Who Is Engaged in the “Complicity with Power”? On the Difficulties Sinology Has with Dissent and Transcendence

In Nahum Brown & William Franke, Transcendence, Immanence, and Intercultural Philosophy. Cham: Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 283–317 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Sinology has been reproached for showing more understanding for the Chinese government than for the plight of Chinese dissidents. As a matter of fact, although there is no unanimous position, sinologists have directly or indirectly justified the authoritarian rule of the People’s Republic in the name of Chinese culture. This attitude seems to be rooted primarily in a specific view of Chinese culture rather than in mere opportunism related to the necessity of cooperating with Chinese institutions. According to this view, dissent is foreign to the Chinese value system, and political stability and harmony rather than participation in a democratic culture of debate (Streitkultur) is a shared common concern. This alleged Chinese characteristic is, among other things, attributed to the absence of the idea of transcendence. This article criticizes the respective arguments as clinging to a traditional one-dimensional Western view of China and, in some cases, to antimodern sentiments.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-11-11

Downloads
118 (#98,245)

6 months
118 (#47,635)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?