The Development of Contemporary China Studies by Lucien Bianco; Brian Hook; Kuan Hsin-chi; Gilbert Rozman; Tony Saich; Tanaka Kyoko; Jonathan Unger; Ezra F. VogelReview by: David ShambaughThe China Quarterly, No. 143 (Sep., 1995), pp. 915-917Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/655038 .

Accessed: 09/12/2014 19:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The China Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:44:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews 915

always supplied, most people nowadays will probably find a list without individual e-mail addresses rather incomplete.

The historical sketches included describe the evolution of Chinese studies in Scandinavia from their origins in the East India trade to the more humdrum academic realities of today, from the philological and phonological research of Bernhard Karlgren to the more varied research interests of contemporary China specialists. The central role played by Karlgren and his students in the development of not only Swedish but also Danish and Norwegian sinology is made very clear. However, since research in the Nordic countries has by now moved on to topics quite far removed from those of the preceding generations, it would, in the opinion of this reviewer, have enhanced the usefulness of these sketches if they had concentrated more on describing the present state of the field. The intended audience would probably have been better served by in-depth presentations and/or critical assessments of the present research activities of the various institutions surveyed, than by long and in one instance self-serving sections in praise of scholars long dead or no longer engaged in active research.

In spite of the above reservations, and the unevenness and non-uniformity of the different contributions - all minor blemishes that must be expected in a newsletter-type publication of this kind - Chinese Studies in the Nordic Countries is a useful reference tool, that it may be hoped will be followed by surveys covering other parts of Europe.

HAKAN FRIBERG

The Development of Contemporary China Studies. By LUCIEN BIANCO, BRIAN HOOK, KUAN HSIN-CHI, GILBERT ROZMAN, TONY SAICH, TANAKA KYOKO, JONATHAN UNGER and EZRA F. VOGEL. [Tokyo: The Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies for Unesco/The Toyo Bunko, 1994. 195 pp.]

This compact volume contains some perceptive and informative essays about the state and evolution of contemporary (post-1949) China studies in the most important countries where the field has flourished. Originally commissioned and presented at a 1993 conference to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Universities Service Centre in Hong Kong, the papers have been reprinted in this single volume from the new Japanese English-language journal Asian Research Trends: A Humanities and Social Science Review. They are essential reading for anyone interested in how the China field has developed internationally and where it is heading, and are reminders that while the field is dominated by scholarship in the United States, active sinological communities exist elsewhere.

However, although scholars are involved in a common enterprise and studying the same country, one is struck by the differences and divergencies of approach and interests across national boundaries. It appears that respective national academic traditions have more effect on

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:44:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

916 The China Quarterly

shaping the field than the evolution of either China or predominant paradigms filtering through the profession. These essays are healthy reminders that despite the globalization of Chinese studies, international conferences, e-mail and the information age, there remain national boundaries, language differences, academic traditions and domestic politics in various countries which all serve to divide the field.

The contributions cover contemporary China studies in Japan (Tanaka Kyoko), northern Europe (Tony Saich), France (Lucien Bianco), the late-Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia (Gilbert Rozman), Great Britain (Brian Hook), and the United States (Ezra Vogel). Kuan Hsin-chi, director of the Universities Service Centre, contributes an introduction, while Jonathan Unger contributes an essay of his impressions of the field as seen from the editorial chair at the Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs (now The China Journal). Each contains specific data about individuals, funding, publications, areas of research interest, preferred methodologies, library holdings and useful bibliographies.

Several note the impact - positive and negative - that domestic politics and political pressures have had on the field. The Cultural Revolution in China combined with the Vietnam War to split the field in the United States, France and Japan (and although Brian Hook does not mention it such was also the case in Britain), while the exigencies of the Sino-Soviet split and the early Cold War profoundly affected the careers and objectivity of scholarship in the Soviet Union and United States respectively. On the other hand, the Cold War served as a great impetus to the growth of China area studies in the United States, as well as institutions such as the Universities Service Centre and The China Quarterly. The contributions by Hook, Vogel, Bianco and Saich all reveal how the China field grew as a result of sustained government and foundation funding. In Britain however, as Brian Hook's contribution details, domestic economic preferences of the Thatcher-Major era has nearly destroyed the field and driven many of the UK's finest sinologists overseas. Times are similarly tough in Russia and there are signs of contraction in the United States and France as well.

But in sum, the contributing authors reveal a field that is, on balance, intellectually alive and invigorated by the research opportunities available in China. Collectively they are proof positive that the field of contemporary China studies is now truly a global enterprise. The task is to do better in bridging national barriers, sharing data and perspectives, and collaborating in joint research projects. Initiatives such as the British Economic & Social Research Council's "Pacific-Asia Programme," the European Union's "China 2000 Network," the U.S.-Japan "Dialogue on China" and the UK-Japan "Contemporary China Dialogue" should help to break down such barriers, but much more needs to be done to bring together contemporary China specialists around the world. This is particularly the case with the United States - where the field is by far the most developed, but also perhaps the most insular. See, for example, Tony Saich's pithy observation (p. 122) that the faddish American application of the public sphere approach to China had more to do with

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:44:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews 917

the translation of Habermas' work into English in 1989 than the emergence of civil society in China.

DAVID SHAMBAUGH

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:44:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions