“汉学”:反思汉学作为知识的合法性

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 0 ASIAN STUDIES CONTEMPORARY CHINESE THOUGHT Pub Date : 2018-01-02 DOI:10.1080/10971467.2018.1534495
N. Zhou
{"title":"“汉学”:反思汉学作为知识的合法性","authors":"N. Zhou","doi":"10.1080/10971467.2018.1534495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Editors’ Abstract This article starts with a question on the nature and function of Sinological studies and casts doubts on the legitimacy of Sinology as a pure and objective branch of learning. After briefly reviewing the rise of Sinology as a branch of knowledge, it conducts a critical analysis of its major premises and orientations. Subjecting them to a scrutiny in terms of postmodern and postcolonial theories of knowledge production, it draws the conclusion that Sinology differs from Oriental studies only in degree, but not in kind. Recognizing the complexity of the field, the article nevertheless suggests that in the final analysis, Western Sinology comes more closely to a narrative, a type of discourse, which produces knowledge of China not entirely on objective reality, but with cultural and ideological imaginations.","PeriodicalId":42082,"journal":{"name":"CONTEMPORARY CHINESE THOUGHT","volume":"49 1","pages":"12 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10971467.2018.1534495","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Sinologism”: Rethinking the Legitimacy of Sinology as Knowledge\",\"authors\":\"N. Zhou\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10971467.2018.1534495\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Editors’ Abstract This article starts with a question on the nature and function of Sinological studies and casts doubts on the legitimacy of Sinology as a pure and objective branch of learning. After briefly reviewing the rise of Sinology as a branch of knowledge, it conducts a critical analysis of its major premises and orientations. Subjecting them to a scrutiny in terms of postmodern and postcolonial theories of knowledge production, it draws the conclusion that Sinology differs from Oriental studies only in degree, but not in kind. Recognizing the complexity of the field, the article nevertheless suggests that in the final analysis, Western Sinology comes more closely to a narrative, a type of discourse, which produces knowledge of China not entirely on objective reality, but with cultural and ideological imaginations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CONTEMPORARY CHINESE THOUGHT\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"12 - 7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10971467.2018.1534495\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CONTEMPORARY CHINESE THOUGHT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10971467.2018.1534495\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CONTEMPORARY CHINESE THOUGHT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10971467.2018.1534495","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文从汉学研究的性质和功能入手,对汉学作为纯粹客观学科的合法性提出了质疑。在简要回顾了汉学作为一门学科的兴起之后,对其主要前提和方向进行了批判性分析。从后现代和后殖民的知识生产理论的角度对它们进行考察,得出的结论是,汉学与东方研究只是程度上的不同,而不是种类上的不同。虽然认识到这一领域的复杂性,但文章认为,归根结底,西方汉学更接近于一种叙事,一种话语,它产生的中国知识不完全基于客观现实,而是基于文化和意识形态的想象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
“Sinologism”: Rethinking the Legitimacy of Sinology as Knowledge
Editors’ Abstract This article starts with a question on the nature and function of Sinological studies and casts doubts on the legitimacy of Sinology as a pure and objective branch of learning. After briefly reviewing the rise of Sinology as a branch of knowledge, it conducts a critical analysis of its major premises and orientations. Subjecting them to a scrutiny in terms of postmodern and postcolonial theories of knowledge production, it draws the conclusion that Sinology differs from Oriental studies only in degree, but not in kind. Recognizing the complexity of the field, the article nevertheless suggests that in the final analysis, Western Sinology comes more closely to a narrative, a type of discourse, which produces knowledge of China not entirely on objective reality, but with cultural and ideological imaginations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: This wide ranging journal is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the diverse themes and influences that shape Chinese thought today. It features translations of the most current and influential Chinese writings on all aspects of philosophical endeavor, from theoretical essays on systems to studies of China"s cultural and religious development, from interpretations of the Chinese classics to exegeses on Marxist thought.
期刊最新文献
An Outline of Wang Chuanshan’s Dialectics A Brief Account of the Transformation in Style of Learning in the Late Ming Dynasty Editor’s Note The Historical Dynamics of Chinese Thought and the Thesis of Early Enlightenment: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Xiao Jiefu A Critical Biography of Xiao Jiefu
×
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