Area: Border Crossing and Inter-Area
Stream: Anthropology
Presentation Type: Panel Presentation
Panelists:
Jinba Danzeng, National University of Singapore, Singapore (organizer, presenter)
Shuli Huang, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (presenter)
Junpeng Li, Central China Normal University, China (presenter)
Chengpang Lee, National University of Singapore, Singapore (presenter)
Ying Chen, National University of Singapore, Singapore (presenter)
Dingxin Zhao, The University of Chicago (and Zhejiang University), United States (chair)
Eiji Oguma, Keio University, Japan (discussant)
Abstract:
This panel examines the outcome of academic indigenization in Asia since the early 20th Century and its pitfalls and promises. In so doing, the panel makes a critical assessment of Asian academia’s association with academic dependency through history, including its current status quo of knowledge production. To advance this agenda, we adopt a historical-comparative approach, namely an inter-Asian perspective and longitudinal lens to juxtapose this movement’s divergent trajectories and repercussions in East Asia and Southeast Asia.
Four papers contribute to this agenda from different angles. The first two problematize indigenization in China. While Huang Shuli examines a growing unease about the “mutual dependency” of Chinese ethnologists and Western anthropologists and their subsequent “mutual competition” since the late 1980s, Junpeng Li proposes going beyond the debate about indigenization proper to foreground the underlying structure of China’s intellectual field instead. The other two papers further this inquiry in a broader context. Chengpang Lee and Ying Chen develop a measurement index to appraise academic dependency in various sociology departments in Asia. Jinba Tenzin subsequently brings our attention to both the accomplishment and obstacles in the decolonizing and indigenizing process in Asia and beyond through a comparison of the indigenizing undertaking of two generations of sociologists/anthropologists in China and Southeast Asia.
Noteworthy, our panelists and discussants are carefully selected to represent regional and research diversity and advance our dialogue on academic autonomy and knowledge production in Asia at its crossroads through building a research network across Asia and throughout the world.
Panel Abstracts:
Minzuology: The Awkward Relationship between Chinese Ethnology and Western Anthropology in Post-revolutionary China
The term “minzuology” is being promoted as a new translation of the disciplinary name for ethnic minority studies in China, formerly known as Chinese Ethnology or Ethnic Studies in China. Its emergence shows a refusal to accept the conventional terms of translation, and invites further discussion on the intellectual significance and scope of knowledge that is necessary to make minzuology a unique discipline. The desire to give a distinctly Chinese academic approach to ethnic studies in China a global presence reveals the awkward relationship between Chinese ethnologists and Western anthropologists. This paper identifies the awkwardness of incommensurable approaches toward producing ethnographic knowledge, and regards it as reflecting a growing unease since the late 1980s about the “mutual dependency” of Chinese ethnologists and Western anthropologists. Two modes of knowledge production will be considered: one is the “experimental mode”, drawing from George Marcus and Michael Fisher’s (1987) work, referring to the production of ethnographic knowledge as cultural critiques; another is the “collaborative mode”, drawing from Luke Lassiter’s (2005) work, referring to such production as a collective social and cultural project. Paying special attention to the rise of ethnic minority study as a discipline in Southwest China since the 1980s, this paper argues that the “mutual dependency” between Chinese ethnologists and Western anthropologists contributed to the institutional development of ethnic studies in southwest China; however, due to their ideological incommensurability, the field has gradually developed an atmosphere of “mutual competition” as concerns rise regarding the power of discourse.
Many Indigenizations of Sociology in China
Chinese sociologists have had heated debates about indigenization (本土化) in recent years. The call for an indigenized sociology, however, is not new. Nearly a century ago, in the republican era, prominent Chinese sociologists explicitly launched such an advocate. This article argues that indigenization has referred to different things for different sociologists, and therefore there are many types of indigenization. Using an institutional framework and Bourdieu’s field theory, this article analyzes how Chinese sociologists with different types of cultural capital have used indigenization to seize symbolic power in the intellectual field. To understand the debate about indigenization, we have to go beyond the arguments themselves and investigate the structure of China’s intellectual field.
Embedding or Escaping: A Comparative Study on the Development of Sociology in East Asia
In this paper, we advance the existing literature of academic dependence by presenting a comparative study on the sociology departments of 6 Asian societies—Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, China, and Singapore. We develop a measurement index based on the criterion of 7 levels of academic dependence proposed by Alatas (2003). We select the top sociology departments in these 6 countries and examine the pattern of publications, faculty composition and research topics. The publication patterns are collected from the CVs and the personal profile. The faculty composition and the research topics are collected from each department websites. In total, we examine 20 departments and more than 150 sociology faculty from these 6 cases. Our research contributes to two lines of academic interests: First, we fulfill the gap of existing studies on the Asian countries where economic development exceeds societies in other regions. Second, we highlight the complicated relationship between the global ranking institution, the autonomy of local academic communities, and the academic dependence.
Embedding or Escaping: A Comparative Study on the Development of Sociology in East Asia (co-authored by Chengpang Lee & Ying Chen)
(Chengpang Lee & Ying Chen as co-presenters)In this paper, we advance the existing literature of academic dependence by presenting a comparative study on the sociology departments of 6 Asian societies—Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, China, and Singapore. We develop a measurement index based on the criterion of 7 levels of academic dependence proposed by Alatas (2003). We select the top sociology departments in these 6 countries and examine the pattern of publications, faculty composition and research topics. The publication patterns are collected from the CVs and the personal profile. The faculty composition and the research topics are collected from each department websites. In total, we examine 20 departments and more than 150 sociology faculty from these 6 cases. Our research contributes to two lines of academic interests: First, we fulfill the gap of existing studies on the Asian countries where economic development exceeds societies in other regions. Second, we highlight the complicated relationship between the global ranking institution, the autonomy of local academic communities, and the academic dependence.
Rethinking the Rise of Native Anthropology and Sociology in Asia and Beyond
This presentation examines the historical trajectories of the evolving native anthropology/sociology in China and Southeast Asia in the post-WWII era, especially since the 1970s, in order to gain a nuanced perspective about the initiative to decolonize social sciences and build academic autonomy in Asia and beyond. In so doing, I compare the undertaking of two generations of sociologists/anthropologists in these two regions. Among the established first-generation native scholars are (a) Syed Hussein Alatas (1928–2007), a sociologist based in Singapore and Malaysia, who developed such notions as lazy natives and captive mind to critically evaluate colonial legacy in Southeast Asia, (b) Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005), an anthropologist/sociologist in China, who played a crucial role in developing the Chinese phrase of anthropology/sociology. In following in their footsteps, two of the new (second) generation of native anthropologists/sociologists stand out for their accomplishment, namely, (c) Syed Farid Alatas (1961-), a sociologist at the National University of Singapore, who advances such notions as intellectual imperialism and academic dependency, and (d) Wang Mingming (1962-), an anthropologist at the Peking University, who forwards the Chinese phase of anthropology through advocating the re-historicization of anthropology and a cross-cultural “third-eye perspective.” I argue that despite their achievement the decolonizing and indigenizing process in Asia and beyond is still full of uncertainties and challenges. In foregrounding these challenges, this study problematizes the notion of native and hence the rise of native anthropology/sociology against a backdrop of the rising Asia and the transforming world system
This panel is on Monday - Session 01 - Room 2
Go to Room 2