It has long been a common practice to use the word "Sinology" to refer to overseas studies on China. However, after World War II, the achievements of China Studies in the United States have been constantly emerging, and "China Studies", as a kind of knowledge completely different from traditional Sinology, has quietly emerged and gradually replaced the latter, becoming the mainstream paradigm for studying China overseas.
After graduating from the Department of East Asian Studies of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Scarlett returned to Shanghai, specializing in the modern history of China, and was naturally familiar with the dispute over the separation wall in the study of China in the United States. The reporter interviewed her about the internal reasons and background of the development of China Studies in the United States.
Fudan Youth: "Sinology" was first founded by western missionaries and translated as "Sinology". However, since Said's Orientalism was published, the term Sinology has been labeled as colonialism and Eurocentrism, and western scholars have gradually named its research field as China Studies or China Studies. As a result, the study of China studies in the United States, which developed in the late 1940s, was suddenly pushed to the center of international China studies. So what is the context and background of its own development?
Scarlett: The study of China in the United States is the product of the Cold War. At the beginning of its birth, it was influenced by strong political factors. Before Fei Zhengqing, several universities in the United States also taught ancient Chinese in China, similar to the study of Sinology in Europe. After World War II, due to the needs of real politics, the enthusiasm for China studies grew rapidly. A lot of money has been invested, and the government has also introduced policies to support related research. In this way, China studies in the United States have developed rapidly in recent decades, and many universities have set up similar departments and chairs. At this time, "China Research" even had the nature of intelligence gathering. At present, the "East Asian Studies" departments of many American universities are formerly known as "Oriental Department"; Together with other regional studies, it is placed in the framework of "international regional studies" to cooperate with the global strategic deployment of the United States after the war.
In this context, there is a problem of academic expansion in China studies, and the quality of research is also uneven. Fei Zhengqing once said that in his time, only two or three American scholars were familiar with ancient Chinese. In the hostile and closed state of the two countries, many American scholars have written a lot of academic works without going to China or reading enough original materials of China. In this regard, today's American scholars also have a lot of introspection.
There is an important bright spot in China studies in the United States: in content, it pays much attention to China's politics, economy and society, which is more practical and pragmatic than traditional Sinology which pays attention to culture; In time, it pays more attention to the modern history of China. This can be regarded as a unique research style formed under the realistic political needs at that time. After the end of the Cold War, international exchanges were normalized, and the study of China began to be academic, but this orientation of academic research has remained to this day and has become the mainstream. Of course, there are still sinologists who teach ancient Chinese in the United States, and they also call themselves "sinologists" to show the difference with "China scholars". But most of these people are the previous generation researchers in their fifties and sixties, and young researchers generally choose the direction of Chinese studies.
At present, the research and education of China studies in the United States attach great importance to students' basic language and cultural training. Nowadays, outstanding scholars, such as Kong Feili and Joseph ·J·w· Esherick, have a good command of Chinese and can make extensive use of the historical archives of China, the United States and Japan.
Fudan Youth: After the Vietnam War, the study of China in the United States took a major turn. 1969, James peck wrote an article attacking the mainstream China studies at that time, and the criticized American mainstream China scholars began to reflect, which created the face of China studies today and a large number of China scholars who are famous overseas, such as P·a· Cohen and B. Ai Erman. Looking back today, what enlightenment can this turning point give us?
Scarlett: These scholars, including Ke Wen, belong to the "Left" in their political stance or inclination. The Vietnam War forced Americans to face up to the limitations of their own strength and saw that the United States would really be limited if it wanted to play with the world at will. In my opinion, this understanding has a profound influence on American historians who study China. By debunking the myth that the United States is leading in politics, morality and culture, the Vietnam War "liberated" American historians, making them abandon western standards and scales for the first time and turn to a historiography rooted in China's historical experience, not the West's.
Fudan Youth: Is this the beginning of the so-called "China Centrism"?
Sijia: Yes. But we should also pay attention to the political background and academic objects. Ke Wen has a political tendency, and his views on the Cultural Revolution and the Left have penetrated into academic research. More importantly, Ke Wen put forward China-centrism, aiming at the mainstream of academic circles at that time, especially Joseph Richmond Levenson and Fei Zhengqing, who regarded China as a "static China" and drew a thick line between "tradition" and "modernity". Taking the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Westernization Movement and the Reform Movement of 1898 as examples, he pointed out that although they were all the products of western shocks, it was China's internal factors that played a decisive role: complex social nature and extremely urgent internal affairs; The influence of the west is actually overestimated.
At present, some domestic researchers, as soon as they saw the reference of "China Center", immediately cited it as overseas comrades. A close reading of Ke Wen's Discovering History in China reveals his distinctive academic inclination. The "shock-response" model and "China-centrism" are not completely opposite, but are different in orientation and angle, not in nature; Cowen's point of view is actually a criticism of China studies serving American strategy.
Fudan Youth: Professor Luo Zhitian from Peking University once wrote that the so-called "three climaxes" and "two processes" in the study of China's modern history have actually challenged the existing research model centered on Sino-foreign relations, which is very "China-centered", so it is unnecessary for China scholars to introduce the "China-centered" model from abroad. This involves this problem. How do domestic historians view the achievements and models of China studies in the United States?
Scarlett: Because of the emphasis on reality and modernity mentioned above, the study of China studies in the United States easily intersects with domestic studies. Sometimes the perspective of American scholars can give us novel inspiration. For example, in the "regional research", scholars such as Ke Wen advocate paying attention to the complexity of China, taking regions, provinces or places instead of the whole of China as the research unit, and seeking the content and degree of regional variation by decomposing China space into smaller and easier-to-master units, so as to have a clearer outline and more prominent features for the whole of China. China is regarded as a monolithic mechanical rigidity, which often hinders our thinking. This practice of American scholars can enlighten us.
American scholars are also unique in introducing social science methods. In China, scholars who study history often don't understand some research methods of sociology, anthropology or psychology. In the United States, the vast majority of China experts can master the means of interdisciplinary research, which is the norm established when the discipline was founded.
"China-centrism" is certainly a research perspective, but too many localization tendencies will narrow our horizons. As far as China studies are concerned, I personally think it is better to discuss it from the perspective of global history and international relations. The term "China-centrism" is easily associated with the arrogant prejudice of "Eurocentrism" that regards other cultures as inferior cultures. After all, the biggest difference between modern China and ancient China lies in the great influence from the West. Communication vision and international vision can help us better understand the changes in China. This global consciousness can be better explained and presented in the theme of Sino-foreign relations.
Fudan Youth: Today, China studies in the United States still present a prosperous scene. Some scholars believe that this model will be the development direction of international China studies. What do you think of this problem?
Scarlett: In the United States, the study of China can't be said to be a big subject in terms of the number of people and professors. Fei Zhengqing's contribution lies in bringing China studies scattered in history departments and sociology departments of American universities into the framework of China studies, unifying research organizations and building an academic system that meets the needs of American countries. However, the chair of China School was not abolished in the original department system. For example, Huang Zongzhi has been working in the history department of the University of California.
Regarding the development of China Studies, I think some people are too concerned about what is "China's" and "Western's" and are too anxious. The problem is that people have been moving stones around for so many years, and it is difficult to tell what is the stone from other mountains and what is the stone from this mountain. Even if we can carefully screen and distinguish clearly, such a distinction is far less important than one thing: finding a new and communicative way to understand the past, so that thinking about the past can still touch the nerves of the present. Otherwise, sinology will only become an antique, which can only be distinguished by a small circle of scholars and experts, and there will be fewer and fewer researchers.