{"title":"The ideology of political reactionaries","authors":"Jiarui Wu","doi":"10.1080/21567689.2022.2153458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"shortcomings. First, it lacks the dedication to draw on resources from Chinese academia. In most places, Walsh is satisfied to yield conclusions from textual hermeneutics of constitutions, decrees, official documents, and historical accounts. Considering the language barrier, this approach may be understandable; nevertheless, it gives the impression that the book’s conceptual lens is too narrow to justify its arguments. For instance, the following questions remain inadequately addressed: are there any reflections upon the ‘secular religiosity’ of Chinese nation-statism among the Chinese general public and intellectuals? How does this ‘religion-oriented’ interpretation engage with other interpretations of Chinese nation-state making, especially from a Greater China perspective? Where do the ‘religious-like’ forms of nationalism originate from in China—its history of humiliation, traditional values, the quasi-religiosity of Marxism, or secularity itself? These oversights make the author less persuasive in some of his arguments. Second, some parts of the book lack extended focus and are loosely organized. The most evident example is an arguably redundant section titled ‘Museification’ which appears in chapter three. Walsh writes in relatively elaborate detail about a trip to the Museum of World Religions in Taipei, only to conclude that the answer to the question, ‘what does China mean by religion today?’ cannot be sought in the museum since the ‘objects in the museum are dead culture’ and the museum ‘has little to do with the world’ (p. 69). Sporadic passages about South Africa also divert focus from the central theme of Chinese nation-statehood. Although Walsh maintains that apartheid South Africa can inspire reflections upon China’s situation, I do not see any relevant specificity in the parallels established between these two nations: they are widely different in terms of history, culture, and current conditions. Despite these limitations, this book remains a rich work that provides us with critical insights into the interactions between secularity and religiosity in modern China. Serving as a challenge to the claim that religions are antithetical to secular states, this book is innovative and intriguing, encouraging readers to further investigation.","PeriodicalId":44955,"journal":{"name":"Politics Religion & Ideology","volume":"46 1","pages":"534 - 537"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Religion & Ideology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2022.2153458","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
shortcomings. First, it lacks the dedication to draw on resources from Chinese academia. In most places, Walsh is satisfied to yield conclusions from textual hermeneutics of constitutions, decrees, official documents, and historical accounts. Considering the language barrier, this approach may be understandable; nevertheless, it gives the impression that the book’s conceptual lens is too narrow to justify its arguments. For instance, the following questions remain inadequately addressed: are there any reflections upon the ‘secular religiosity’ of Chinese nation-statism among the Chinese general public and intellectuals? How does this ‘religion-oriented’ interpretation engage with other interpretations of Chinese nation-state making, especially from a Greater China perspective? Where do the ‘religious-like’ forms of nationalism originate from in China—its history of humiliation, traditional values, the quasi-religiosity of Marxism, or secularity itself? These oversights make the author less persuasive in some of his arguments. Second, some parts of the book lack extended focus and are loosely organized. The most evident example is an arguably redundant section titled ‘Museification’ which appears in chapter three. Walsh writes in relatively elaborate detail about a trip to the Museum of World Religions in Taipei, only to conclude that the answer to the question, ‘what does China mean by religion today?’ cannot be sought in the museum since the ‘objects in the museum are dead culture’ and the museum ‘has little to do with the world’ (p. 69). Sporadic passages about South Africa also divert focus from the central theme of Chinese nation-statehood. Although Walsh maintains that apartheid South Africa can inspire reflections upon China’s situation, I do not see any relevant specificity in the parallels established between these two nations: they are widely different in terms of history, culture, and current conditions. Despite these limitations, this book remains a rich work that provides us with critical insights into the interactions between secularity and religiosity in modern China. Serving as a challenge to the claim that religions are antithetical to secular states, this book is innovative and intriguing, encouraging readers to further investigation.
的缺点。首先,它缺乏从中国学术界汲取资源的决心。在大多数地方,沃尔什满足于从宪法、法令、官方文件和历史记载的文本解释学中得出结论。考虑到语言障碍,这种方法可能是可以理解的;然而,它给人的印象是,这本书的概念镜头太窄,无法证明其论点。例如,以下问题仍然没有得到充分的解决:中国普通公众和知识分子是否对中国民族国家主义的“世俗宗教性”有任何反思?这种“以宗教为导向”的解释如何与其他对中国民族国家形成的解释相结合,特别是从大中国的角度来看?在中国,“宗教性”的民族主义形式起源于哪里——是屈辱的历史、传统价值观、马克思主义的准宗教性,还是世俗性本身?这些疏忽使作者在某些论点中缺乏说服力。第二,本书的某些部分缺乏扩展的重点,组织松散。最明显的例子是出现在第三章的标题为“博物馆化”的冗余部分。沃尔什在书中相对详细地描述了他去台北世界宗教博物馆(Museum of World Religions)的经历,最后得出的结论是,“宗教在今天的中国意味着什么?”在博物馆里是找不到的,因为“博物馆里的东西是死文化”,而且博物馆“与世界没有什么关系”(第69页)。关于南非的零星段落也转移了人们对中国民族国家地位这一中心主题的关注。尽管沃尔什坚持认为,南非的种族隔离制度可以激发人们对中国情况的反思,但我认为这两个国家之间建立的相似之处没有任何相关的特殊性:它们在历史、文化和现状方面存在很大差异。尽管有这些局限性,这本书仍然是一部丰富的作品,为我们提供了对现代中国世俗与宗教之间相互作用的批判性见解。作为对宗教与世俗国家对立的说法的挑战,这本书新颖而有趣,鼓励读者进一步研究。