{"title":"拉图尔、天安门和水晶鞋;或者,当我们谈论中国研究的时候,我们在谈论什么","authors":"Haiyan Lee","doi":"10.1215/25783491-8690444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article revisits a controversy that initially unfolded three decades ago. The immediate impetus for revisiting the controversy is the thirtieth anniversary of the 1989 protests that ended in a massacre in Tiananmen Square. An intermediate reason is to reflect on how the methodological questions at the heart of that controversy are still very much alive as the protean field of Chinese studies continues reinventing itself in relation to theory. A still deeper reason is to rethink, via Bruno Latour, the status of fiction in the age of posttruth and fake news—a task incumbent upon all of us who call ourselves literary scholars.","PeriodicalId":33692,"journal":{"name":"PRISM","volume":"39 1","pages":"457-474"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Latour, Tiananmen, and Glass Slippers; or, What We Talk about When We Talk about Chinese Studies\",\"authors\":\"Haiyan Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/25783491-8690444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article revisits a controversy that initially unfolded three decades ago. The immediate impetus for revisiting the controversy is the thirtieth anniversary of the 1989 protests that ended in a massacre in Tiananmen Square. An intermediate reason is to reflect on how the methodological questions at the heart of that controversy are still very much alive as the protean field of Chinese studies continues reinventing itself in relation to theory. A still deeper reason is to rethink, via Bruno Latour, the status of fiction in the age of posttruth and fake news—a task incumbent upon all of us who call ourselves literary scholars.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PRISM\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"457-474\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PRISM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/25783491-8690444\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRISM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/25783491-8690444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Latour, Tiananmen, and Glass Slippers; or, What We Talk about When We Talk about Chinese Studies
This article revisits a controversy that initially unfolded three decades ago. The immediate impetus for revisiting the controversy is the thirtieth anniversary of the 1989 protests that ended in a massacre in Tiananmen Square. An intermediate reason is to reflect on how the methodological questions at the heart of that controversy are still very much alive as the protean field of Chinese studies continues reinventing itself in relation to theory. A still deeper reason is to rethink, via Bruno Latour, the status of fiction in the age of posttruth and fake news—a task incumbent upon all of us who call ourselves literary scholars.