All Mine! Happiness, Ownership, and Naming in Eleventh-Century China

Abstract

(biji 筆記), which literati regularly compiled in times of leisure, while mourning their parents (which came with a three-year hiatus), when dismissed from ranks, or after their retirement. Such compilations could result in fully-fledged philosophies or alternative histories. The larger majority, though, consists of idiosyncratic reflections of savants who cherished either one theme or format, or enjoyed dabbling in many fields. Zuo Ya’s contribution to the field reveals Shen Gua’s intellectual stance in conversation with the major philosophical trends and the context of sociopolitical theorizing of China during the eleventh century. This contextualization has much to offer, even as it runs counter to historians of science’s efforts to show how the practical and material sides of historical knowledge production – that is, efforts such as making a compass, developing numerology and music, or analyzing phonetics – are all social practices, deeply informed by materials. Scholars including Pamela H. Smith and Harold Cook advocate studying science in context as a social and material practice that, drawing on everyday experiences and trial and error, calls upon collectives. Such a history of knowledge offers critical engagement with the boundaries, hierarchies, and mutual constitution of different types of knowledge, asking basic questions such as what a contribution to knowledge is or what counts as ignorance, and equally responds, as Sven Dupré has remarked, to current concerns about truth, reliability, or authority. It also begs the question of which collective produced and used the knowledge that Shen reports so meticulously. Whether we now call it science or a nonsystem, knowledge is a collective achievement – never an individual’s world. Empiricism is a fascinating and rewarding read, because it raises all of these concerns.