Harrison, Prof. Henrietta Katherine, (born 1967), Professor of Modern Chinese Studies, University of Oxford, since 2012; Fellow, Pembroke College, Oxford, since 2015

1989 ◽  
Vol 119 ◽  
pp. 631-634
Author(s):  
Christopher B. Howe

Professor Kenneth R. Walker died on 28 July 1989 at the age of 57. He was a pioneer of modern Chinese studies in Britain. His achievements were outstanding as a scholar, teacher, developer of the field and as a contributor to this journal.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Xiaofan Ami Li

This essay explores the notion of you 游in the Zhuangzi and Six Dynasties literati writing through a comparative reading. Used interchangeably with its variant you 遊, you 游has various uses and meanings, from the more literal “swim in water”, “move in an unobstructed way”, “wander”, and “travel afar”, to its extended meanings including “ramble in a carefree way”, “travel playfully”, “travel into foreign or unknown space”, or “enjoy a leisurely activity”. You is also, significantly, combined with other characters to form compound expressions specifying different playful activities, e.g. youxi 游戲: “play and frolic”, “amuse oneself”, or “game”; youwan 游玩: “play outdoors” (with an emphasis on movement); and lüyou 旅游: “travelling for leisure”, or “tourism”—which have very different connotations from lüxing 旅行, “journey”, or “travel (the main purpose of which is not pleasure)”. In these different uses and expressions of you, in both classical and modern Chinese, what we find in common is the connotation of an unhindered, playful movement that is closely connected to its spatial context. In the context of the Zhuangzi and Six Dynasties literature, therefore, can we find articulations of you as a playful activity? If yes, in what specific ways is you playful, especially in regard to the space and context in which it occurs? Finally, what do the differences and similarities between the Zhuangzi and Six Dynasties writing say about the evolution of the notion of you within the Daoist and Neo-Daoist discourse? At time of publication of this article, the journal operated under the old name. When quoting please refer to the citation on the left using British Journal of Chinese Studies. The pdf of the article still reflects the old journal name; issue number and page range are consistent.


1964 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 517-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. William Skinner

In recent years the cry has gone up: Sinology is dead; long live Chinese studies! And in this apothegm, by contrast with its prototype, a fundamental change is implied. Whereas old-time Sinology was given shape by its tools, so that Sinological skills defined the field and became an end in themselves, Chinese studies is shaped by its subject matter and Sinological skills are but means to analytic ends. Whereas traditional Sinology fostered uncritical immersion in a single civilization, modern Chinese studies brings at least that degree of impartial detachment which the comparative method implies. Whereas Sinology focused on China's “great tradition” and strove to capture the very ethos of the literati whose works it studied, Chinese studies today attempts to encompass the entire society and cultural product of China, to study its regional “little traditions” along with the “great,” and to empathize for heuristic purposes with nonélite social groups as well as with the literati. Sinology, a discipline unto itself, is being replaced by Chinese studies, a multidisciplinary endeavor with specific research objectives. As Professor Wright has suggested, what is text for the Sinologist becomes, for the disciplinary student of China, evidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document