies, Issue 1, 2025.