As many already know, Jonathan Spence, perhaps the best known historian of China in Europe and North America, will be giving a series of radio lectures for the BBC 4. The talks, on the subject of “Chinese Vistas,” will be made available online as podcasts after they air.
Say what you want about Professor Spence, and much has been said, I kind of admire the guy. Spence is to Chinese history what Stephen Ambrose was to Americanists or Simon Schama is to historians of Great Britain; they might not have the research or theoretical chops boasted by others in their fields, but their ability to write about history has given them a wide audience even as critics within the history establishment (and to be fair, there’s the whiff of sour grapes about all of this) complain about “selling out” and call attention to real or imagined theoretical, narrative, critical and (in the case of Ambrose) citational liberties.
Sure, Spence has his quirks. He’s written in the imperial first person (Emperor of China: Self-Portrait of Kangxi), used…err…speculation to recreate historical dialogue (The Question of Hu) and written about a 19th-century rebellion entirely in the present tense (God’s Chinese Son). But he’s also managed to get contemporary American readers interested in the history of China in a way that others could do but haven’t and…not coincidentally…done quite well for himself in the process.
I once went to a talk given by Professor Spence several years ago. It was a nice enough chat, but it was clear during the question and answer session that several grad students in the audience had attended purely to make their bones, asking pointed questions and whispering snarky asides, not so much to illuminate the topic but rather to slot themselves in on some kind of ‘research purity’ ladder at a rung higher than, so they felt, that of the guest speaker. It was sad, really–all this talk about research purity and academia–like 14-year old girls at a slumber party wondering how far they could go with Tommy the quarterback and still think of themselves as ‘technical virgins.’
Spence is what he is. He’s a brilliant writer, a master storyteller, a good communicator of ideas, and, frankly, a good communicator/synthesizer of other people’s ideas as well. I’ve listened to the first installment of the lecture series and you’re getting what you might in one his books, notably from his oft-assigned survey In Search of Modern China: macro perspectives interpolated with interesting examples, asides, and anecdotes. Overall, it’s a good lecture, well worth downloading. Though the Q&A session went off the rails a bit, I liked Professor Spence’s portion and I’m looking forward to future podcasts. I’ll try to write a more review after the whole series has aired. Watch this space.
And yes, I’ve met the man, and the resemblance to Sean Connery is startling.
————————–
Be sure to also check out Jeffrey Wasserstrom’s take on the Spence lectures over at The China Beat.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Adam Minter // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I don’t know about you, but I’m eagerly waiting for one of those snarky grad students to write the readable popular biography of Matteo Ricci that will replace Spence’s ‘Memory Palace.’ I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been asked to recommend a popular Ricci biography and - like it or not (and I like it - alot) - ‘Memory Palace’ is the only one out there.
It’s always a bit troubling to me when academics see fit to snipe at peers who have taken esoterica and translated it into a form that interests and even excites the popular imagination. Nothing against those who write historical monographs, but I dare say that effective popularization is an equal - if not higher - skill.
Anyway, thanks for the tip on the BBC broadcasts. I’m looking forward to listening.
2 Sam G // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hear hear, and I would add that much of his work is also deeply compassionate — I’m especially thinking of “The Gate of Heavenly Peace” and, to an extent, “To Change China” — a welcome departure from mainstream histories of China in English that often display a certain arrogance of knowledge.
3 Jeremiah // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:47 am
Adam & Sam,
I agree. I don’t know why academic rigor and the ability to write for a larger audience have to be in mutual opposition…that’s not to say that blending the two will ever be easy, but it’s a worthy goal for which all historians ought to strive.
4 peony // Jun 10, 2008 at 9:17 am
I am also a fan of Spence and just listened to the lecture (which I found actually not all that interesting or exciting, but…). Mary Beard (at a Don’s Life) had written on her blog about how silly the questions Spence had to deal with were; “Why,” she asked,”Couldn’t he just say, What a stupid question?” Intrigued I listened till the end, but didn’t have much an opinion about the questions either…(!)
I’ve often wondered, though, in philosophy, of course, there are two traditions: the analystic and the continental– whereby it remains difficult to study Continental philosophy in the US. I have always found history being done quite differently in Europe (and Japan) versus the American approach. I would put Spence in the former (though he teaches in the later)– which could account for the complains as the man is perhaps working under a different practice.
On that note, so many of the best history books have been written by French and Japanese scholars– Japan has a very firmly established narrative history genre. Itunes has made available Dreyfus’ Heidegger lectures from Berekeley which I am re-listening to after a long time. They remain highly recommended. Anything as good in history?
A rambling comment, but there you have it.
5 Gomer Pyle // Jun 11, 2008 at 12:32 am
Reminds one some what of the response of the grad students (purely to make their bones) asking pointed questions and whispering snarky asides, not so much to illuminate the topic but rather to slot themselves in on some kind of ‘research purity’ ladder at a rung higher than, so they felt, that of Jung Chang, when Mao the Unknown Story was published. It was sad, really–all that talk about research purity.
6 Shu Jierui // Jun 11, 2008 at 9:58 am
J, have you had a chance to read Spence’s latest book? I started it a awhile back but still haven’t gotten around to finishing it. I’m not sure about his standing as a historian, but I have heard that his classes are great.
7 Jeremiah // Jun 12, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Peony,
Well there is an ongoing debate about the value of ‘narrative’ and ‘analytical’ history. I would argue a great deal of analysis goes into constructing a good narrative, so I’m not sure they are as in opposition to each other as other academics might suggest. Nevertheless, it is true that narrative histories generally do better with a mass audience.
8 Jeremiah // Jun 12, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Shu Jierui,
I haven’t yet, but that’s only because I haven’t gotten my hands on one here in Beijing yet. I’m sure there’s a few floating around, and I look forward to putting it on my summer reading list.
9 Jeff // Jun 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I totally agree, and listening to Spence’s responses on the broadcast you can tell he’s incredibly sharp and can immediately get to the crux of the problem without hiding behind fancy terminology and academic speak. Now if only we had someone like him on the literature side…
Leave a Comment