Sino-Japanese Relations of a Sort
Joshua A. Fogel, The Cultural Dimension of Sino-Japanese Relations: Essays on the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Armonk, N.Y: M. E. Sharpe, 1995).
A collection of eight interestingly themed essays; I had serious problems with some procedural issues, which quite honestly impacted my ability to get something out of some of the essays. I also think parts that could've been clearer were terribly muddled or made needlessly complicated, so that the actual point was obfuscated.
Overall a mixed book. An interesting look at many aspects of Sino-Japanese relations, but lacks an overarching cohesiveness which I found irritating - a little editing would've taken care of some of that. Addition of a glossary would've been extremely helpful, as would clearly explanations of the people he was talking about.
Fogel tackles some diverse topics:
- The circular nature of Chinese and Japanese cultural relations via the 'rediscovery' of Cai Shu and others like him (where the 'rediscovery' of an ignored author actually took place first in Japan). Some interesting concepts; also asks us to question ourselves when studying Chinese history:
We have seen how the revival project in the hands of Hu Shi and his colleagues virtually provided us with our present curriculum for the study of modern Chinese intellectual history. One would like to know why, for example, the cluster of eighteenth-century figures we read about is always the same. Why do we always talk about Zhang Xuecheng and Dai Zhen ..., who was also popular with the HuShi group, and not Qian Daxin ..., Zhao Yi ..., Zhu Yun ..., Shao Jinhan ..., or Wang Mingsheng ...? Largely responsible for this, I believe, is the work of Liang Qichao (and Kang Youwei before him), Hu Shi, the early Gu Jiegang, Qian Mu, William Hung, and a handful of other towering intellects who in the late Qing and early Republican eras did an enormous service to our field in bringing into popular focus a number of men largely forgotten or ignored by earlier generations of Chinese. As scholars, However, it is our responsibility not merely to accept this legacy, but to examine it vigorously and criticize its flaws. (19-20)
- A review of a 1983 Japanese publication called Studies on the Relationshi Between the Literati Class and Local Society in China. I had real problems with this chapter - which is a walkthrough of the book. My pre-modern Chinese history is really shaky prior to the Ming, and really really shaky prior to the Tang. Much of this book apparently concerns itself with much, much earlier dynasties, so that was problematic - MORE problematic was Fogel's constant use of pinyin with no glossary. If I didn't know Chinese, this wouldn't have bothered me - but I do know Chinese, and being shaky on pre-modern history, I'm not super familiar with the typical terms of that field. It was a real headache and giant impediment - I used even less pinyin in a forty page paper and was still admonished to append a glossary for the sanity of my readers. I was pretty sure I knew which shi was in shidafu, but not positive. I shouldn't have to run up to my dictionary to check.
- An essay on the Marxist debates over the concept of an 'Asiatic mode of production' in China, Japan, and the USSR. Solid essay.
- The issue of the use of Shina as a toponym for China (by the Japanese). Really, really interesting, but muddled in spots which really impacted the ability to get a positive sense of precisely what Fogel was talking about. I'm really interested in things like this, so would've liked to read more - and more clearly.
- The issue of Japanese travelers in China in the v. late Tokugawa/early Meiji. Very successful essay on (physical) contacts between Chinese and Japanese travelers.
- Early 20th century Confucian pilgrimage to China. Perhaps because I do love Lu Xun so, I was a little shocked by the harsh statement that follows:
Despite his insistence that Japan play a role, even if only as a model, and despite his negative remarks about the general state of hygiene there, Naitō [Konan] retained an inordinate respect for China and the Chinese, as witnessed by a number of sketches appended to his trip report. In part, this was because of a frozen image of "China," the motherland of culture itself, in the words of Takezoe Shin'ichirō. Naitō's realization that China had sever problems, from opium addiction and foot-binding to the lack of an adequate sewer system in Beijing, never left him to reject China .... In fact, it never led him to the despair of Lu Xun ..., who would soon describe the entire history of Chinese culture as that of cannibalism. His understand of her ills went too deep for such an extreme response [emph. mine]. (101)
Zing! Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, buuuut ....
Anyways, this essay suffered from that muddling or needlessly obfuscating the subject - Fogel launches into a discussion of medieval European pilgrimage practices via Chaucer, then how those practices (or at least the writing of such practices) shifted in the 15th century. Made some uncomfortable parallels with Judeo-Christian sites that I didn't like, and really - whatever Chaucer's contribution to pilgrimage travel writing, his relevance to a 1906 Confucian pilgrimage is limited.
- Itō Takeo and the research via the South Manchurian Railway Company. This chapter was really interesting - also deals a bit with post-war realities for people who were at once proud of what they did in research capabilities but ashamed of their role in perpetuating imperialism etc. Loved this paragraph, probably my favorite out of the whole book:
The problem is that when an SMR report conflicted with what the army really wanted to do, as startlingly apparent in its response to Nakanishi's report on China's resistance capacity, the army simply ignored it. A comparison with the American military and the war in Vietnam suggests itself here. The United States was similarly fighting a limited war against a guerrilla foe with principal support in the villages (not the cities); and one can imagine General Westmoreland's commissioning an American Nakanishi to prepare a report of the Vietnamese resistance and receiving exactly the same conclusions the Guandong army got. The interesting thin is that the U.S. army, of course, had no such research operation as the SMR, and the U.S. government was often criticized in the 1960s for being colossally ignorant of Vietnamese realities; for if it knew anything about its enemy and that enemy's history, the argument went, it never would have waged such a land war in Southeast Asia. The Guandong army had the largest research institute in the world at its beck and call. When it commissioned just such a report, it simply ignored the conclusions, arrested the authors, and pressed on with a calamitous and brutal war. [emph. mine] (134)
- Finally a companion piece to the one on Japanese Sinology, and one on Chinese Japanology (looking at a book from '89). Rather ... scathing in parts.
