Which Tradition, Whose Authority? Quests and Tensions in Contemporary Chinese Reception of Greek Antiquity

Yiqun Zhou
{"title":"Which Tradition, Whose Authority? Quests and Tensions in Contemporary Chinese Reception of Greek Antiquity","authors":"Yiqun Zhou","doi":"10.1086/721387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is the mission of classical studies in present-day China? Is it a professional discipline governed by Western models and standards, or should it have its own agendas and methods? Should classical antiquity be studied first and foremost on its own terms, or does the most important value of such study lie in the lessons and tools it could provide for China’s persistent quest for an alternative modernity? This article explores the deep rift over these issues between two camps of Chinese scholars by examining an academic controversy that occurred in 2015. This dispute bears strong echoes of two much earlier conflicts: that between Nietzsche and Wilamowitz in the late nineteenth century, and that between Mao and the Comintern in the 1940s. The analysis of these intriguing historical parallels and the light they shed on the nature of the 2015 event reveals that the highly contested role of classical studies in China’s modernization process has taken on new significance in the twenty-first century.","PeriodicalId":187662,"journal":{"name":"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KNOW: A Journal on the Formation of Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

What is the mission of classical studies in present-day China? Is it a professional discipline governed by Western models and standards, or should it have its own agendas and methods? Should classical antiquity be studied first and foremost on its own terms, or does the most important value of such study lie in the lessons and tools it could provide for China’s persistent quest for an alternative modernity? This article explores the deep rift over these issues between two camps of Chinese scholars by examining an academic controversy that occurred in 2015. This dispute bears strong echoes of two much earlier conflicts: that between Nietzsche and Wilamowitz in the late nineteenth century, and that between Mao and the Comintern in the 1940s. The analysis of these intriguing historical parallels and the light they shed on the nature of the 2015 event reveals that the highly contested role of classical studies in China’s modernization process has taken on new significance in the twenty-first century.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哪个传统,谁的权威?当代中国人对古希腊接受的探索与紧张
古典学在当今中国的使命是什么?它是一门受西方模式和标准支配的专业学科,还是应该有自己的议程和方法?古典古代应该首先按照其自身的条件进行研究,还是这种研究最重要的价值在于它可以为中国对另一种现代性的不懈追求提供经验教训和工具?本文通过研究2015年发生的一场学术争议,探讨了中国学者两大阵营在这些问题上的深刻分歧。这场争论强烈地呼应了两场更早的冲突:19世纪末尼采与威莫维茨之间的冲突,以及20世纪40年代毛与共产国际之间的冲突。对这些有趣的历史相似之处的分析,以及它们对2015年事件性质的启示,揭示了古典研究在中国现代化进程中备受争议的作用,在21世纪具有新的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Transcreation and Postcolonial Knowledge Chomsky versus Foucault, and the Problem of Knowledge in Translation When Dragons Show Themselves: Research, Constructing Knowledge, and the Practice of Translation A Critique of Provincial Reason: Situated Cosmopolitanisms and the Infrastructures of Theoretical Translation Translation and the Archive
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1