Phd China Studies
Fortun Bawa
With the encouragement and guidance of the Henry Luce Foundation, ACLS conducted a series of strategic planning activities to reassess and reconfigure the Luce/ACLS Program in China Studies. After surveying and convening scholars at all ranks, higher education leaders, journalists, librarians, curators, and other readers of research and writing on China, we re-imagined our program to meet the needs of China studies in the 21st century.
In 2024-25, ACLS is offering fellowships and grants to support research, writing, and publicly engaged and creative scholarship in the humanities and interpretive social sciences. There are no restrictions regarding methodological approach or time period.
Awards are financially supported by the Henry Luce Foundation, with long-term fellowships made possible in part by a major grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities: Democracy demands wisdom.
The Luce/ACLS Digital Archives Mapping Project is an ongoing initiative that aims to enhance and expand access to primary materials and source collections that are vital to the advancement of the China studies field. The project and website, which is currently under development, will eventually comprise three main elements: a survey of significant Sinophone source collections available outside mainland China; a common access plan to enable scholars to utilize databases and collections at key institutions regardless of current rank or affiliation; and a knowledge base of best practices for organizations seeking to digitize and preserve print collections.
The Luce/ACLS Program in China Studies promotes inclusion, equity, and diversity as integral components of merit that enhance the scholarly enterprise. It is a priority that every cohort of fellows and grantees is broadly inclusive of different backgrounds, cultures, and any aspects that make one unique. In China studies we seek balance in regard to national origin, educational background, and current university affiliation, as well as in disciplinary approaches, topics, and historical periods studied.
Formed in 1919, ACLS is a nonprofit federation of 81 scholarly organizations. As the preeminent representative of American scholarship in the humanities and interpretive social sciences, ACLS holds a core belief that knowledge is a public good.
Sinology, also referred to as China studies, is a subfield of area studies or East Asian studies involved in social sciences and humanities research on China. It is an academic discipline that focuses on the study of the Chinese civilization primarily through Chinese language, history, culture, literature, philosophy, art, music, cinema, and science. Its origin "may be traced to the examination which Chinese scholars made of their own civilization."[1]
The academic field of sinology often refers to Western scholarship. Until the 20th century, it was historically seen as equivalent to philology concerning the Chinese classics and other literature written in the Chinese language.[2] Since, the scope of sinology has expanded to include Chinese history, palaeography, among other subjects.
In the context of area studies, the European and the American usages may differ. In Europe, sinology is usually known as "Chinese studies", whereas in the United States, sinology is a subfield[clarification needed] of Chinese studies. A China watcher is a person who monitors current events and power struggles in China.
The earliest Westerners known to have studied Chinese in significant numbers were 16th-century Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian missionaries. All were either Jesuits or Dominicans seeking to spread Catholic Christianity to the Chinese people. An early Spanish Dominican mission in Manila operated a printing press; between 1593 and 1607, they produced four works on Catholic doctrine for the Chinese immigrant community, three in Literary Chinese and one in a mixture of Literary Chinese and vernacular Hokkien.[4]
Dominican accomplishments among the Chinese diaspora pale in comparison to the success of the Jesuits in mainland China, led by the renowned pioneer Matteo Ricci.[5] Ricci arrived in Guangzhou in 1583, and would spend the rest of his life in China. Unlike most of his predecessors and contemporaries, Ricci did not view the Chinese firstly as pagans or idolators, but as "like-minded literati approachable on the level of learning".[6] Like Chinese literati, he studied the Confucian classics in order to present Catholic doctrine and European learning to the Chinese using their own terms.[6]
During the Age of Enlightenment, sinologists started to introduce Chinese philosophy, ethics, legal system, and aesthetics into the West. Though often unscientific and incomplete, their works inspired the development of chinoiserie and a series of debates comparing Chinese and Western cultures. At that time, sinologists often described China as an enlightened kingdom, comparing it to Europe, which had just emerged from the Dark Ages. Among the European literati interested in China was Voltaire, who wrote the play L'orphelin de la Chine inspired by The Orphan of Zhao, Leibniz who penned his famous Novissima Sinica (News from China) and Giambattista Vico.
