I think both Liang Qichao and He Zhen’s political ideals developed while they were away from their country because of the unique perspective a forein country’s ideals provide. That is, only by viewing China’s role in the modern world in a context seperate from China were they able to make revelations about their own philosophies. For example, He Zhen extensively read about the history of slave women in China, but only after viewing this history through a contextual lens of the treatment of women in Euro-America and other East-Asian countries did she understand how truly unjust the treatments towards women were in her country.
The same concept could be applies to the evolution of Liang Qichao’s thoughts on China’s place in the modern world. Following his failed overthrow of the Qing dynasty, his exile in Japan could be described as the beginnings of his new mindset on the position of China in the modern world. He believed in the union of all of Asia in a position opposite of quickly modernizing western countries. Again, I believe that it only seeing the position of the Chinese people in the Chinatowns of Hawaii and the U.S. he was able to understand how behind the Chinese were. As a result, he formulated the idea that only as a collective Asian continent would they be able to compete.
I think their views on nationalism diverged so much because they viewed their country from two seperate perspectives. While Liang Qichao was a man who passed the highly challenging imperial exams at a young age and quickly rose to a position of power, He Zhen did not have that luxury. As a woman she was not offered any of the oppurtunities that Liang was, and as a result, they interpreted the texts they both read very differently. Liang was able to consider the wider question of the union of an Asian continent because he did not have to consider his own individual rights like He did.
