Crossing the Border

In recent years, Sinologists have been arguing about the terms “Sinology,” “China Studies,” “guoxue,” “Area Studies,” “New Sinology” and other new terms with which scholars could better define this discipline. Scholars in Europe, America and other Chinese-speaking countries obviously take different positions on this issue and have thus developed different terms, such as Sinology in Europe, Area Studies and China/Chinese Studies in the United States, New Sinology in Australia and Sinology and Sinophone Studies for the research on the Chinese-speaking areas. They are attempting to clarify how to discuss Chinese culture without causing problematic identity issues. Sinologists’ focus has shifted from traditional Chinese culture to modern China. Meanwhile, the Chinese themselves are focusing on their identity. They have insisted that only Chinese could understand their own culture, which scholars outside of China will never be able to grasp. Therefore, Chinese scholars use the new term “Foreign Chinese Studies” to distinguish external approaches from their own. Global research on Chinese culture has gone through a long history; now it is stuck in a dilemma and cannot find common ground. This article attempts to construct a new model: the prism model. “Prism” means mirror, lens or a tool to break up a beam of light into its constituent spectrum. It could be also interpreted as an “observation” or “analysis” that reflects the different facets of things. Each angle or cultural background scholars use to understand Chinese culture could be treated as a “lens,” one that reflects a certain aspect and a way to a possible future of Sinology. In this article, I attempt to use this prism model as a methodology for giving researchers of Chinese culture a new broader way without entering into the problems of the identity issue.