Social consciousness can be seen as the most difficult part to define in the category of social development. Basically, we consider the relation of the two as that of sociology of culture and analysis of social system and political economy. Social consciousness influences social thought, values and ideology of people in a society, in contrast to the basis of social system. Since after the Opium Wars, Chinese culture faced drastic and unprecedented changes, the development history of R.O.C’s social consciousness is in fact the history of dramatic changes in social consciousness of the whole society, and the history is inseparable from the two contrasts between China and the West, and tradition and modernity. During the hundred years, the social consciousness of R.O.C, in any aspect of social disciplines, all faced the challenges from western culture. In the process of response and innovation, traditional social consciousness gradually transforms into modern social consciousness.

       When it comes to “social consciousness,” the first idea comes to our mind is Arnold J. Toynbee’s theory of “challenge and response.” China had experienced drastic changes, especially in Opium Wars, when the western powers invaded. That was the first time China faced more powerful opponents, and its attitude transformed from being proud to inferior and from refusal to learning. As a result, our first perspective in discussion of social consciousness’ changes is that western culture leads to the changes in social consciousness. The major force that caused the transformation of Chinese culture is not internal, but external. It was the dominant foreign culture that forced Chinese empire to develop into the R.O.C. The standoff between the R.O.C and People’s Republic of China was also led by the tremendous social changes and changes in social consciousness, and the changes were driven by external force rather than internal force. As a result, China’s transformation from “traditional society” to “modern society” is a response of Chinese culture’s “self” to western culture’s “otherness.” Learning from western culture drives the internal changes in Chinese culture, but it doesn’t hinder Chinese culture from developing its own logic and path. In Max Weber’s view, from Qin Han Dynasty to Ming Qing Dynasty, China had been a country of stagnation, but once it accepted capitalism from the west, modern capitalism stated to take root in the land of Chinese.

       Thus, during the century, the history background of the R.O.C’s social consciousness change, externally, was the invasion of western powers, and domestically, was the existed peasant economy and politically chaotic Chinese empire, which was unable to deal with the new situation of industrialization, democracy revolution, and the globalization of capitalism. Therefore, in the discussion of developmental history of the R.O.C’s social consciousness, one of the significant perspectives is to see the development of social consciousness from the relation between Chinese culture and western culture, or on other words, from the confliction and integration of the two cultures.

       Under the circumstance of the west as otherness, that in what ways Chinese culture, as the self, accepted capitalism, socialism and even communism turns into the distinction between Kuomintang (KMT) and Communist Party of China (CPC), and afterwards, between the R.O.C. and People’s Republic of China. KMT is inclined to capitalism and sympathetic with traditional Chinese culture; on the other hand, CPC sides with socialism and communism, and against traditional culture. Thus, the history of the R.O.C, especially after the government’s retreat to Taiwan, is in fact the process of self-construction in response to the two others, western culture and communism China. In other words, the R.O.C. defines traditional Chinese culture and responds to global culture, and at the same time, it faces the two others.

       Furthermore, in the subjective culture of the R.O.C, social consciousness and politics, economy, technology and other fields have effects on each other. This article’s perspective is inclined to Weber’s multiple causation instead of Karl Marx’s historical materialism, which deems economy as basis that determines the development of social consciousness and culture. On the contrary, social consciousness, religion and art, and culture develop at the right time and space, and they could have concrete impact on politics and economy.