Chinese Academia: 2004.3.4, Issue 19-20 Combined

Author: Liu Dong
Publisher:
Publishing Time:
Features: It's time again to use the preface to summarize an editorial cycle. — But how long this cycle has been! From conception and soliciting manuscripts to initial reading and review, to revision and translation, and then to final editing and compilation, who knows how many hardships and variations must be endured to finally reach the anxious acceptance. The Marx Studies column. Last year, when visiting the famous Tréveris home, I frankly wrote in my: "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 combing through Marx manuscripts preserved at the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, thereby presenting the actual working state of this highly influential thinker with tangible and intuitive materials, including his scholarly solitude, his various research plans, his library and reading range, as well as his spiritual doubts, theoretical risks, and intellectual gambles. It is interesting that this little-known Marx reads more like a familiar figure, as if 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 sincere dialogue with this Marx, since he is no different from us in that he too is exploring the unknown world. Tang Wenming attempts to understand Marx's concept of the "proletariat" from the perspective of Hegel's philosophy, finding that it is not an empirical sociological concept but a speculative philosophical one, and therefore can only be grasped from an ontological level. The author argues that, for Marx, the "proletariat" is the "change" in Hegel's triad of "being, nothingness, and becoming," where "nothingness" both originates from "being" and opens the way for "change," and it is precisely for this reason that the proletariat is recognized as a "revolutionary force." It is thought-provoking that in this way, the concept of the proletariat unexpectedly highlights 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 nurturing of heaven and earth. The next group is Korean Studies. Zhang Bowei proposes that there are about eighty existing 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 its bibliographical system. The author further explores this topic comprehensively, 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 history of Korean woodblock printing to explain the origins and features of woodblock catalogues; by considering the establishment of academies and village schools, and comparing them with Chinese academy printing and collection, to explain the characteristics of academy bibliographies; by analyzing the family backgrounds of bibliography authors to explain the features of private bibliographies; and by examining the dominant trends in Korean historiography to explain the characteristics of historical bibliography. This article also focuses on analyzing the Chinese influence and changes in this field, thereby demonstrating the diversity and unity of the Sinic cultural sphere through comparison. Zhou Shengchun investigates the Korean Chinese text Huahai Shiquan, which has been overlooked, and determines that it shows no obvious signs of forgery and contains materials not found in other literature. Based on this, we can learn about 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 intellectual characteristics of this school, allowing us to re-examine, reflect on, and rewrite the origins and transmission of Korean and East Asian Confucianism, and deepen our understanding of the scale, depth, and impact of Korean-Chinese Confucian exchanges in the late Goryeo period. The author further discusses Shin Hyun, the main author of this book, who has been largely ignored by academia. He argues that Shin Hyun was not only an intellectual leader who led the entire school to its zenith but also a Confucian master who inherited the traditions of Mengzi and Zhu Xi from Yu Zhuo and paved the way for Jeong Mongju and Li Hun. He was also a key figure and core in Korean-Chinese Confucian exchanges in the late Goryeo period, as well as a royal tutor and a respected social activist. The next group is Comparative Literature. Jiao Shi uses the modernist "exoticism" theory of Guo Xiaolan to prove Shen Congwen's modernity, aiming to break free from the clichés of rural literature and local color. Specifically, Guo Xiaolan argues from a theoretical perspective that beauty can be seen in the collision between the subject and the other, and from a narrative perspective, he emphasizes the "other's" reflection on the "self," turning the subject into an observed object. This article applies these ideas and techniques to the analysis of Shen Congwen — the subject in his novels includes the author, the third-person narrator, city dwellers, Han Chinese, civilized people, men, and scholars (including female university students), while the "other" consists of villagers, uneducated people, women, and Miao people, and these two groups often collide and reflect on each other. In sharp contrast, while the comparability in the previous section was "designed," the comparability in the latter section is firmly established: Wei Anna uses the 450-page Castle of the Soul by Can Xue as evidence to show that this Chinese writer has a deep and broad concern for Kafka both in criticism and in creation. Next, the author 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 thematicology and textual analysis. In the author's view, the interconnected concern of the two writers lies in their engagement with the following dilemma of communal recognition — they, as artists with extraordinary perception, are particularly acutely aware of the human condition, yet like ordinary people, they are compelled to be bound between the public and private, between outward practical life and inward spiritual inquiry. The final group is Cultural Relics and Archaeology. Xu Jianxin focuses on an easily overlooked issue: previous academic research on the Gwanggaeto Stele and its rubbings has placed great emphasis on the achievements of stone scholars during the late Qing and Republican periods, yet little attention has been paid to Li Yuncong, the rubbing artisan who produced dozens of fine rubbings of the stele. For this reason, this article pays special attention to the life and deeds of this craftsman and the of his rubbing of the Gwanggaeto Stele. The author argues that a detailed examination of Li Yuncong's experiences can provide references for the chronological study of early rubbings of the Gwanggaeto Stele 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 Tujue tribe, the Wanggu, active in the area during the Yuan Dynasty. To this end, the author first argues, based on archaeological evidence, that these artifacts predate the Yuan Dynasty, so they are clearly unrelated to the Wanggu 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 Tujue tribe, the Hun, which practiced Nestorianism. The author's conclusion is that the westward migration of Genghis Khan's Qiyansu tribe from the Hulunbuir grassland forced the Hun tribe, which had been nomadic on the Mongolian Plateau, to move south to Ordos, leaving behind these historical relics there.
Platform / Communications
First, Liu Dong was invited to write an outline for the "China section" of the World Cultural Report (2005). This report was produced twice by UNESCO and introduced into the Chinese world twice, but unfortunately, it left little room for Chinese scholars. Out of this regret, the author joined the team of the new edition of the report and agreed to write within the framework of predetermined themes or unified outlines, a task that somewhat resembled a prescribed essay or filling in the blanks. Of course, even so, the author still hoped 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 arrives before the deadline, it will certainly be reflected in the final draft. Next, Wei Sitie wrote an introduction 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 this has become a recurring and terrible experience for him ever since he took over the Overseas China Studies Series. Here, the introduction, which has already been translated, is published first to commemorate this outstanding sinologist, who was known for his diligence, erudition, and rigorous scholarship.
The Reviews section includes the following: First, a long report by He Xio on the new developments in the field of Chinese women's studies in international academia. The article synthesizes works published since the 1970s in history, anthropology, sociology, and political science, and organizes them thematically: 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 has been a particularly fruitful field in international academia recently, and the article's grand scope, extensive coverage, and detailed exploration of various issues undoubtedly leave this impression on the reader. Next, the article presents critiques of Chinese scholars by Xia Hanyi of the University of Chicago and Wang Ruifeng of Peking University. It is unnecessary to elaborate on their specific views here. However, arranging them together can be quite interesting: in fact, this frequent and sometimes 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 perceive the deeper undercurrents!