Anthropology by Other Names: The Impact of Sino-Soviet Friendship on the Anthropological Sciences

G. Guldin
{"title":"Anthropology by Other Names: The Impact of Sino-Soviet Friendship on the Anthropological Sciences","authors":"G. Guldin","doi":"10.2307/2950029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The re-establishment ofcloser ties between the USSR and the People's Republic of China since Gorbachev's visit to Beijing in May of 1989 raises questions regarding the legacy of an earlier period of Sino-Soviet co-operation. In the social sciences the Soviet influence was considerable, for the Soviet 'model' served as a template for the reorganization of these disciplines in China. Even the breakup of the Sino-Soviet alliance in the late 1950s could not erase such influences, for by then the institutional, theoretical and personnel structures of Chinese academia had been transformed. In the anthropological sciences, certainly, the Soviet imprint is still clearly discernible over thirty ears later. The very definition of the field in China is itself testimony to such influence, for China's anthropology closely parallels the Soviet design. In the Soviet Union, anthropology has long been defined solely as physical anthropology, the study of human evolution and contemporary human biological variation. The study of contemporary cultures and societies was reserved for ethnography (if dealing with minority nationalities and peasant populations) and sociology (if dealing with 'modem' groups). Both ethnography and archaeology, moreover, were considered branches of history and accorded that placement in research institutes and universities. Linguistics led an independent academic life. One finds the","PeriodicalId":85646,"journal":{"name":"The Australian journal of Chinese affairs = Ao chung","volume":"13 1","pages":"133 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/2950029","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian journal of Chinese affairs = Ao chung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2950029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

The re-establishment ofcloser ties between the USSR and the People's Republic of China since Gorbachev's visit to Beijing in May of 1989 raises questions regarding the legacy of an earlier period of Sino-Soviet co-operation. In the social sciences the Soviet influence was considerable, for the Soviet 'model' served as a template for the reorganization of these disciplines in China. Even the breakup of the Sino-Soviet alliance in the late 1950s could not erase such influences, for by then the institutional, theoretical and personnel structures of Chinese academia had been transformed. In the anthropological sciences, certainly, the Soviet imprint is still clearly discernible over thirty ears later. The very definition of the field in China is itself testimony to such influence, for China's anthropology closely parallels the Soviet design. In the Soviet Union, anthropology has long been defined solely as physical anthropology, the study of human evolution and contemporary human biological variation. The study of contemporary cultures and societies was reserved for ethnography (if dealing with minority nationalities and peasant populations) and sociology (if dealing with 'modem' groups). Both ethnography and archaeology, moreover, were considered branches of history and accorded that placement in research institutes and universities. Linguistics led an independent academic life. One finds the
别称人类学:中苏友谊对人类学的影响
自1989年5月戈尔巴乔夫访问北京以来,苏联和中华人民共和国之间重新建立了更密切的关系,这引发了人们对中苏早期合作遗留问题的质疑。在社会科学方面,苏联的影响是相当大的,因为苏联的“模式”为中国这些学科的重组提供了模板。即使中苏联盟在20世纪50年代末解体也不能消除这种影响,因为那时中国学术界的制度、理论和人员结构已经发生了变化。当然,在人类学领域,三十多年过去了,苏联的印记仍然清晰可辨。中国对这一领域的定义本身就证明了这种影响,因为中国的人类学与苏联的设计非常相似。在苏联,人类学长期以来仅仅被定义为体质人类学,即研究人类进化和当代人类生物变异的学科。对当代文化和社会的研究仅限于人种学(如果涉及少数民族和农民人口)和社会学(如果涉及“现代”群体)。此外,人种学和考古学都被认为是历史的分支,并在研究机构和大学中享有同样的地位。语言学过着独立的学术生活。一个人发现
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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信