Xiaozhuo Wang; Liexu Cai; Dr Johannes Lotze
Xiaozhuo Wang
University of Edinburgh, Year 4 DPhil candidate in Japanese Studies
Confucians’ Culturalism after the Ming-Qing Transition: Taking the examples of Huang Zongxi and Zhu Shunshui
After the Ming-Qing transition, due to the conflicts between Manchus and the Han people, the identities of Chinese and ‘barbarians’ were valued and emphasised by many Han scholars. However, as ‘barbarians’ started to recognise and accept ‘Chinese’ culture, many Han scholars gradually accepted the ‘barbarians’ and even considered ‘barbarians’ who had accepted ‘Chinese’ culture to be more like ‘Chinese’ than ‘Chinese’. Huang Zongxi’s 黄宗羲acceptance of Manchu rulers and Zhu Shunshui’s 朱舜水acceptance of Mito 水戸scholars both reflected this kind of ideological orientation: they paid more attention to cultural identity than political one. The underlying reason of this orientation was related to Confucian scholars’ “Culturalism”. “Culturalism” claims cultural interests to be prior to political interests. This research will talk about Confucian scholars’ “Culturalism” after the Ming-Qing transition, taking Huang Zongxi and Zhu Shunshui as examples.
Key words: Culturalism, Zhu Shunshui, Huang Zongxi
Liexu Cai
University of Glasgow, Year 2 PhD in Education
Confucius Institute as an intercultural encounter in Western countries in the “post-multicultural” age
The rapid development of the Chinese economy has propelled Chinese cultural expansion around the world in the last decade. The most significant milestone of cultural promotion is the establishment of the Confucius Institute overseas by Hanban (OCLCI) of Ministry of Education in 2004, which is mainly responsible for Chinese language teaching and cultural exchange activities. To date, there are 519 Confucius Institutes on five continents, of which most are in Europe and America (173 and 161 respectively). Such perceived success not only evokes waves of Chinese language and cultural studies, but also reveals some internal impediments on themselves and external pressures and criticisms from the western societies. At the macro level, this study aims to present multiple voices and reactions towards Confucius Institutes, such as the debates of soft power and academic freedom. In particular, it will stress describing and analysing the various voices from some Western countries by using Charles Taylor’s framework of “recognition of differences” on multiculturalism, particularly in Britain and America. At the micro level, several typical cultural activities in Confucius Institutes are scrutinised for understanding the process of cultural engagement from both organisers and activity participants. In this presentation, I will propose a new form of two-dimensional intercultural dialogue for fulfilling the goal of “recognition of differences”, especially in the “post-multicultural” age.
Dr Johannes Lotze
Teaching Assistant (History, Chinese Studies),School of Arts, Languages and Cultures,University of Manchester,
Multilingual Empires:
Continuity and Change in Late Imperial Chinese Language Policies
This paper approaches the topic ‘Hetero/Homogeneous China’ through the role of language(s) in historical Chinese societies, focusing on the Ming 明 dynasty (1368-1644) while embedding its analysis in a bigger picture of the middle and late imperial period. While the concept of ‘language policy’ is almost completely absent in modern historiography of the Ming, this paper argues that it was vital to early Ming rulers and their claim to maintain the heritage of the Mongols whom they had just overthrown. Defining ‘language policy’ as de facto practices in contrast to de jure codes, the paper analyses specific decisions of early Ming administrations: (1) to found, in 1407, a Bureau of Translators (Siyi guan四夷館); (2) to study particular languages in the Bureau and to omit others (status planning); (3) to produce edicts, artworks, and inscriptions that addressed multilingual audiences inside and outside the empire. At this juncture, the temporal focus will be widened. How do the Ming’s politics of language compare to earlier and later regimes? Specifically, what did the Ming inherit from the Mongol-led Yuan 元 (1271-1368) as regards attitudes to multilingualism and corresponding institutions? And what was handed down to the Manchu-led Qing 清 (1644-1912)? For example, Yuan, Ming, and Qing rulers all used polyglot signs as symbols of their universal imperial claims. Does that mean, however, that they were identical triplets? Or were motivations behind similar policies actually quite different?