Modernity and Revolution in Eastern Asia: Chinese Socialism in Regional Perspective (東亞的現代性和革命: 區域觀點下的中國社會主義)

in Translocal Chinese: East Asian Perspectives
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The article discusses possibilities offered by a regional perspective for a more comprehensive understanding of the rise and fall of socialism in Eastern Asia. It suggests that a regional perspective brings into view interactions among radicals that are absent from or marginal to nationally based accounts. A regional approach requires attention to region-formation itself as a problem. Regions are not just physical entities that are given but are themselves subject to ongoing construction and reconstruction. The discussion elaborates on this question by way of conclusion, and suggests that the anthropological concept of “ecumene” may serve to articulate a conception of the region that recognizes cultural commonalities while also allowing recognition of differences. Radical interactions in Eastern Asia were part of the modern constructions of an Eastern Asian region, which in the usage here encompasses both the East and Southeast Asian regions of post-World War ii geopolitical conceptions of the area, that also have served as the basis for area studies divisions of labor since then. (This article is in English.)

本文以區域觀點來對社會主義在東亞的興衰這一課題進行更為全面的討論。文中指出,區域觀點能呈現激進分子之間的互動,而這個課題是在以國家為基礎的討論裡被忽略或被邊緣化的。區域觀點注意到區域形成本身即是一個命題。區域並不單只是既存的物理實體,區域是處在正在建構及重構的狀態。本文在結論裡探討了這個問題,並提出以人類學概念裡的“ecumene”(或作「人寰」或「人居領地」;在本文特指密集的俗世文化互動空間)來理解文化之間相互流通卻又各自保持彼此之間的歧異。激進者在東亞的互動是東亞區域現代建構的一環──二次大戰後東亞和東南亞兩地從而被涵括在同一地緣政治概念下的區域。而這也是至今地域研究裡區分門別類的基礎。

Sections

References

4

By the 1920s, when reaction in Japan led increasingly to the suppression of radical activity, Shanghai and Guangzhou would seem to have replaced Tokyo as a gathering place for radicals. See the discussion of anarchism and Marxism below.

7

John Crump, Hatta Shuzo and Pure Anarchism in Interwar Japan (N.Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1993), 30.

10

Dongyoun Hwang, “Beyond Independence: The Korean Anarchist Press in China and Japan inthe 1920s and 1930s,” Asian Studies Review 31, (1) (March 2007), 3. According to Hwang, Yu, associated with a terror oriented group of Korean anarchists, was close to Bajin, and taught for a while in the 1920s in the Lida College in Shanghai, which offered a home to anarchists. Sim, who was also close to Bajin, worked for a while for the Guofeng ribao (National Customs Daily) in Shanghai. He had a brother, Sim Geukchu (Shen Keqiu in Chinese) who also participated in these activities. The two also worked closely with Japanese anarchists, surnamed Sano and Matsumoto, who were also active in Shanghai during these years. Personal communication.

19

Arif Dirlik, “Timespace, Social Space, and the Question of Chinese Culture,” Monumenta Sericaliv (2006): 417.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 10 10 4
Full Text Views 6 6 6
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0