Organizer: James St. Andre, University of Chicago
Chair and Discussant: Mary C. Brinton, Cornell University
Discussant: Tamara Hamlish, Beloit College
Each paper on this panel focuses on how a particular discipline interacts with Asian Studies. They are tied together in that the theoretical foundations of each discipline deal with Asia in a remarkably similar way. Constituted on Western primary material, theoretical models in each field assume universal application based on a subset of world civilizations. Other cultures are thus approached as similar to, or aberrations of these established models, which all too often are not questioned.
What does it mean, then, to be a political scientist who specializes in China, a sociologist who "does Japan," or a literary critic who studies Chinese fiction in America? What does Asian offer to these disciplines, and what in turn does it receive? These are the sorts of questions we wish to explore in this panel.
Since we do not pretend to have all the answers, the panel is structured to encourage dialogue, and presenters will limit themselves to a ten-minute summary of their papers. We will have two discussants, one from sociology and one from anthropology, to bring two different perspectives to bear on the papers and encourage the audience to participate. We hope that the discussion will center around ways in which Asian Studies and other disciplines might be enhanced.
Toward a Universal Sociology
Elizabeth McSweeney, Yale University
Although sociology claims a certain universality, the discipline originated in Europe, and sociology in the United States has developed within this European tradition. As the discipline has spread, it has become self-evident that sociology is firmly rooted in its Western tradition, only including other parts of the world after 1945. The very trajectory of this inclusion has influenced how non-Western countries, in particular their institutions, have been perceived and also how sociological theories have developed.
Because sociology has "included" non-Western examples, investigations were initiated for their comparative significance; thus non-Western examples have been utilized as a contrast to established theories. In the post-war era, sociological studies of non-Western countries took on new meaning within the international context of the Cold War, particularly concerning Japan. The study of Japan thus developed with a new objective; to understand how its institutions differed in order that more modern, i.e. Western, institutions might be formed. Japan’s unprecedented economic growth and current fiscal crisis have led to shifts in studies of Japan, spurred first by a desire to understand the institutional causes for the economic miracle and currently, the economic problems.
In each case, Japanese institutions are analyzed, implicitly or explicitly, within Western institutional theories. And while studies of Japan have incorporated Western theories, these theories have yet to incorporate knowledge of Japan at a fundamental level. Following the field of organizational sociology, this paper will explore particular developments where Japanese normative structures could contribute to a truly universal sociology.
Beyond Battlelines: American Political Science and China
Stephen Herschler, University of Chicago
Rogers Smith recently remarked that the two core values of political science in the United States are democracy and science. Both disciplinary tenets put scholars of Chinese politics in a difficult position. American emphasis on democracy often limits analysis of contemporary China to examining either the forces fostering or impeding democracy, or else the challenge posed to the international community and democracy by a communist world power. Recent American notions of (social) science are antagonistic towards single country studies, particularly those drawing upon ‘soft variables’ such as culture. Yet those steeped in an Asian country often find that what powers politics is neither transparent nor readily translated to an Anglo-Saxon intellectual tradition. This tension is part of a current professional debate in political science, sides and battlelines formulated in disciplinary newsletters under such banners as ‘political science versus area studies’ and ‘rational choice versus political culture.’
My paper analyzes the assumptions underlying these debates, placing them within the context of disciplinary trends of the past 40 years. In addition to laying out the current problematic, I proffer some general suggestions to alleviate the current schism, including, on the one hand, redefining Anglo-American notions of the goal and substance of science and, on the other, eradicating assertions of ‘Chinese exceptionalism’ which stultify theory. I then present examples of recent China scholarship that I think contribute to American political science by expanding and/or revising Western analytic frameworks rather than subsuming China under these frameworks.
Apples and Lichees: Comparative Literature and East Asian Studies
James St. Andre, University of Chicago
Comparative literature is not a discipline in the same sense as sociology or political science. Seeking connections between literatures written in different languages, in reaction to the boxing-in of national literature departments, it is defined more by what it is not than what it is. Comparative literature has thus long suffered from a lack of coherence; it is a discipline constantly in crisis. It would seem, then, that this "discipline" would be one of the most open to including material from non-Western traditions.
In practice, however, comparative literature limits itself to the "Great Western Tradition" in all but a handful of cases, claiming that only the coherence of Western history and culture justifies making comparisons across cultures. Obviously, in this scenario there is no room for examining literature from non-Western traditions. Moreover, on a theoretical level, most of the influential work in literary studies is based on cases in European literature, yet claims of universal application are often implicitly or explicitly staked out. Graduate students who wish to study other literary traditions are expected to "apply" Western theory to other texts, when such research is encouraged at all.
To date, the benefits from any interaction between the two disciplines have been mainly to East Asian studies, where the theoretical training of several literary critics, including Stephen Owen, David Wang, and Lydia Liu has enriched the field. Unfortunately, comparative literature seems not to have benefited from East Asian studies as it might, for example, through challenges which East Asian literature and critical thought pose to Western critical models.