A collection of eight interestingly themed essays; I had serious problems with some procedural issues, which quite honestly impacted my ability to get something out of some of the essays. I also think parts that could've been clearer were terribly muddled or made needlessly complicated, so that the actual point was obfuscated.
Overall a mixed book. An interesting look at many aspects of Sino-Japanese relations, but lacks an overarching cohesiveness which I found irritating - a little editing would've taken care of some of that. Addition of a glossary would've been extremely helpful, as would clearly explanations of the people he was talking about.
Fogel tackles some diverse topics:
- The circular nature of Chinese and Japanese cultural relations via the 'rediscovery' of Cai Shu and others like him (where the 'rediscovery' of an ignored author actually took place first in Japan). Some interesting concepts; also asks us to question ourselves when studying Chinese history:
We have seen how the revival project in the hands of Hu Shi and his colleagues virtually provided us with our present curriculum for the study of modern Chinese intellectual history. One would like to know why, for example, the cluster of eighteenth-century figures we read about is always the same. Why do we always talk about Zhang Xuecheng and Dai Zhen ..., who was also popular with the HuShi group, and not Qian Daxin ..., Zhao Yi ..., Zhu Yun ..., Shao Jinhan ..., or Wang Mingsheng ...? Largely responsible for this, I believe, is the work of Liang Qichao (and Kang Youwei before him), Hu Shi, the early Gu Jiegang, Qian Mu, William Hung, and a handful of other towering intellects who in the late Qing and early Republican eras did an enormous service to our field in bringing into popular focus a number of men largely forgotten or ignored by earlier generations of Chinese. As scholars, However, it is our responsibility not merely to accept this legacy, but to examine it vigorously and criticize its flaws. (19-20)
- A review of a 1983 Japanese publication called Studies on the Relationshi Between the Literati Class and Local Society in China. I had real problems with this chapter - which is a walkthrough of the book. My pre-modern Chinese history is really shaky prior to the Ming, and really really shaky prior to the Tang. Much of this book apparently concerns itself with much, much earlier dynasties, so that was problematic - MORE problematic was Fogel's constant use of pinyin with no glossary. If I didn't know Chinese, this wouldn't have bothered me - but I do know Chinese, and being shaky on pre-modern history, I'm not super familiar with the typical terms of that field. It was a real headache and giant impediment - I used even less pinyin in a forty page paper and was still admonished to append a glossary for the sanity of my readers. I was pretty sure I knew which shi was in shidafu, but not positive. I shouldn't have to run up to my dictionary to check.
- An essay on the Marxist debates over the concept of an 'Asiatic mode of production' in China, Japan, and the USSR. Solid essay.
- The issue of the use of Shina as a toponym for China (by the Japanese). Really, really interesting, but muddled in spots which really impacted the ability to get a positive sense of precisely what Fogel was talking about. I'm really interested in things like this, so would've liked to read more - and more clearly.
- The issue of Japanese travelers in China in the v. late Tokugawa/early Meiji. Very successful essay on (physical) contacts between Chinese and Japanese travelers.
- Early 20th century Confucian pilgrimage to China. Perhaps because I do love Lu Xun so, I was a little shocked by the harsh statement that follows:
Despite his insistence that Japan play a role, even if only as a model, and despite his negative remarks about the general state of hygiene there, Naitō [Konan] retained an inordinate respect for China and the Chinese, as witnessed by a number of sketches appended to his trip report. In part, this was because of a frozen image of "China," the motherland of culture itself, in the words of Takezoe Shin'ichirō. Naitō's realization that China had sever problems, from opium addiction and foot-binding to the lack of an adequate sewer system in Beijing, never left him to reject China .... In fact, it never led him to the despair of Lu Xun ..., who would soon describe the entire history of Chinese culture as that of cannibalism. His understand of her ills went too deep for such an extreme response [emph. mine]. (101)
Zing! Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, buuuut ....
Anyways, this essay suffered from that muddling or needlessly obfuscating the subject - Fogel launches into a discussion of medieval European pilgrimage practices via Chaucer, then how those practices (or at least the writing of such practices) shifted in the 15th century. Made some uncomfortable parallels with Judeo-Christian sites that I didn't like, and really - whatever Chaucer's contribution to pilgrimage travel writing, his relevance to a 1906 Confucian pilgrimage is limited.
- Itō Takeo and the research via the South Manchurian Railway Company. This chapter was really interesting - also deals a bit with post-war realities for people who were at once proud of what they did in research capabilities but ashamed of their role in perpetuating imperialism etc. Loved this paragraph, probably my favorite out of the whole book:
The problem is that when an SMR report conflicted with what the army really wanted to do, as startlingly apparent in its response to Nakanishi's report on China's resistance capacity, the army simply ignored it. A comparison with the American military and the war in Vietnam suggests itself here. The United States was similarly fighting a limited war against a guerrilla foe with principal support in the villages (not the cities); and one can imagine General Westmoreland's commissioning an American Nakanishi to prepare a report of the Vietnamese resistance and receiving exactly the same conclusions the Guandong army got. The interesting thin is that the U.S. army, of course, had no such research operation as the SMR, and the U.S. government was often criticized in the 1960s for being colossally ignorant of Vietnamese realities; for if it knew anything about its enemy and that enemy's history, the argument went, it never would have waged such a land war in Southeast Asia. The Guandong army had the largest research institute in the world at its beck and call. When it commissioned just such a report, it simply ignored the conclusions, arrested the authors, and pressed on with a calamitous and brutal war. [emph. mine] (134)
- Finally a companion piece to the one on Japanese Sinology, and one on Chinese Japanology (looking at a book from '89). Rather ... scathing in parts.