A Way of Life: Things, Thought, and Action in Chinese Medicine

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
Taewoo Kim
{"title":"A Way of Life: Things, Thought, and Action in Chinese Medicine","authors":"Taewoo Kim","doi":"10.1080/18752160.2023.2197787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even amid heated discussion of anthropology’s turn to ontology since 2000, East Asia has remained almost an invisible area of research, having seldom been part of the new mode of theorizing and practicing anthropology. This phenomenon is revealing when we compare anthropological studies of East Asia with those of America and Oceania in which scholars have conducted influential ethnographic studies of the ontological turn, circulating pathbreaking concepts. If ontological anthropology critiques the very discipline’s reliance on a specific metaphysical assumption originating from the modern West, and if East Asia and modern Europe do not share the same metaphysical ground, it is natural to expect scholars to study ontological anthropology of East Asia. Filling the lacuna in the research and, further, articulating the potential of East Asian studies for the discussion of “turn,” in A Way of Life Judith Farquhar, a leading scholar in the studies of East Asian medicine, examines Chinese medical reality and its connectedness to thought and practice. Even though the author does not use the exact wording “ontological turn,” her intention regarding ontological discussion is clear in her critical application in Chapter 1 of John Law’s “One-World World” to Joseph Needham’s Chinese science project that premises “the evolution of world knowledge toward better and better accounts of only one world” (8). Delineating more than one ontological ground with East Asian medicine, A Way of Life speaks of beyond the One-World World and beyond only one way of life. Translation matters, probably the most, in Farquhar’s elaboration of Chinese medicine. Or, to put it another way, translation is an inevitably central issue, since, regarding the text’s ontology-involved translation, it is not just an equivalentword-seeking practice between East Asian and Euro-American languages. Rather, it is an inter-worldly endeavor since “[w]hen we embark on the translation of Chinese medical things, thought, and action... , new and marvelous worlds emerge” (12). Farquhar’s approach, however, faces the “impossibility” of translation, since nothing is fixed—both referents and referrers are moving on plural ontological","PeriodicalId":45255,"journal":{"name":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","volume":"52 1","pages":"273 - 276"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"East Asian Science Technology and Society-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/18752160.2023.2197787","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Even amid heated discussion of anthropology’s turn to ontology since 2000, East Asia has remained almost an invisible area of research, having seldom been part of the new mode of theorizing and practicing anthropology. This phenomenon is revealing when we compare anthropological studies of East Asia with those of America and Oceania in which scholars have conducted influential ethnographic studies of the ontological turn, circulating pathbreaking concepts. If ontological anthropology critiques the very discipline’s reliance on a specific metaphysical assumption originating from the modern West, and if East Asia and modern Europe do not share the same metaphysical ground, it is natural to expect scholars to study ontological anthropology of East Asia. Filling the lacuna in the research and, further, articulating the potential of East Asian studies for the discussion of “turn,” in A Way of Life Judith Farquhar, a leading scholar in the studies of East Asian medicine, examines Chinese medical reality and its connectedness to thought and practice. Even though the author does not use the exact wording “ontological turn,” her intention regarding ontological discussion is clear in her critical application in Chapter 1 of John Law’s “One-World World” to Joseph Needham’s Chinese science project that premises “the evolution of world knowledge toward better and better accounts of only one world” (8). Delineating more than one ontological ground with East Asian medicine, A Way of Life speaks of beyond the One-World World and beyond only one way of life. Translation matters, probably the most, in Farquhar’s elaboration of Chinese medicine. Or, to put it another way, translation is an inevitably central issue, since, regarding the text’s ontology-involved translation, it is not just an equivalentword-seeking practice between East Asian and Euro-American languages. Rather, it is an inter-worldly endeavor since “[w]hen we embark on the translation of Chinese medical things, thought, and action... , new and marvelous worlds emerge” (12). Farquhar’s approach, however, faces the “impossibility” of translation, since nothing is fixed—both referents and referrers are moving on plural ontological
一种生活方式:中医的事物、思想和行为
即使在2000年以来关于人类学转向本体论的热烈讨论中,东亚几乎仍然是一个看不见的研究区域,很少成为人类学理论化和实践的新模式的一部分。当我们将东亚的人类学研究与美洲和大洋洲的人类学研究进行比较时,这种现象是很有启示的,在美洲和大洋洲,学者们进行了有影响力的本体论转向的民族志研究,传播了开创性的概念。如果本体论人类学批判了这门学科对源自现代西方的特定形而上学假设的依赖,如果东亚和现代欧洲没有共同的形而上学基础,那么期待学者研究东亚的本体论人类学是很自然的。在《生活方式》一书中,东亚医学研究的领军学者朱迪斯·法夸尔(Judith Farquhar)填补了研究的空白,进一步阐明了东亚研究在讨论“转向”方面的潜力,考察了中国的医学现实及其与思想和实践的联系。尽管作者没有使用“本体论转向”的确切措辞,她对本体论讨论的意图在约翰·劳的“一个世界的世界”第一章中对李约瑟的中国科学项目的批判性应用中是明确的,该项目以“世界知识的演变对只有一个世界的描述越来越好”为前提(8)。用东亚医学描绘了不止一个本体论基础,《生活之道》谈到了超越一个世界的世界,也超越了只有一种生活方式。在法夸尔对中医的阐述中,翻译可能是最重要的。或者,换句话说,翻译是一个不可避免的中心问题,因为就文本的本体论翻译而言,它不仅仅是东亚语言和欧美语言之间的对等寻词实践。相反,这是一项跨世界的努力,因为“当我们开始翻译中国医学的东西、思想和行动时……新的、奇妙的世界就会出现”。然而,法夸尔的方法面临着翻译的“不可能性”,因为没有什么是固定的——所指物和所指物都在复数本体论上移动
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
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
×
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