|
課程名稱 |
英文漢學中的問題與爭論
Controversies and Debates in Anglophonic Sinology |
|
開課學期 |
109-1 |
|
授課對象 |
文學院 歷史學研究所 |
|
授課教師 |
宋家復 |
|
課號 |
Hist5390 |
|
課程識別碼 |
123 U8220 |
|
班次 |
|
|
學分 |
3.0 |
|
全/半年 |
半年 |
|
必/選修 |
選修 |
|
上課時間 |
星期五2,3,4(9:10~12:10) |
|
上課地點 |
歷史研討室 |
|
備註 |
開放博班修習。
限學士班三年級以上
總人數上限：15人 |
|
Ceiba 課程網頁 |
http://ceiba.ntu.edu.tw/1091Hist5390_ |
|
課程簡介影片 |
|
|
核心能力關聯 |
核心能力與課程規劃關聯圖 |
|
課程大綱
|
|
為確保您我的權利,請尊重智慧財產權及不得非法影印
|
|
課程概述 |
中國研究的海內外分進合流近年來已經蔚為風潮，在研究課題和取徑上中外學者分享共通的機會愈見頻繁。本課程的目的，在於藉著閱讀過去半世紀以來英文中國研究學界內（外）所生產的一系列論辯文獻，接引大學部高年級主修歷史(或人文社會科學)的同學平順進入問題取向的跨國語境。這不是一門二次大戰後西方漢學研究的通史或文獻回顧，因為著重的只限於曾經引發學者之間公開爭議辯論的課題。 |
|
課程目標 |
希望在精讀前輩學者們彼此針鋒相對、砥礪琢磨的論述之中，我們學會欣賞學界的多元喧嘩與有情眾生的有限性，並且幫助我們自身研究問題意識的形塑與反思。
(課題可視選課同學興趣增刪，課程進度亦將依實際上課狀況調整，下列主題為理想示意，並不期望於一學期內全部涵蓋。)
選課同學若有自己亟欲閱讀的英文漢學著作，請於第一周上課之前通知教師，或者第一次上課時帶來提出，可經由課堂全體討論同意後納入課程。 |
|
課程要求 |
基本的學術英文閱讀能力，審問深思暨自我問題化的意願。
評量方式
平時(含作業、隨堂測驗、出席與課堂討論)50%，期末(含考試與作業)50%(內容繳交方式另行宣佈)。每週須繳交「翻譯筆記」，批改後納入平時作業考量。 |
|
預期每週課後學習時數 |
|
|
Office Hours |
|
|
指定閱讀 |
待補 |
|
參考書目 |
單元主題
1 中國思想中有自然法概念嗎？
Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. II, pp. 518-83.
Derk Bodde, “Evidence of ‘Laws of Nature’ in Chinese Thought,” HJAS 20:3 & 4 (1957), pp. 709-27.
2 科學革命發生在中國嗎？
Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. V, part 2, pp. xxii-xxvii.
Nathan Sivin, “Why the Scientific Revolution did not take place in China – or did it?” Chinese Science 5 (1982), 45-66; The Environmentalist 5:1 (1985), pp. 39-50; http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~nsivin/scirev.pdf (2005.8.24 revised).
3 為什麼中國沒有自發性資本主義？
Max Weber, trans. and ed. by Hans H. Gerth, The Religion of China, The Free Press, 1951, pp. 226-49, “Conclusion.”
Gary G. Hamilton, “Why no Capitalism in China? Negative Questions in Historical, Comparative Research,” in Max Weber in Asian Studies, ed. by Andrew E. Buss, pp. 65-89.
Mark Elvin, “Why China Failed to Create an Endogenous Industrial Capitalism? A Critique of Max Weber’s Explanation,” Theory and Society 13 (1984), pp. 379-91.
4 中國歷史的空間結構，成立嗎？
G. W. Skinner, “The Structure of Chinese History,” JAS 44:2 (1985), pp. 271-92.
Barbara Sands and Ramon H. Myers, “The Spatial Approach to Chinese History: A Test,” JAS 45:4, pp. 721-43.
Daniel Little and Joseph W. Esherick, “ Testing the Testers: A Reply to Barbara Sands and Ramon Myers’s Critique of G. W. Skinner’s Regional Systems Approach to China,” JAS 48:1, pp. 90-99.
Barbara Sands and Ramon H. Myers, “Economics and Macroregions: A Reply to Our Critics,” JAS 49:2 (1990), p. 344-46.
5 孔子：聖凡之間與漢學的箍套(sinological torque)?
Herbert Fingarette, Confucius – The Secular as Sacred, 1972.
Charles Wei-hsun Fu, “Fingarette and Munro on Early Confucianism: A Methodological Examination,” PEW 28:2 (1978), pp. 181-98. Fingarette’s reply, pp. 223-26.
6 尋找論語原本的樣貌？
E. B. Brooks & A. T. Brooks, The Original Analects: Sayings of Confucius and His Successors, Columbia UP, 2001.
Edward Slingerland, “Why Philosophy is not “Extra” in Understanding the Analects,” PEW 50:1 (2000), pp. 137-41. Brooks’ response, pp. 141-46. Slingerland’s reply, pp. 146-47.
