The 4th JASCA International Symposium Keynote Lecture 1 The West in the East Chinese Anthropologies in the Making Mingming Wang Peking University Abstract: Focusing upon the disciplinary formations of Chinese anthropology in the pre-war years (1929-1945), the author examines the “contests” between the varied sub-traditions, chiefly including the Yanda school of sociological ethnography and Academia Sinica school of historical ethnology. These scholarly traditions were invented by different groups of newly returned “students studying abroad” (liuxuesheng) who, having learnt sociology, anthropology, and ethnology in different Western nations, brought home different conceptions of the disciplines. As the author argues, the formations were derived from “Westernization”; but neither were they the same, nor were they opposed to “indigenization.” As varied approaches to disciplinary modernity, they were different combinations of Western and Eastern discourses, each of which was in turn internally varied. Despite their origins in “international exchanges,” they did not develop any concept of internationality or, from Marcel Mauss’s perspective, “civilization.” The problem has continued to trouble Chinese anthropologists in the past decades. Key words: Westernization, Disciplinary Formations, Anthropology, Sub-Traditions, Internationality Acknowledgements The piece was presented as a special lecture at the 4th workshop on “The Nationalization and Globalization of East Asian Anthropology” held on 28 December 2017 in Tokyo. I thank the president of the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology, Professor Motoji Matsuda, and Professor Hironao Kawai for inviting me. I also thank Professor Yoshio Watanabe for encouragement and Professors Byung-Ho Chung, Zhou Xing, Katsumi Nakao, Liu Zheng’ai, and Takami Kuwayama for the inspiring remarks they made during and after the workshop. Some of the materials I use here first appeared in a presentation given at the workshop on Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology, vol. 18-2, 2017 92 Wang Mingming “Rethinking Ethnology” held in University College London in June, 2009. I thank Professor Michael Rowlands for that invitation and for giving me inspiration. First of all, let me thank the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology for inviting me, and for defining the theme of how in recent decades Chinese anthropology has interacted with Euro-American – or in other words, Western – colleagues. Originally, I thought that I could follow the advice given and speak about the present-day situation. But then I had second thoughts, and considered it to be more prudent to downplay the part about the contemporary situation, on which an insider’s perspective would be biased, if not controversial, and instead spend most of my time discussing the events of a comparatively distant period, that of the two decades between 1929 and 1949, especially the pre-war years. These decades formed a transitional period in which Chinese anthropology was re-made into a number of disciplinary formations, differentiated from its earlier being as the discourse of History with a capital “H.” During this period, our anthropological ancestors, in inventing their varied disciplinary traditions, ever more actively involved their Western mentors and their writings. In explicit or implicit manners, they turned their intellectual borrowings into certain contesting national sub-traditions, and within the boundaries of these sub-traditions, they and their followers further “absorbed” some Western ideas and research techniques, with which they carried on activating their “ethnographic machineries.” In their academic activities, to varied extents, many of the pioneers – mostly students who had returned from studying abroad (liuxuesheng), cultural intermediators embodying Westernization -- also made what they “recycled” available to the world. They could be said to have been involved in certain intellectual activities typical of what we mean by the word “exchange.” We can define the interactions in terms of reciprocity, a concept the French sociologist and ethnologist Marcel Mauss (1925 [1990]) advanced just a few years before the Chinese disciplinary formations were launched. But we should not simply construe these as relations between equals (that is what Mauss meant by “reciprocity,” anyway). Rather, the interactions were practiced and perceived as those between hierarchically defined “generations,” in particular, between Western teachers and Chinese students; and indeed they took place in the age of Western hegemony (Asad ed. 1973; Said 1978; Wolf 1982). In such an age, China, a part of the “circle” of the archaic “empires” of Eurasian landmass defined by Japanese ethnologist Tadao Umesao in terms of “zone two,” was extruded by “zone one” (the West and Japan) (Umesao 2003) as a to-be-modernized nation. In such an “empire-turned nation,” to establish the foundations for anthropology, Chinese intellectuals were anxiously following Western trends and they were more or less “internationalists.” However, they were also motors driving the engine of “indigenization” (Yamashita, Bosco & Eades 2004): as Mauss pointed out in his essay “The nation,” “[s]ocieties live by borrowing Wang Mingming The West in the East Chinese Anthropologies in the Making 93 “Rethinking Ethnology” held in University College London in June, 2009. I thank Professor from each other, but they define themselves rather by the refusal of borrowing than by its Michael Rowlands for that invitation and for giving me inspiration. acceptance” (Mauss 2006, 44). China at the time fitted Mauss’ observation well. I believe that the activities of exchange have, by themselves, written a history, which, once re-inscribed, can shed important light on the complex conditions and ontologies of First of all, let me thank the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology for inviting me, anthropology in the East. As I shall show, if there was a Chinese anthropology, then, it and for defining the theme of how in recent decades Chinese anthropology has interacted should be seen as externally related and internally varied, having been made through with Euro-American – or in other words, Western – colleagues. Originally, I thought that I certain different syntheses of incoming disseminated forms and contents; and as such, it was could follow the advice given and speak about the present-day situation. But then I had not singular. Rather, it consisted of several, strands, all situated “between universalism and second thoughts, and considered it to be more prudent to downplay the part about the indigenism” (Dirlik ed.2012), be they “national anthropologies” (Gerholm & Hannerz 1982), contemporary situation, on which an insider’s perspective would be biased, if not “regional traditions” of ethnography (Fardon 1990), or potential “world anthropologies” controversial, and instead spend most of my time discussing the events of a comparatively (Escobar & Lins Ribeiro 2006). distant period, that of the two decades between 1929 and 1949, especially the pre-war years. In the following overview, I shall reflect on the contesting sub-traditions, especially their These decades formed a transitional period in which Chinese anthropology was re-made differing ethnographic styles. Then, I shall show how such sub-traditions continued to into a number of disciplinary formations, differentiated from its earlier being as the expand and to engage more participants during and after World War II, so much so that discourse of History with a capital “H.” During this period, our anthropological ancestors, in they created further internal divisions. I shall conclude by putting forward some more inventing their varied disciplinary traditions, ever more actively involved their Western reflections and forward-looking speculations in which the past and present become mentors and their writings. In explicit or implicit manners, they turned their intellectual associated. borrowings into certain contesting national sub-traditions, and within the boundaries of these sub-traditions, they and their followers further “absorbed” some Western ideas and Brief background research techniques, with which they carried on activating their “ethnographic machineries.” In their academic activities, to varied extents, many of the pioneers – mostly students who Towards the end of the Qing Dynasty (1636-1912), for the sake of restoring the order of had returned from studying abroad (liuxuesheng), cultural intermediators embodying the Mandate of Heaven, imperial officials and scholars visiting Europe and America – as Westernization -- also made what they “recycled” available to the world. They could be said either delegates or exiles – not only carefully studied “in the field” Western technologies and to have been involved in certain intellectual activities typical of what we mean by the word institutions but also earnestly followed the tracks of the development of new social scientific “exchange.” and humanistic ideas (Zhang 1933 [2000]; Wu 1938 [2010], 269-332; Zhong 2000). We can define the interactions in terms of reciprocity, a concept the French sociologist and Notwithstanding the anthropological sensibility evident in ancient books like The Classic of ethnologist Marcel Mauss (1925 [1990]) advanced just a few years before the Chinese Mountains and Seas (Cai 1926 [1962]) and the magic of wandering in Liezi as well as Fa-Hsien’s disciplinary formations were launched. But we should not simply construe these as relations Record of the Buddhist Kingdoms