Chinese Academic (2004 34/Issue 19 20 Combined)

Author: Liu Dong, Editor-in-Chief
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2005-09-01
Features: It’s time again to use the editorial preface to summarize an editing cycle. — But how long this cycle has been! From conception and soliciting contributions to initial reading and review, to revision and translation, and then to final editing and compilation, who knows how many difficulties and variations must be endured before the tense acceptance can be reached. The Marx Studies section. Last year, while visiting the famous Thiel House in Trier, I frankly wrote the following note: “I am visiting another person as a person.” The two papers published here also follow the same spirit. Shi Fude spent fourteen years of painstaking effort sifting through Marx’s manuscripts preserved at the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, thereby presenting the actual working state of this highly influential thinker through tangible and intuitive materials—including his scholar-like solitude, his various research plans, his library and reading scope, as well as his spiritual doubts, theoretical risks, and intellectual gambles. It is interesting that this lesser-known Marx, upon reading, seems even more familiar, as if he were busy in a nearby study, writing and revising reading notes while conceiving and adjusting writing plans. Thus, we can engage in a more equal and level-headed dialogue with this Marx, since he is no different from us, merely attempting explorations into the unknown world. Tang Wenming attempts to understand Marx’s concept of the “proletariat” from the background of Hegel’s philosophy, finding that it is not an empirical sociological concept but a speculative philosophical one, and thus can only be grasped from an ontological level. The author argues that, for Marx, the “proletariat” is the “change” in Hegel’s three stages of “being, nothing, and becoming,” where the “nothing” originates from “being” and also opens up “change.” It is for this reason that the proletariat is recognized as “the revolutionary force.” It is thought-provoking that in this way, the concept of the proletariat unexpectedly emerges as a philosophical issue of life—perhaps we are all proletarians, because human life is nothingness, and it is a nothingness that bears the divine mandate of existence, a participant in the earth’s nurturing. The next section is Korean Studies. Zhang Bowei points out that there are about eighty extant bibliographies from the Joseon era, but they lack a reasonable classification, so it might be worthwhile to divide them into four categories, which could help establish a bibliographical system. The author further comprehensively explores this topic, such as by combining the evolution of the Joseon royal library and its sources of collection to explain the characteristics of royal bibliographies; by examining the development of Korean woodblock printing history to explain the origins and characteristics of woodblock catalogues; by considering the establishment of academies and village schools, and comparing them with the printing and collection of academies in China, to explain the characteristics of academy bibliographies; by analyzing the family backgrounds of bibliography authors to explain the characteristics of private bibliographies; and by examining the dominant trends in Korean historiography to explain the characteristics of historical bibliography. This paper also focuses on analyzing the Chinese influence and changes in this field, thereby revealing the diversity and unity of the Sinocultural sphere through comparison. Zhou Shengchun investigates the Korean Chinese text Huahai Shiquan, which has been largely overlooked, and determines that there is no obvious evidence of forgery in the book, and itly collects materials not found in other literature. Based on this, we can understand the thoughts of Confucian masters in the late Goryeo era, such as Yu Zhuo, Shin Hyun, and Jeong Mongju, as well as the history and ideological characteristics of this school, thereby re-examining, reflecting on, and rewriting the origins and inheritance of Korean and East Asian Confucianism, and deepening our understanding of the scale, depth, and impact of Korean-Chinese Confucian exchanges in the late Goryeo era. The author further discusses Shin Hyun, the main author of the book, who was largely ignored by academia, pointing out that he was not only an ideological leader who led the entire school to its peak but also a Confucian master who inherited the tradition of Mengzi and Zhu Xi, Yu Zhuo, and passed it on to Jeong Mongju and Li Hun. He was both a key figure and core of Korean-Chinese Confucian exchanges in the late Goryeo era and a royal tutor and a respected social activist. The next section is Comparative Literature. Jiao Shi borrows the modernist theory of “exoticism” from the French scholar Guillaud to prove Shen Congwen’s modernity, aiming to break free from the clichés of rural literature and local color. Specifically, Guillaud argues from a theoretical perspective that beauty can be seen in the collision between the subject and the other, while from a narrative perspective, he emphasizes the “other” reflecting on the “self,” turning the subject into an observed object. This paper applies these ideas and techniques to the analysis of Shen Congwen—his novel’s subjects include the author, the third-person narrator, city dwellers, Han Chinese, civilized people, men, and readers (including female college students), while the “other” refers to country folk, uneducated