7 中國也有一個人文自由傳統？
Wm Theodore de Bary, The Liberal Tradition in China, Columbia UP, 1983.
F. W. Mote, “The Limits of Intellectual History?” Ming Studies 19 (1984), pp. 15-25. De Bary’s reply, 27 (1986), pp. 77-92. Mote surrejoinder, pp. 93-94.
8 「新儒學」乎？「道學」乎？
Hoyt Cleveland Tillman, “ A New Direction in Confucian Scholarship: Approaches to Examining the Differences between Neo-Confucianism and Tao-hsüeh,” PEW 42:3 (1992), pp. 455-74.
W. Theodore de Bary, “The Uses of Neo-Confucianism: A Response to Professor Tillman,” PEW 43:3 (1993), pp. 541-55.
Tillman’s response, 44:1 (1994), pp. 135-42. De Bary’s reply, pp. 143-44.
Hilde de Weerdt, “Canon formation and examination culture: the construction of guwen and daoxue traditions,” Journal of Sung-Yuan Studies (Albany, NY) 29 (1999) 91-134.
9 中國有「metaphor」嗎？
Michelle Yeh, “Metaphor and Bi: Western and Chinese Poetics,” Comparative Literature 39:3 (1987), pp. 237-54.
(83dc) Pauline Yu, “Metaphor and Chinese Poetry,” Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews 3 (1981): 205-224.
10 中國如何如何，誰說了算？
Robert Bagley, review of Monumentality in Early Chinese Art and Architecture by Wu Hung, HJAS 58:1 (1998), pp. 221-56.
Wu Hung, “A Response to Robert Bagley’s Review of My Book,” Archives of Asian Art 51 (1998/99), pp. 92-102.
11 文化中國的定義問題
Tu Wei-ming, “Cultural China: The Periphery as Center,” Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 120: 2 (1991).
Paul A. Cohen, “Cultural China: Some definitional Issues,” PEW 43:3 (1993), pp. 557-63.
12 中國中心史觀：外國學者的分寸
Michael Gasster, “Discovering China in History: Some Comments on Paul Cohen’s Discovering History in China,” The American Asian Review 5: 2 (1987), pp. 121-53.
Paul A. Cohen, “Our Proper Concerns as Historians of China: A Reply to Michael Gasster,” The American Asian Review 6:1 (1988), pp. 1-24.
13 徘徊在文本與脈絡之間的思想傳記
Ying-shih Yü, “The Intellectual World of Chiao Hung Revisited: A Review Article,” Ming Studies 25 (1988), pp. 24-66.
Edward T. Ch’ien, “Neither Structuralism Nor Lovejoy’s History of Ideas: A Disidentificaion with Professor Yü Ying-shih’s Review as a Dis-course,” Ming Studies 31 (1991), pp. 42-86.
14 懷柔遠人：望文生義抑或就事論事
Joseph W. Esherick, “Cherishing Sources from afar,” Modern China 24:2 (1998), pp. 135-61.
James Hevia, “Postpolemical Historiography: A Reply to James Hevia,” Modern China 24:3 (1998), pp. 319-27. Esherick’s reply, pp. 328-32.
15 儒學第三期 – 追求或臆想？
Tu Wei-ming, “Toward a Third Epoch of Confucian Humanism,” in his Way, Learning, and Politics: Essays on the Confucian Intellectual, SUNY Press, 1993, pp. 141-59.
Arif Dirlik, “Confucius in Borderlands: Global Capitalism and the Reinvention of Confucianism,” Boundary 2 (1995), pp. 229-73.
16 “孔夫子主義Confucianism”根本是傳教士建構的產物？
Lionel M. Jensen, Manufacturing Confucianism: Chinese Traditions and Universal Civilization, Duke UP, 1997.
Nicolas Standaert, “The Jesuits Did NOT Manufacture ‘Confucianism,’” EASTM 16 (1999), 115-132.
T. H. Barrett, “Is There a Chinese Word for “Confucius”? A Review Article,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 62:1 (1999), pp. 105-10.
17 清朝：漢化靠攏？多元典範？
Ping-Ti Ho, “In Defense of Sinicization: a Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski's "Reenvisioning the Qing," JAS 57:1 (Feb 1998), pp. 123-155.
Evelyn S. Rawski, “Presidential Address: Reenvisioning the Qing: the Significance of the Qing Period in Chinese History,” JAS 55:4 (Nov 1996), pp. 829-850.
18 公共領域在中國是否可能？
William T. Rowe, “The Public Sphere in Modern China,” Modern China 16:3 (Jul 1990), pp. 309-329.
Philip C.C. Huang, “'Public sphere' / 'civil society' in China? The third realm between state and society,” Modern China 19:2 (Apr 1993), pp. 216-240. |
|
評量方式
(僅供參考) |
|
|
週次 |
日期 |
單元主題 |
|
第3週 |
0926 |
補1002 |
|
第4週 |
1002 |
中秋彈性放假 |
|
第5週 |
1009 |
國慶彈性補假 |
|
第17週 |
0101 |
元旦放假 |
|
第19週 |
0115 |
期末考 |
|