DISCIPLINARY AND METHODOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE ABOUT CHINA
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The article considers methodological and disciplinary features of the formation of Western science about China in the form of Sinology, Chinese Studies, New Sinology (後漢學, hòu hànxué), [Chinese] Sinology (國學 / 国学, guóxué) and Sinologism. Western Sinology was initially focused on understanding Chinese thinking and Chinese civilization through the study of language, literature, history and culture. By the end of the XIX century, Sinology was completely identical to Chinese philology. In the 20th century, Sinology was fully integrated into the programs of Western universities and significantly expanded as a scientific discipline by using the methods of other social sciences. After the end of World War II, the dominance of classical Sinology was rejected on the basis of an interdisciplinary approach of area studies, and, as a result, Chinese studies were founded. At the beginning of the 20th century, [Chinese] national science or [Chinese] Sinology, whose main task was the study of ancient Chinese civilization, was created on the basis of its own unique intellectual traditions and proceeding from the urgent tasks of state building of that time. At the beginning of the 21st century, a New Sinology, scientific discipline and intellectual movement emerged, aimed at building a critical and holistic understanding of China and the Sinophone world in the past and the present with the aim of correcting the shortcomings of classical Western Sinology and returning to its original approaches. The concept of Sinologism denotes a hidden ideology in the production of knowledge about China and in Sinology, the system of knowledge and the practical theory of knowledge production. The internal logic of Sinologism is a “cultural unconscious”, which led to widespread distortions and misconceptions about the production of knowledge about China in the West and in China. Historical development and various forms of sinology is understood as a global and multidimensional intellectual movement that arose as a result of Western efforts to attract China to a Western-oriented world and a system of knowledge. Sinology, Chinese studies, modern Chinese studies, New Sinology and Sinologism are not global and are very unevenly represented in the world.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
China, Chinese studies, methodology, New Sinology, science, Sinologism, Sinology, West, [Chinese] Sinology
Barmé G. R. (2005), “Essay: Towards a New Sinology”, Chinese Studies Association of Australia Newsletter, No. 31, pp. 4–8.
Chan A. (2009), Orientalism in Sinology, Academica Press, LLC, Bethesda.
Chen Xiaomei (1995), Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post Mao China, Oxford University Press, New York.
Elman, Benjamin A. (2005), On Their Own Terms: Science in China, 1550–1900, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674036475
Gu Mingdong (2012), Sinologism: an alternative to orientalism and postcolonialism, Routledge, New York.
Hodge B. and Louie K. (1998), The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture: The Art of Reading Dragons, Routledge, London, New York.
Honey D. B. (2001), Incense at the Altar: Pioneering Sinologists and the Development of Classical Chinese Philology, American Oriental Society, New Haven.
Kuijper H. (2000), “Is Sinology a Science?”, China Report, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 331–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/000944550003600301
Lehner G. (2003), “Sinologie – Notizen zur Geschichte der Fachbezeichnung”, Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung, Vol. 27, pp. 189–97.
Leung C. (2002), Etienne Fourmont (1683–1745): Oriental and Chinese Languages in Eighteenth-Century France. Leuven Chinese Studies XIII, Leuven University Press, Leuven.
Levenson J. R. (1964), “The Humanistic Disciplines: Will Sinology Do?”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 507–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050230
Ling Bao (2007), “The Development and Usage of the Overseas Sinology Database”, Data Science Journal, Vol. 6, Supplement, pp. S930–40. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.6.S930
Lundbæk K. (1986), T. S. Bayer, 1694–1738: pioneer sinologist, Curzon Press, Atlantic Highlands, London, N. J.
Minford J. and Barmé G. R., “The Wairarapa Academy for New Sinology”, available at: http://chinaheritage.net/the-wairarapa-academy/ (accessed September 5, 2017).
Mote F. W. (1964), “The Case for the Integrity of Sinology”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 531–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050234
Said E. W. (1978), Orientalism, Pantheon Books, New York.