people, women, and Miao people, and these two groups often collide and reflect on each other. In stark contrast, while the comparability in the previous section was “designed,” the comparability in the latter is firmly established: Wei Anna uses Can Xue’s 450-page Castle of the Soul to demonstrate that, whether in criticism or in creative writing, this Chinese writer’s concern for Kafka is deep and broad. The author then discusses Can Xue’s interpretation of Kafka, particularly based on the similarities and differences between the two writers, analyzing her early novels from the perspectives of thematic studies and textual analysis. In the author’s view, the shared preoccupation of these two writers lies in their recognition of the following dilemma—they are, as artists with extraordinary perception, particularly acutely aware of the human condition, yet like ordinary people, they are bound between the public and the private, between outward practical life and inward spiritual inquiry. The last section is Cultural Relics and Archaeology. Xu Jianxin focuses on an easily overlooked issue: in previous academic research on the Hotaekongb and its rubbings, scholars paid great attention to the achievements of stone scholars from the late Qing to the Republican period, but never focused on Li Yuncong, the rubbing artisan who created dozens of fine rubbings of the Hotaekongb. For this reason, this paper pays special attention to the life story of this craftsman and the of his rubbing of the Hotaekongb. The author argues that a detailed examination of Li Yuncong’s life can provide references for the chronological study of early rubbings of the Hotaekongb and further deepen our understanding of the development of modern Chinese epigraphy. Lin Meicun attempts to challenge a long-standing understanding: the numerous Nestorian crosses discovered in Ordos in the early 20th century were seen as relics of the Turkic Wugu tribe, which was active in the area during the Yuan Dynasty. To this end, the author first argues, based on archaeological materials, that these artifacts predate the Yuan Dynasty, and are clearly unrelated to the Wugu tribe that moved south to Ordos in the early Yuan period. Then, the author finds evidence in Central Asian historical records, determining that these crosses are related to another Turkic tribe that practiced Nestorianism—the Hunbu. The author’s conclusion is that the Qiyans, to whom Genghis Khan belonged, moved westward from the Hulunbuir grassland, forcing the Hunbu, who had been nomadic on the Mongolian Plateau, to move south to Ordos, leaving behind these historical relics there. The Platform/Communications section begins with Liu Dong’s outline, written for the “China” section of the World Cultural Report (2005). This report was twice commissioned and written by UNESCO, and was also translated and introduced into the Chinese world twice, but unfortunately, it did not leave much room for Chinese scholars. Out of this regret, the author joined the team of authors for the new edition of the report, agreeing to write this somewhat like a commissioned essay or filling in the blanks within the framework of predetermined themes or unified outlines. Of course, even so, the author still hopes to enrich and balance the content of China as much as possible, which is why the outline was published in advance to solicit opinions. Any constructive criticism will be sincerely heard, and as long as it can be submitted before the project is completed, it will always have a chance to be reflected in the final draft. Next is a preface written by Weis for his book Chinese Popular Religion, which concisely yet accurately introduces the different opinions of his American colleagues on this issue and their respective academic potential and strengths. It is a pity that the editor of this inspiring collection had not yet finished translating it when he suddenly passed away, and since taking over the Overseas China Studies Series, this has become a terrible experience that the author often has to repeat! Here, the preface part that has already been translated is published first to commemorate this outstanding sinologist, who was known for his diligence, erudition, rigor, and solid scholarship. The Reviews section begins with a long report written by He Xiao for a comprehensive review of the new developments in the field of Chinese women’s studies in the international academic community. The article synthesizes relevant works that have emerged since the 1970s in the fields of history, anthropology, sociology, and political science, and is organized according to the following themes: 1. Marriage, family, sexuality, and gender differences; 2. Women and labor; 3. Women and modernity. One of the author’s intentions is to demonstrate that Chinese women’s studies have been a particularly productive field in the international academic community recently, and the grand scope and extensive coverage of this article, as well as its exploration of various detailed issues, undoubtedly leave this impression on the reader. Next, the critique of Chinese scholars by Xia Hanyi of the University of Chicago and the critique of American scholars by Wang Ruifeng of Peking University are published. There is no need to elaborate on their specific views here. However, by arranging them together, it is possible to see them in contrast: in fact, this frequent, sometimes inevitably sharp, back-and-forth exchange is the beginning of positive interaction between Chinese academia and the world—if we can see beyond the superficial bubbles and feel the deeper undercurrents!