Abstract
This paper attempts at a discussion of the methodological debates over "East Asia" and "Sinology" studies among Takeuchi Yoshimi (1910-1977), Mizoguchi Yūzō (1932-), and Koyasu Nobukuni (1933-). To offset Occidental influence, Takeuchi Yoshimi sought after an Asia Pattern built on the "East Asian homogeneity." Denying his own tradition, with this homogeneity he constructed a new, independent "Asian subjectivity." With a complex feeling of love and guilt toward China, Takeuchi Yoshimi developed a methodology which might be called "Chinese Sinology." On the contrary, Mizoguchi Yūzō took a different route recognizing "East Asian heterogeneity," namely, China as China; Japan as Japan. He reflected upon both pre-war and post-war Japanese Sinology and proposed a new theory of "China as method; the world as the end." His methodology pursued to transcend "China-centered Sinology." Koyasu Nobukuni, in spite of his agreement with Takeuchi Yoshimi, refused to locate China on the center of East Asia. Rather, Koyasu employed a historical critical approach toward "East Asia" rejecting any principle or doctrine that tries to "embody" East Asia.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 259-288 |
Number of pages | 30 |
Journal | Taiwan Journal of East Asian Studies |
Volume | 1 |
Issue number | 2 |
Publication status | Published - 2004 Dec |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- East Asia
- Koyasu Nobukuni
- Mizoguchi Yūzō
- Sinology
- Takeuchi Yoshimi
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Cultural Studies
- General Arts and Humanities