The Elusiveness of Commonality: Late Twentieth-Century Sinology and the Search for a Shared Lyric Language

IF 0.2 3区 文学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Paulo Varsano
{"title":"The Elusiveness of Commonality: Late Twentieth-Century Sinology and the Search for a Shared Lyric Language","authors":"Paulo Varsano","doi":"10.1215/23290048-9681137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:As the study of what we now call \"premodern\" China gained traction among students in the postwar United States, the question of how it should be approached emerged as a divisive issue among interested scholars, perhaps nowhere as much as it did among those with a particular interest in Chinese poetry. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the stakes seemed high as scholars confronted their passionate disagreements about things as fundamental as the proper subject of study and the most fruitful methodology. Is China a coherent and self-sufficient subject of study? Can it be rightly and accurately characterized as a civilization so separate from the West, and so perfectly integrated within itself, as to render impossible—and even damaging—an approach to any aspect of its civilization that enables comparison? What is lost and what is gained if one chooses to focus more on Chinese poetry as poetry and less on Chinese poetry as Chinese? Is it really necessary—or possible—to choose? Or is it possible to find balance along a continuum? Of particular interest is the discourse of scholars who saw in the rise of formalist studies of literature either an opportunity or a threat. This article traces just some of the lines of resistance and exploration, convergence, and bifurcation that developed in this period, observing that the disagreements that were exercising these camps, while quite real, were not as absolute as their rhetoric would suggest.","PeriodicalId":53810,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture","volume":"9 1","pages":"46 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chinese Literature and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/23290048-9681137","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:As the study of what we now call "premodern" China gained traction among students in the postwar United States, the question of how it should be approached emerged as a divisive issue among interested scholars, perhaps nowhere as much as it did among those with a particular interest in Chinese poetry. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the stakes seemed high as scholars confronted their passionate disagreements about things as fundamental as the proper subject of study and the most fruitful methodology. Is China a coherent and self-sufficient subject of study? Can it be rightly and accurately characterized as a civilization so separate from the West, and so perfectly integrated within itself, as to render impossible—and even damaging—an approach to any aspect of its civilization that enables comparison? What is lost and what is gained if one chooses to focus more on Chinese poetry as poetry and less on Chinese poetry as Chinese? Is it really necessary—or possible—to choose? Or is it possible to find balance along a continuum? Of particular interest is the discourse of scholars who saw in the rise of formalist studies of literature either an opportunity or a threat. This article traces just some of the lines of resistance and exploration, convergence, and bifurcation that developed in this period, observing that the disagreements that were exercising these camps, while quite real, were not as absolute as their rhetoric would suggest.
共同性的难以捉摸:20世纪晚期汉学与对共同抒情语言的探索
摘要:随着对“前现代”中国的研究在战后的美国学生中越来越受欢迎,如何处理这个问题在感兴趣的学者中成为一个分歧的问题,也许没有人比那些对中国诗歌特别感兴趣的人更感兴趣。从20世纪60年代到80年代,当学者们面对诸如合适的研究主题和最有成果的方法等基本问题时,赌注似乎很高。中国是一个连贯的、自给自足的研究对象吗?它能被正确而准确地描述为一个与西方文明如此分离、与自身如此完美结合的文明,以至于不可能——甚至是有害的——对其文明的任何方面进行比较?如果我们选择更多地关注作为诗歌的中国诗歌,而不是作为汉语的中国诗歌,我们会失去什么,又会得到什么?选择真的有必要或可能吗?或者是否有可能在一个连续体中找到平衡?特别令人感兴趣的是一些学者的论述,他们认为形式主义文学研究的兴起要么是机遇,要么是威胁。本文仅追溯了这一时期发展起来的抵抗和探索、融合和分歧的一些路线,观察到这些阵营的分歧,虽然相当真实,但并不像他们的修辞所暗示的那样绝对。
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信