中华人民共和国历史理论基础:大众传播研究、政治文化与价值范式

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Matthew D. Johnson
{"title":"中华人民共和国历史理论基础:大众传播研究、政治文化与价值范式","authors":"Matthew D. Johnson","doi":"10.1215/10679847-9286727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article describes the US origins of the field of PRC history. It argues that research on PRC history is widely derived from an approach to knowledge that predates area studies: the theory that societies can be controlled and changed through the transformation of human cognition—referred to as \"public opinion,\" \"values,\" \"culture,\" \"political culture,\" \"tradition,\" or \"belief\"—by nonviolent means. The author calls this approach to knowledge the values paradigm. A separate, but related argument is that this paradigm has proven more important than the availability or content of new sources in determining how PRC history has been written. The aim behind these arguments is twofold: to highlight the intellectual debt (or burden) that links PRC history, via area studies, to policy science; and to elucidate other ways of guiding research in place of the increasingly exhausted values paradigm–based approach. The conclusions they lead to are that historical and social scientific explanations of political change in China have become intellectually dependent on the abstraction of mass consciousness, and that this abstraction has been used to obscure the endemic violence of Maoism.","PeriodicalId":44356,"journal":{"name":"Positions-Asia Critique","volume":"80 1","pages":"835 - 868"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Foundations of Theory in PRC History: Mass Communications Research, Political Culture, and the Values Paradigm\",\"authors\":\"Matthew D. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/10679847-9286727\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This article describes the US origins of the field of PRC history. It argues that research on PRC history is widely derived from an approach to knowledge that predates area studies: the theory that societies can be controlled and changed through the transformation of human cognition—referred to as \\\"public opinion,\\\" \\\"values,\\\" \\\"culture,\\\" \\\"political culture,\\\" \\\"tradition,\\\" or \\\"belief\\\"—by nonviolent means. The author calls this approach to knowledge the values paradigm. A separate, but related argument is that this paradigm has proven more important than the availability or content of new sources in determining how PRC history has been written. The aim behind these arguments is twofold: to highlight the intellectual debt (or burden) that links PRC history, via area studies, to policy science; and to elucidate other ways of guiding research in place of the increasingly exhausted values paradigm–based approach. The conclusions they lead to are that historical and social scientific explanations of political change in China have become intellectually dependent on the abstraction of mass consciousness, and that this abstraction has been used to obscure the endemic violence of Maoism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Positions-Asia Critique\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"835 - 868\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Positions-Asia Critique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/10679847-9286727\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Positions-Asia Critique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10679847-9286727","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: 0

摘要

摘要:本文描述了美国中华人民共和国历史研究领域的起源。它认为,对中华人民共和国历史的研究广泛来源于一种早于区域研究的知识方法:该理论认为,社会可以通过人类认知的转变——被称为“公众舆论”、“价值观”、“文化”、“政治文化”、“传统”或“信仰”——通过非暴力手段来控制和改变。作者把这种获取知识的方法称为价值范式。另一个独立但相关的论点是,在决定如何编写中华人民共和国历史方面,这种范式已被证明比新来源的可用性或内容更重要。这些论点背后的目的是双重的:强调通过区域研究将中国历史与政策科学联系起来的知识债务(或负担);并阐明其他指导研究的方法,以取代日益枯竭的基于价值范式的方法。他们得出的结论是,对中国政治变化的历史和社会科学解释已经变得在智力上依赖于对群众意识的抽象,而这种抽象被用来掩盖毛主义的地方性暴力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Foundations of Theory in PRC History: Mass Communications Research, Political Culture, and the Values Paradigm
Abstract:This article describes the US origins of the field of PRC history. It argues that research on PRC history is widely derived from an approach to knowledge that predates area studies: the theory that societies can be controlled and changed through the transformation of human cognition—referred to as "public opinion," "values," "culture," "political culture," "tradition," or "belief"—by nonviolent means. The author calls this approach to knowledge the values paradigm. A separate, but related argument is that this paradigm has proven more important than the availability or content of new sources in determining how PRC history has been written. The aim behind these arguments is twofold: to highlight the intellectual debt (or burden) that links PRC history, via area studies, to policy science; and to elucidate other ways of guiding research in place of the increasingly exhausted values paradigm–based approach. The conclusions they lead to are that historical and social scientific explanations of political change in China have become intellectually dependent on the abstraction of mass consciousness, and that this abstraction has been used to obscure the endemic violence of Maoism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Positions-Asia Critique
Positions-Asia Critique ASIAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
×
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