A provocative defense of a forgotten Chinese approach to identity and difference
Historically, the Western encounter with difference has been catastrophic: the extermination and displacement of aboriginal populations, the transatlantic slave trade, and colonialism. China, however, took a different historical path. In Chinese Cosmopolitanism, Shuchen Xiang argues that the Chinese cultural tradition was, from its formative beginnings and throughout its imperial history, a cosmopolitan melting pot that synthesized the different cultures that came into its orbit. Unlike the West, which cast its collisions with different cultures in Manichean terms of the ontologically irreconcilable difference between civilization and barbarism, China was a dynamic identity created out of difference. The reasons for this, Xiang argues, are philosophical: Chinese philosophy has the conceptual resources for providing alternative ways to understand pluralism.
Xiang explains that “Chinese” identity is not what the West understands as a racial identity; it is not a group of people related by common descent or heredity but rather a hybrid of coalescing cultures. To use the Western discourse of race to frame the Chinese view of non-Chinese, she argues, is a category error. Xiang shows that China was both internally cosmopolitan, embracing distinct peoples into a common identity, and externally cosmopolitan, having knowledge of faraway lands without an ideological need to subjugate them. Contrasting the Chinese understanding of efficacy―described as “harmony”―with the Western understanding of order, she argues that the Chinese sought to gain influence over others by having them spontaneously accept the virtue of one’s position. These ideas from Chinese philosophy, she contends, offer a new way to understand today’s multipolar world and can make a valuable contribution to contemporary discussions in the critical philosophy of race.
8 有用 林三土 2024-07-30 17:34:40 上海
批判西方殖民主义我举双手赞成,但是如果不同时将这种批判性反求诸己,最后只会造就沾沾自喜的皇汉主义。糟糕的是作者不但缺少方法论层面的自觉,而且也明显缺少充分理解古代中国政治文化流变所必备的文史功底,最终只能在寥寥几部通识课必读的先秦典籍中选择性地摘引一二文句,装点自己对中国文化的本质主义解读。这类书倘若出版于辜鸿铭的时代倒还说得过去,放到如今就让人尴尬得抠脚趾头,尽管确实颇能蹭上近年英文世界“学术反... 批判西方殖民主义我举双手赞成,但是如果不同时将这种批判性反求诸己,最后只会造就沾沾自喜的皇汉主义。糟糕的是作者不但缺少方法论层面的自觉,而且也明显缺少充分理解古代中国政治文化流变所必备的文史功底,最终只能在寥寥几部通识课必读的先秦典籍中选择性地摘引一二文句,装点自己对中国文化的本质主义解读。这类书倘若出版于辜鸿铭的时代倒还说得过去,放到如今就让人尴尬得抠脚趾头,尽管确实颇能蹭上近年英文世界“学术反殖”的风口忽悠一些不明就里的外国人。 (展开)
0 有用 山貨店中鳥 2024-06-20 05:49:20 美国
毫不掩飾立場:中國傳統哲學是世界的remedy (placebo to me)(那麼中國是什麼不用明說了吧?)並將此書題贈給the wretched of the world. 簡直像是放槍:甚至所有的古文原文都是簡體字。作者行文頗有德國哲學和建築系出身的縱橫膽氣,我以後也想成為這麼寫作的人。