{"title":"Thinking Regionally in Early Medieval Studies: A Manifesto","authors":"Andrew Chittick","doi":"10.1080/15299104.2020.1780735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a recent leading article in the Journal of Asian Studies, Hugh Clark critiques the teleological construct of a unified China, arguing that, at least up through the tenth century, the unified regimes of Qin/Han and Sui/Tang were a “superficial overlay” atop an East Asia comprised of many diverse cultural regions. I believe that scholars should take up Clark’s critique as an invitation: to write meaningful histories of East Asian cultural regions, their distinctive peoples, and their diverse cultural and political identities, without relying on the teleological construct of “China” and the “Chinese” (or Han) people and culture. Scholars of the early medieval period have exceptionally rich opportunities to do this sort of work, yet we mostly have not taken sufficient advantage of them. This essay uses my own work on the Wuren as a case study to propose some useful frameworks and methodologies available to us, such as re-thinking the concept of “empire,” and writing regional histories. Thinking regionally, especially when done in collaboration with scholars of other periods of fragmentation, will allow scholars of the early medieval era to make distinctive and important contributions to the broader fields of East Asian and comparative World history.","PeriodicalId":41624,"journal":{"name":"Early Medieval China","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15299104.2020.1780735","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Medieval China","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299104.2020.1780735","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
In a recent leading article in the Journal of Asian Studies, Hugh Clark critiques the teleological construct of a unified China, arguing that, at least up through the tenth century, the unified regimes of Qin/Han and Sui/Tang were a “superficial overlay” atop an East Asia comprised of many diverse cultural regions. I believe that scholars should take up Clark’s critique as an invitation: to write meaningful histories of East Asian cultural regions, their distinctive peoples, and their diverse cultural and political identities, without relying on the teleological construct of “China” and the “Chinese” (or Han) people and culture. Scholars of the early medieval period have exceptionally rich opportunities to do this sort of work, yet we mostly have not taken sufficient advantage of them. This essay uses my own work on the Wuren as a case study to propose some useful frameworks and methodologies available to us, such as re-thinking the concept of “empire,” and writing regional histories. Thinking regionally, especially when done in collaboration with scholars of other periods of fragmentation, will allow scholars of the early medieval era to make distinctive and important contributions to the broader fields of East Asian and comparative World history.
在《亚洲研究杂志》(Journal of Asian Studies)最近的一篇重要文章中,休·克拉克(Hugh Clark)批评了统一中国的目的论建构,他认为,至少在整个10世纪,秦汉和隋唐的统一政权是在由许多不同文化区域组成的东亚之上的“表面覆盖”。我认为,学者们应该把克拉克的批评当作一种邀请:在不依赖于“中国”和“中国人”(或汉族)的目的论建构的情况下,撰写有意义的东亚文化区域、其独特的民族、及其多样化的文化和政治身份的历史。中世纪早期的学者有非常丰富的机会来做这类工作,但我们大多没有充分利用它们。本文以我自己对乌仁人的研究为例,提出了一些有用的框架和方法,如重新思考“帝国”的概念,以及撰写区域历史。区域性思考,特别是与其他分裂时期的学者合作时,将使中世纪早期的学者能够对东亚历史和比较世界史的更广泛领域做出独特而重要的贡献。