One new feature I’m trying to kick off here at The Granite Studio is an entirely biased and hugely subjective review of some of my favorite historians of China. These are the writers and scholars who influenced me when I began studying Chinese history and who continue to serve as inspirations as I continue my own career in the field.
Given my research interests, I’m starting with Paul Cohen. It was a footnote in his first book, China and Christianity: The Missionary Movement and the Growth of Chinese Anti-foreignism, 1860-1870 that was the original impetus for my dissertation, and I still re-read Professor Cohen’s seminal work on the subject about once every six months or so.
But of his many works, perhaps my favorite is a slim volume he published in 1984, not about Chinese history per se, but about the study of Chinese history in the American academy. To briefly and inadequately summarize, Discovering History in China: American Historical Writing on the Recent Chinese Past ambitiously breaks down the collective oeuvre of American academic writing on China since World War II into three distinct generations based on the predominant mode of analysis at the time: “China’s Response to the West” with the late, great John K. Fairbank being the most notable example; “Tradition and Modernity” best personified by the brilliant historian, Joseph Levenson; and “Imperialism” exemplified by James Peck and the contributors to the journal Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars.
In Discovering History in China, Professor Cohen finds fault with all three approaches, suggesting broadly that each generation, while in some ways building upon and also repudiating the work of their teachers, still fell into the same analytical traps. First, all three, according to Cohen, overstate the importance of the West in terms of its effects on Chinese history. Second, each generation, in their own ways, seems to suggest that either China cannot change without the West, or if it did, historians rely on a Western ‘yardstick’ for describing–and implicitly valuing–certain types of change over others.
In response, Cohen proposed a China-centered history, a paradigm that would become predominant in the American China history establishment throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and which–though increasingly challenged by a new generation of China scholars–remains highly influential today,
One wonders what a 25th anniversary edition of Cohen’s book might look like, one written from the perspective of 2009? Would the catfight between Joseph Esherick and James Hevia over post-modernism and the use of historical sources make the cut? What of the recent vogue for colonialist and post-colonialist theory? What about gender as a category for analysis? Are we moving away from an ‘area/period’ balkanization of history departments toward a discipline increasingly defined by topic/methodology? (That is to say: Do I share more in common with my colleague down the hall studying anti-foreign violence in 1870 Africa than I do with my office-mate researching Tang Dynasty poetry?)
I re-read Discovering History in China over the weekend, and I was as fascinated by Professor Cohen’s concluding remarks yesterday as I was when I first read the book over a decade ago. Here he is responding to the idea that American historians would face inherent limitations in writing a “China-centered” history. True to a point, says Professor Cohen, but such a statement ignores the limitations under which all historians–regardless of nationality or ethnicity–must labor:
“The fact is–not only Americans approaching Chinese history from without but also Chinese historians approaching it from within–are, in some sense, outsiders. All of us are to an extent prisoners of our environments, trapped in one or another set of parochial concerns. And the truth we retrieve is inevitably qualified by the intellectual and emotional preoccupations each of us, through our vocabulary and concepts, brings to bear on the study of the past.”
Cohen then continues, speaking broadly of history, “truth,” and historical inquiry:
“To to qualify a truth is not, however to nullify it. In the last analysis, all historical truth is qualified, in that it consists not in the whole truth about the past but in a limited set of factual statements, adequately supported by evidence, that constitute the answers to a particular question or set of questions that the historian has in mind. Historians with different concerns and preoccupations will naturally pose different questions. This is not a problem. The problem arises when historians are insufficiently aware of the assumptions buried inside their questions, with the consequence that “truth” is imposed upon the data of history instead of being derived from it and we end up with a picture of the past–of the kinds of historical change that are important–that is really defined too much by the historian’s innermost reality and too little by the reality of the people he or she is writing about. This is truly outside history. It can be written by Chinese as well as Americans. And it can never be avoided by the historian all together. But all of us, to the extent we are conscious of this problem and take it seriously, can find ways to moderate its impact.”
As I’ve written before, I reject both the exceptionalist argument that ethnicity or national identity ‘pre-qualifies’ a person’s ability to research or ‘understand’ a particular topic, just as I find abhorrent the lingering traces of Orientalism in western journalism, bloggers, and academics which suggests outside observers have a broader and more nuanced perspective on China on the basis of pick-your-false-justification: superior access to information, better education, more developed critical faculties. As Professor Cohen notes, we all labor under a common set of limitations in our search for answers, as well as limitations inherent to our own position and perspective. At the same time, we all bring to the table a set of abilities, ideas, questions, and points of view valuable to the communal spirit of intellectual inquiry.
In the end, isn’t that what it’s all about?
9 responses so far ↓
1 Jon // Jul 14, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Great post. I agree with pretty much everything you said. The real trick is trying to be aware of one’s own limitations or prejudices, and trying to overcome them.
2 NateT // Jul 15, 2008 at 1:31 am
As to your questions:
“[1]Are we moving away from an ‘area/period’ balkanization of history departments toward a discipline increasingly defined by topic/methodology?
[2](That is to say: Do I share more in common with my colleague down the hall studying anti-foreign violence in 1870 Africa than I do with my office-mate researching Tang Dynasty poetry?)”
1. One would hope so, but I just do not see this happening until History PhDs gain adequate background to offer a base understanding of a particular culture at a particular time, and I do not see this occuring, at least if my experience doing my coursework at the U. of Washington is any indication. Students outside Chinese studies, again in my experience, do not take graduate courses on China. For example, after I finished my graduate seminar on Early Modern China (all secondary sources, no Chinese required) with Kent Guy, I asked him how many students without a main field in an Asian field had taken the class. For all his years of teaching the total number was two or three.