Schwartz B. (1964), “The Fetish of the ‘Disciplines’”, Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 537–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050236
Skinner G. W. (1964), “What the Study of China Can Do for Social Science”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 517–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050232
Twitchett D. (1964), “A Lone Cheer for Sinology”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 109–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050419
Vater J. S. (1820), “Kurze, leicht fassliche Nachricht von der Chinesischen Sprache”, in Vater J. S. (ed.), Analekten der Sprachenkunde. 1, Heft. Dyk, Leipzig, pp. 3–28.
Vukovich D. (2011), China and Orientalism: Western Knowledge Production and the PRC, Routledge, Oxon, Milton Park, Abingdon, New York.
Zurndorfer H. (1999), “A Brief History of Chinese Studies and Sinology” in Zurndorfer H., China Bibliography: A Research Guide to Reference Works About China Past and Present, E. J. Brill, Leiden, New York, pp. 4–44.
REFERENCES
Barmé G. R. (2005), “Essay: Towards a New Sinology”, Chinese Studies Association of Australia Newsletter, No. 31, pp. 4–8.
Chan A. (2009), Orientalism in Sinology, Academica Press, LLC, Bethesda.
Chen Xiaomei (1995), Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post Mao China, Oxford University Press, New York.
Elman, Benjamin A. (2005), On Their Own Terms: Science in China, 1550–1900, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674036475
Gu Mingdong (2012), Sinologism: an alternative to orientalism and postcolonialism, Routledge, New York.
Hodge B. and Louie K. (1998), The Politics of Chinese Language and Culture: The Art of Reading Dragons, Routledge, London, New York.
Honey D. B. (2001), Incense at the Altar: Pioneering Sinologists and the Development of Classical Chinese Philology, American Oriental Society, New Haven.
Kuijper H. (2000), “Is Sinology a Science?”, China Report, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 331–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/000944550003600301
Lehner G. (2003), “Sinologie – Notizen zur Geschichte der Fachbezeichnung”, Bochumer Jahrbuch zur Ostasienforschung, Vol. 27, pp. 189–97.
Leung C. (2002), Etienne Fourmont (1683–1745): Oriental and Chinese Languages in Eighteenth-Century France. Leuven Chinese Studies XIII, Leuven University Press, Leuven.
Levenson J. R. (1964), “The Humanistic Disciplines: Will Sinology Do?”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 507–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050230
Ling Bao (2007), “The Development and Usage of the Overseas Sinology Database”, Data Science Journal, Vol. 6, Supplement, pp. S930–40. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.6.S930
Lundbæk K. (1986), T. S. Bayer, 1694–1738: pioneer sinologist, Curzon Press, Atlantic Highlands, London, N. J.
Minford J. and Barmé G. R., “The Wairarapa Academy for New Sinology”, available at: http://chinaheritage.net/the-wairarapa-academy/ (accessed September 5, 2017).
Mote F. W. (1964), “The Case for the Integrity of Sinology”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 531–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050234
Said E. W. (1978), Orientalism, Pantheon Books, New York.
Schwartz B. (1964), “The Fetish of the ‘Disciplines’”, Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 537–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050236
Skinner G. W. (1964), “What the Study of China Can Do for Social Science”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 517–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050232
Twitchett D. (1964), “A Lone Cheer for Sinology”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 109–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2050419
Vater J. S. (1820), “Kurze, leicht fassliche Nachricht von der Chinesischen Sprache”, in Vater J. S. (ed.), Analekten der Sprachenkunde. 1, Heft. Dyk, Leipzig, pp. 3–28.
Vukovich D. (2011), China and Orientalism: Western Knowledge Production and the PRC, Routledge, Oxon, Milton Park, Abingdon, New York.
Zurndorfer H. (1999), “A Brief History of Chinese Studies and Sinology” in Zurndorfer H., China Bibliography: A Research Guide to Reference Works About China Past and Present, E. J. Brill, Leiden, New York, pp. 4–44.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.