Anthropology and the New Sinology: Speculations

Judith Farquhar
University of Chicago

Is there a new Sinology?  What has led to major changes in the world-wide field of Sinology?  What is the relationship of Sinology, or Chinese area studies, to the traditional humanities and social sciences disciplines?  Most important to this author, what is the actual or desirable relationship between cultural anthropology, which has long emphasized deep studies of single places or traditions, and “the new Sinology”?  This talk will, first, speculate about some of the reasons the field of Sinology is changing, and must change.  Certainly the increased participation of scholars and activists who live and publish in East Asia and write in East Asian languages is one important change.  Vicissitudes of research funding in various countries also lead to transformative crises. Second, the traditional disciplines have proven resistant for decades to the interdisciplinary habits of area studies scholars. In some respects the disciplines are not changing much, and Sinologists should better address their rigidities and thematic blinders.  Third, my own field of anthropology could learn more from Sinology even as I think China scholars could more effectively adopt some of anthropology’s best methods: the interrogation of apparently natural categories, the excavation of unspoken dynamics, the critical comparison of Chinese formations with similar formations elsewhere in the world, and an examined historiography beyond Orientalist nostalgias.   

关于人类学和新汉学的思考

冯珠娣
芝加哥大学

存在一种新汉学吗？是什么导致了世界范围内的汉学发生了重大变化？汉学或中国区域研究与传统人文学科和社会科学学科有着怎样的关系？对于笔者而言最重要的是，文化人类学（其长期强调对某些单独的区域或传统进行深入研究）与“新汉学”之间有着怎样的关系（实际的或应有的）？我将首先思考汉学领域正在改变和必须改变的原因。当然，越来越多在东亚居住并出版著作、以东亚语言写作的学者和活动家参与其中，这是一个重要变化。各个国家研究基金的兴废也导致了变革性的危机。其次，几十年来，传统学科已经证明了，它们其对区域研究学者的跨学科倾进行着抵制。在某些方面，这些学科变化不大，汉学家更该去应对它们的僵化、以及对某些主题的盲视。再次，我本人的人类学领域可以从汉学那里学到更多的东西，与此同时，我也认为中国学者能够更有效地采用某些人类学的良方：检审貌似自然的范畴，挖掘无法言说的动力机制，批评性地对比中国的社会构成与世界其他地方的相似构造，以及超越东方主义怀旧的、经得起考验的历史编纂学。