In an unrelated note, remember PhDs still have to teach undergraduate seminars and classes. While a seminar on anti colonial violence might be interesting and perhaps get some undergrad attendees, a Geo/Time based class is much more self evident, and appeals to a broader range of students.
2. In interest yes, you have more in common with the guy down the hall. But the Tang poet has a better chance to actually understand the Chinese side of the topic even in the context of the Yao to Mao kind of general education most China scholars receive. In my experience, again, most people outside Chinese studies are not overly interested in Chinese topics and often treat such topics as a kind of exotica rather than something that has anything but passing relevance to them.
Perhaps the underlying question is this: Can you really understand Chinese topics without some understanding, even if imperfect, of the historical and cultural context in which they take place?
My answer is probably no.
3 J B // Jul 15, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Nice post, I agree the main problem is how to overcome one’s own prejudices.
Like Nate, however, I think you need some China-specific background to really understand what goes on in China, even if similar things occur elsewhere. But maybe there’s more room for studying similarities and contrasts between things like anti-foreign violence in various areas/
4 wu ming // Jul 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm
i found that cohen’s whole discussion, while perhaps one of the best study-for-comps book ever, ended up a bit blinkered in one sense: while he was trying so hard to work out how to do a china’ centered history, the whole scope of his problem seemed largely to be about how to deal with a modern-centered history, not history per se.
the whole “impact of the west” and the various responses/alternatives to it make no sense at all unless one is looking at the 19th and 20th centuries.
as to that final passage/question, i hope that eventually we see a concerted effort to translate chinese historical scholarship into english to match the project currently going on to translate english scholarship into chinese. (and please, will someone translate the japanese historians? please o please?). can’t have that insider/outsider synergy if the info’s flowing largely one direction.
finally, re. nateT’s point, i really think the field of history, be it research or (especially) teaching, would benefit a great deal were more grad students to be forced to dabble outside their comfort zones. there are huge parallels to be found/comparisons to be made, but noone can do it without some sense of grounding in areas outside their field. e.g. i’ve noticed that chinese historians tend to be painfully ignorant of south asian history, which makes for that awkward lecture on buddhism in the 3rd week of the survey course.
then again, this is a breadth-depth sort of dilemma. eventually, people have a limit of classes that they can take, hours in the day, etc.
5 Jeremiah // Jul 15, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“i hope that eventually we see a concerted effort to translate chinese historical scholarship into english to match the project currently going on to translate english scholarship into chinese.”
Wu Ming,
THAT is a subject for a whole other post I’m working on at the moment and I totally agree. How many Chinese historians of China were on your comps list? Had they all shown up for my orals, my list of Chinese Chinese historians could have fit in the back seat of a Xiali and that’s not a good thing.
I totally here you on the Japan thing. Amen, brother.
6 peony // Jul 16, 2008 at 7:03 am
I’m re-reading Spence’s Memory Palace right now and was just thinking, I wonder if Japanese historians are interested in this area of Western missionaries in China? Maybe?
In my own projects, I have 2 areas I am interested in related to Chinese history and read 95% in Japanese with the other 5% in english. The Japanese scholars do such an outstanding job– not just comprehensive and detailed studies but extraordinarily well-written as well. (Oh, if only our own scholars would try and write more like spence and Jeremiah!) So, I find that it is a better environment for me to read and think in–
NHK– of course– rivals the BBC in its aim to raise the educational standards of the general public– I think I read on the BBC site something about, “an aim to uplift”…
And, you just cannot help but think: “Didn’t the US use to have public TV?” The last PBS documentary I saw (on bamiyan) was so bad (done a la Hollywood), I wanted to turn it off.
In the two small areas of history I am particularly interested in, my impressions (related to J’s comment just above) have been 1) English language sources are surprsingly insular (Chinese/Japanese– even Europrean translations into English are few) and 2) the Japanese for their part are not only less insular but often times they work with NHK or even private TV to produce book-documentary pairs– so history seems more alive here– that is to say it is more accessible to the general public.
Finally, of course, the Japanese are really in love with narrative history and historical literature– both genres are huge here.
J., I enjoyed this post very much! How about a “Missionary of the week” series…like I said, I am re-reading Matteo Ricci …. Do you have this book, btw, Giuseppe Castiglione: A Jesuit Painter at the Court of the Chinese Emperors? (beurdeley)
PS also a personal impression, but I have not found the same to be so in English-language Chinese art history scholarship.
7 Jeremiah // Jul 16, 2008 at 9:44 am
Peony,
In fact there has been some work done by Japanese scholars on anti-missionary incidents in China, some of it I hope to be able to integrate into my own dissertation research…once my Japanese gets to where it needs to be. (It’s currently being sidetracked by my studying Manchu.)
I’ve read the Spence book, and we have a Chinese version somewhere around the house here. I haven’t read the Castiglione book, but I do love his paintings. Some of his artwork (or reproductions thereof) hang in the Forbidden City and I believe that he designed the western-style palace at Yuanmingyuan. Thanks for the suggestion.
8 J B // Jul 16, 2008 at 4:13 pm
This is a bit random, but is there much Korean scholarship into Chinese history as well? Much is made of the importance of Japanese scholarship, but the Koreans must have a similar interest in Chinese history.
9 Coming Distractions: Speaking to History // Sep 27, 2008 at 8:10 am
[...] Coming Distractions: Speaking to History Paul A. Cohen, professor of history emeritus at Wellesley College and also an associate at the Harvard Fairbank Center, has long been interested in not just what happened but also how historians tell the stories of the past. As one of the strongest advocates for China-centered historical work, Cohen has explored this tension between history and its telling in works that sometimes reveal unknown stories and sometimes confound the traditional tellings of well-known historical events. These earlier works include China Unbound: Evolving Perspectives on the Chinese Past, History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth, China and Christianity, and Discovering History in China. [...]
Leave a Comment