Chinese universities' social education: a historical perspective (1912–1945)

The paper explores social education—educational activities outside formal schools and families that affect individuals’ physical and mental development—in modern China during the Republican era. In the context of a deepening national crisis and limited reach of school-based education, social education emerged as a crucial means to elevate popular knowledge and mobilize the populace. The concept, first appearing in Germany in the 1830s and later popularized in Japan, entered China in the early 20th century via Japanese translations and periodicals such as The World of Education. The authors frame social education as a historical concept whose content evolved with China’s political, economic, and cultural changes. Guided by successive government decrees, universities became key agents implementing social education through four stages: common education (popular culture, science, civic morality via lectures and libraries), civilian education (post–May Fourth literacy and livelihood/vocational training), mass education (under the Nationalist government with political training elements, mass schools and remedial education), and Anti-Japanese War education (patriotic resistance and practical wartime training). The study asks: why did university involvement present four stages; what were their contents; how did universities interact with socio-economic life; and what are the implications for contemporary university social education. The purpose is to trace the historical process of universities serving society and to assess its significance for building a learning society and lifelong education.

Background literature notes the transnational trajectory of the term and concept of social education: originating in 19th-century Germany as education for improving social life (e.g., Natorp; Wang, 2000), widely adopted in Japanese educational circles between 1892–1910 (e.g., Yamana Jiro, Sato Yoshiharu; Liang, 1994), and transmitted to China via Japanese sources and journals such as The World of Education in 1901–1902 (Wang & Liu, 2022). Prior Chinese scholarship characterizes social education as a historically evolving concept (Yu, 2005). The paper situates its contribution within this lineage by focusing specifically on Chinese universities’ role across shifting political regimes and educational policies from 1912–1945, complementing prior studies on popular lectures, adult/civilian education, mass education institutions, and vocational education initiatives during the Republic of China.

The study employs textual analysis and data analysis. It systematically collects and organizes policy decrees and regulations on social education issued by China’s Ministry of Education from 1912 to 1945 to examine how universities implemented these policies. Primary historical sources from the Republican period—largely archival compilations (e.g., Second Historical Archives of China series)—are used to reconstruct practices and contexts. The authors also compile data on the establishment of popular libraries by provincial universities circa March 1918 (including lending rules, cataloging systems, fees, and funding) to illustrate impacts of early common education initiatives. The approach emphasizes macro-historical tracing of four stages (common, civilian, mass, Anti-Japanese War education) and university practices such as lectures, literacy campaigns, vocational/livelihood education, mass schools, wartime propaganda and training, and community outreach.

• Universities were central actors in implementing social education across four historical stages aligned with political and cultural shifts: (1) Common education (1912–1919): creation of popular libraries and widespread popular lectures to disseminate culture, science, current affairs, etiquette, and civic morality. Example: multiple university-run popular libraries established by 1918 with varied cataloging (e.g., Dewey Decimal, Si ku quan shu), lending rules, and funding; Lu Xun publicly supported a Beijing popular library. (2) Civilian education (1919–1927): post–May Fourth emphasis on literacy and democratic consciousness; university groups (e.g., Peking University’s Civilian Education Lecture Group; Beijing Higher Normal University Civil Education Association) promoted literacy and basic knowledge; vocational/livelihood education advanced via policies like the 1913 Industrial School Order and the Chinese Vocational Education Association (CVEA, 1917) which rapidly expanded training. Data points: CVEA employees grew from 786 to 4812 within five years; 834 vocational schools established nationwide; vocational school counts: 842 (1916), 531 (1918), 842 (1921), 1209 (1922), 1548 (1925), 1518 (1926). (3) Mass education (1927–1937): under the Nationalist government, mass schools provided remedial education (Three Principles of the People, general knowledge, arithmetic, songs; with light readings and local subjects); name standardization from “common” to “mass” education centers; universities contributed via lecture theaters, publications, reading rooms, and bibliobuses with a shift toward themes of patriotism, freedom, and equality. Example: In 1929 Hebei had 287 mass schools vs. 6 in Chahar. (4) Anti-Japanese War education (1937–1945): social education prioritized patriotic propaganda, war-related training (air/drug defense, ambulance, public health), and community engagement. Policies mandated universities provide remedial/correspondence education, agricultural extension, legal and local self-government guidance, exhibitions, and science/broadcast outreach. The National Northwest United University (NNUU) exemplified integration of teaching with social education and production, organizing patriotic lectures, field studies (e.g., mining surveys, archaeological work), literacy and general knowledge for local communities, and military training support. - Overall impacts: social education offered out-of-school populations opportunities to relearn, raised cultural literacy and civic knowledge, mobilized patriotic sentiment during wartime, and provided Chinese experience relevant to building a learning society and lifelong education.

The findings address the research questions by showing that universities’ social education evolved in four stages corresponding to major political and societal transitions: early Republican modernization needs (common education), May Fourth democratization and literacy drives (civilian education), Nationalist political mobilization and remedial schooling (mass education), and wartime national defense and patriotic engagement (Anti-Japanese War education). Universities acted as hubs that leveraged faculty, students, facilities, and organizational capacity to deliver lectures, libraries, literacy campaigns, vocational training, mass schools, and wartime public services, thereby interfacing with economic and social life (e.g., rural outreach, vocational placements, war preparedness). The significance lies in demonstrating how extra-school education complemented limited formal schooling, expanded access to knowledge and skills, and responded adaptively to national crises. These historical practices inform contemporary agendas on building learning societies and lifelong education, particularly in contexts with large out-of-school populations or uneven development.

The paper documents how Chinese universities, guided by evolving Ministry of Education decrees, drove social education through four phases from 1912 to 1945—popular libraries and lectures (common education), literacy and livelihood training (civilian education), remedial mass schools with political education (mass education), and patriotic wartime education and services (Anti-Japanese War education). This macro-historical account highlights universities’ capacity to expand educational opportunities beyond formal schooling, elevate cultural and civic competencies, and mobilize society during national emergencies. The study contributes a historically grounded Chinese experience relevant to global efforts to build learning societies and institutionalize lifelong education. It suggests that rediscovering the educational potential of social education and integrating university resources with community needs remain vital directions for contemporary educational reform and practice.

The archival table of university-run popular libraries (circa 1918) does not comprehensively cover all provinces and institutions, reflecting constraints of vast geography and uneven economic development. University social education efforts (e.g., popular libraries) were limited by financial and personnel resources; some libraries restricted lending mainly to students and staff or charged fees, which affected public access and drew reader dissatisfaction. These factors limit the completeness and generalizability of the documented implementations across China.