Because Chinese texts did not have any major connections to most important European topics (such as the Bible), they were scarcely studied by European universities until around 1860. An exception to this was France, where Chinese studies were popularized owing to efforts from Louis XIV. In 1711, he appointed a young Chinese man named Arcadio Huang to catalog the royal collection of Chinese texts. Huang was assisted by tienne Fourmont, who published a grammar of Chinese in 1742. [citation needed]
Stanislas Julien served as the chair of Chinese at the Collge de France for over 40 years, starting his studies with Rmusat and succeeding him in 1833. He was notable for his translations not only of classical texts but also works of vernacular literature, and for his knowledge of Manchu. douard Chavannes succeeded to the position after the death of Marquis d'Hervey-Saint-Denys in 1893. Chavannes pursued broad interests in history as well as language.[7]
The image of China as an essentially Confucian society conveyed by Jesuit scholars dominated Western thought in these times. While some in Europe learned to speak Chinese, most studied written classical Chinese. These scholars were in what is called the "commentarial tradition" through critical annotated translation. This emphasis on translating classical texts inhibited the use of social science methodology or comparing these texts of other traditions. One scholar described this type of sinology as "philological hairsplitting" preoccupied with marginal or curious aspects.[8] Secular scholars gradually came to outnumber missionaries, and in the 20th century sinology slowly gained a substantial presence in Western universities.
The Paris-based type of sinology dominated learning about China until the Second World War even outside France. Paul Pelliot, Henri Maspero, and Marcel Granet both published basic studies and trained students. Pelliot's knowledge of the relevant languages, especially those of Central Asia, and control of bibliography in those languages, gave him the power to write on a range of topics and to criticize in damning detail the mistakes of other scholars. Maspero expanded the scope of sinology from Confucianism to include Daoism, Buddhism, and popular religion, as well as art, mythology, and the history of science. The contribution of Granet was to apply the concepts of Emile Durkheim, a pioneer sociologist, to the society of ancient China, especially the family and ritual.[9]
The Russian school of sinology was focused mainly on learning classical Chinese texts. For example, the contribution of the Russian sinologist Julian Shchutsky was especially valuable. The best full translation of the I Ching (Book of Changes) was made by him in 1937. Later his translation was translated in English and other European languages.
After the proclamation of the People's Republic of China in 1949, China studies developed along diverging lines. The rise of Area studies, the role of China watchers, and the growth of university graduate programs has changed the role of sinology.[10] Funding for Chinese and Taiwanese studies comes from a variety of sources; one prominent source is the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation.[11]
The Area studies approach, especially in the United States, challenged the dominance of classical sinology. Scholars such as John King Fairbank promoted the "study of China within a discipline," an approach which downplayed the role of philological sinology and focused on issues in history and the social sciences.[10]
One of the earliest American scholars of Cold War China and Sino-American relations was Chinese-American Tang Tsou of the University of Chicago. Tsou emphasized the importance of academic objectivity in general and in sinology in particular, stressing that intellectual and academic exchange between China and the West was the only way for both parties to come to a greater understanding of one another.[12]
In 1964 an exchange in the pages of the Journal of Asian Studies debated the continued relevance of sinology. The anthropologist G. William Skinner called for the social sciences to make more use of China, but wrote "In recent years the cry has gone up: Sinology is dead; long live Chinese studies!" and concluded that "Sinology, a discipline unto itself, is being replaced by Chinese studies, a multidisciplinary endeavour with specific research objectives."[13] Joseph Levenson, a historian, went further. He doubted that sinology was a tool that social scientists would still find useful,[14] while another historian, Benjamin I. Schwartz, on the other hand, replied that the disciplines were too often treated as ends in themselves.[15] Sinology had its backers. Frederick W. Mote, a specialist in traditional China, replying to Skinner, spoke up for sinology, which he saw as a field or discipline in itself.[16] Another specialist in traditional China, Denis Twitchett, in reply to the back and forth of this debate, issued what he called "A Lone Cheer for Sinology". He did not accept the assumption that there is "some implicit hostility between 'Sinology' and the disciplines of history and social sciences." Sinology, he continued, is used in too a wide range of meanings to be so confined:
c80f0f1006