Not about religion: A reinterpretation of the Chinese rites controversy

IF 0.7 0 RELIGION
Zhe Gao
{"title":"Not about religion: A reinterpretation of the Chinese rites controversy","authors":"Zhe Gao","doi":"10.1177/20503032231199492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As one of the most significant events in the history of Sino-Western interaction and that of Chinese Christianity, the “Chinese Rites Controversy” has been the subject of numerous studies from both Western and Chinese scholars since the 1980s. When interpreting the rites issue of the Controversy, most studies see the crux of it as the “religious” nature of the Confucian rites. In contrast to this dominant understanding, this article argues that both the uncritical repetition of “religious” in the modern interpretations of the Controversy and its tacitly approved validity presuppose a universal and timeless conception of “religion.” Through a method of historicisation, i.e., examining carefully in what sense “religious” and related terms such as “civil,” “political,” “superstitious,” and “yinsi,” etc. were used in the original texts of the Controversy, this article intends to show that the use of “religious” by modern authors constitutes, though to a great extent unconsciously, a hermeneutical anachronism. The root of this anachronism lies in that the use “religious” as a generic adjective defining a distinct sphere of human enterprise that can be differentiated from those “non-religious” ones is a modern invention, and could find its place in neither encompassing Christian truth nor the tianxia order, nor even the fusion of these two horizons manifested in the awareness of literati Catholics, all of which defined the context in which the rites issue was debated during the Controversy.","PeriodicalId":43214,"journal":{"name":"Critical Research on Religion","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Research on Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20503032231199492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As one of the most significant events in the history of Sino-Western interaction and that of Chinese Christianity, the “Chinese Rites Controversy” has been the subject of numerous studies from both Western and Chinese scholars since the 1980s. When interpreting the rites issue of the Controversy, most studies see the crux of it as the “religious” nature of the Confucian rites. In contrast to this dominant understanding, this article argues that both the uncritical repetition of “religious” in the modern interpretations of the Controversy and its tacitly approved validity presuppose a universal and timeless conception of “religion.” Through a method of historicisation, i.e., examining carefully in what sense “religious” and related terms such as “civil,” “political,” “superstitious,” and “yinsi,” etc. were used in the original texts of the Controversy, this article intends to show that the use of “religious” by modern authors constitutes, though to a great extent unconsciously, a hermeneutical anachronism. The root of this anachronism lies in that the use “religious” as a generic adjective defining a distinct sphere of human enterprise that can be differentiated from those “non-religious” ones is a modern invention, and could find its place in neither encompassing Christian truth nor the tianxia order, nor even the fusion of these two horizons manifested in the awareness of literati Catholics, all of which defined the context in which the rites issue was debated during the Controversy.
与宗教无关:对中国礼制争议的重新解读
作为中西交往史和中国基督教史上最重要的事件之一,“中国礼制之争”自20世纪80年代以来一直是西方和中国学者众多研究的主题。在解读《礼争》的礼制问题时,多数学者认为其症结在于儒家礼制的“宗教性”。与这种占主导地位的理解相反,本文认为,在对“宗教之争”的现代解释中,“宗教”一词的不加批判的重复,及其默认的有效性,都预设了一种普遍和永恒的“宗教”概念。通过一种历史化的方法,即仔细检查“宗教”和相关术语,如“公民”,“政治”,“迷信”和“寅斯”等在争议的原始文本中使用的意义,本文旨在表明,现代作者对“宗教”的使用构成了解释学上的时代错误,尽管在很大程度上是无意识的。这种过时的根源在于,使用“宗教”是一个通用的形容词定义一个独特的人类事业范围可以从那些“宗教”的分化是一个现代的发明,并能找到其在包括基督教真理和天下秩序,甚至也不是这两个视野的融合体现文人意识的天主教徒,所有这些仪式的上下文定义问题是争论的争议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Critical Research on Religion is a peer-reviewed, international journal focusing on the development of a critical theoretical framework and its application to research on religion. It provides a common venue for those engaging in critical analysis in theology and religious studies, as well as for those who critically study religion in the other social sciences and humanities such as philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, history, and literature. A critical approach examines religious phenomena according to both their positive and negative impacts. It draws on methods including but not restricted to the critical theory of the Frankfurt School, Marxism, post-structuralism, feminism, psychoanalysis, ideological criticism, post-colonialism, ecocriticism, and queer studies. The journal seeks to enhance an understanding of how religious institutions and religious thought may simultaneously serve as a source of domination and progressive social change. It attempts to understand the role of religion within social and political conflicts. These conflicts are often based on differences of race, class, ethnicity, region, gender, and sexual orientation – all of which are shaped by social, political, and economic inequity. The journal encourages submissions of theoretically guided articles on current issues as well as those with historical interest using a wide range of methodologies including qualitative, quantitative, and archival. It publishes articles, review essays, book reviews, thematic issues, symposia, and interviews.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信