Academia Letters, 2021

The field of Chinese studies is developing in Brazil. It is reasonable to assume that, barring serious academic and political setbacks, the teaching of Asian history will take a definitive place in the university in the years to come, as has happened recently with African and indigenous history. Some research groups have emerged, albeit scattered, and have begun to present their bibliographic productions. In this short text, we will present three possible paths for the construction of a Brazilian sinological strategy. Our proposal is neither exhaustive nor conclusive, but is intended to provide a framework with broader perspectives on which to work. China as a model The first sinological proposal is the model conception of China, which understands this civilization as a reference to be copied or refuted by Brazilian society. This theory is the most traditional in Brazilian culture and has developed since the 19th century [Bueno, 2021]. During the time of the Brazilian Empire, there was an intense debate about Chinese immigration to the country; although the project did not materialise, it marked the beginning of an ideological attitude towards China: would it be similar or antagonistic to Brazilian civilization? Many Brazilian intellectuals considered China a model of civilization to be refuted, backward, poor, and non-Christian. But in the 1950s, with the victory of the communist revolution and the founding of the People's Republic of China, this image would change radically. In a few years, China would resume its place among the world powers, and the paths it had travelled

Research, Society and Development

We examine academic exchange between Brazil and China, specifically the case of the Confucius Institutes (CIs) in Brazil, through the experiences of UNESP and UNICAMP. The aim is to understand how the CIs contribute to academic exchange in the context of economic and cultural cooperation between Brazil and China. Bibliographic and bibliometric research was carried out, through a multi-method methodology, which unites quantitative and qualitative research. The justification is found in the political, cultural, and economic movements that foment Brazil-China relations through the BRICS. Brazil has twelve CIs and no one from them seeks to indoctrinate through Confucianism, rather their aim is to spread the Mandarin language.

Currently, Brazil considers China an ideal partner. The economic achievements of Chinese inspired the Brazilians. The Chinese social and political model is regarded with admiration. However, Brazilians are also apprehensive about China. Do not understand the Chinese culture. Do not understand their habits. Do not know about their philosophies, and ignore the concept of a millenary and ancient history. The Brazilians, therefore, has defiance ahead. If they want China as a partner in the future, need to understand their ways of thinking. On the other hand, the Brazilians have great difficulty in absorbing what does not come from Europe or the United States. The Brazilian society is usually receptive to foreigners, but at the same time, is very afraid to cultural innovations. This question applies to the Chinese case. The Brazilians alternate between admiration and rejection, curiosity and fear. What are the reasons for this behavior? And as the study of Chinese philosophy could help solve this problem? It is that we will see in our text. [Paper prepared for the CRVP International Conference “Philosophy Today”, 21-23, December, Xian, China.]

Research, Society and Development

Este artigo trata do intercâmbio acadêmico entre Brasil e China, especificamente o caso dos Institutos Confúcio (ICs) no Brasil, através das experiências da UNESP e da UNICAMP. O objetivo geral foi construído a partir da ideia de que é preciso compreender como os ICs contribuem para o intercâmbio acadêmico na área de cooperação econômica e cultural entre Brasil e China. Nesta pesquisa, fez-se pesquisas bibliográfica e bibliométrica, através de uma metodologia multi-método, que une pesquisas quantitativas com qualitativas. A justificativa se encontra na movimentação política, cultural e econômica proporcionada pelas relações Brasil-China, através dos BRICS. O Brasil possui 12 ICs e nenhum deles pretende doutrinar o confucionismo, mas sim difundir o idioma Mandarim.

What follows now is the script of our interviews carried out in Brazil, seeking to gather experiences, impressions and opinions about Sinology in Brazil and its participation in this field. This structure was adapted from the oral interview script-a modality that unfortunately we could not perform at that time for health and logistical reasons, among other reasons. We seek an overview of the personal and educational trajectory; next, what led to the study of China, and from what aspect; finally, some of the academic and personal opinions about Sinology in Brazil and its future. It was not necessary to answer all the questions, but if possible, to form a scenario of the personal trajectory, academic performance and vision of Sinology. We allow for less formal language, telling personal stories and expressing opinions. There was no set size for each answer, you could use as much space as you want.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The reader of this debunking article will notice that the author does not write about what is basically wrong with China (a subject certainly worth dealing with), but about what is fundamentally amiss with THE STUDY of China, this being a subject of utmost, not only academic importance. In the author's view, it is time to take the study of China to a higher level, to go to the root of the matter, to consider China, indeed each and every country, to be a 'holon' (not: a 'pan'), a - what modern brain scientists call - 'dynamic functional connectivity'. Big, small or medium-sized, a country should be studied by professionals (political scientists, jurists, economists, linguists, sociologists, educationists, ecologists etc) prepared to work together (in a country-project) and well-informed about the latest developments of the behavioural and social sciences and the humanities. The logic behind this view must appeal to all those in favour of cross-disciplinary (as distinct from international) collaboration. The author hopes that readers having closely looked at the whole paper will ask themselves one question: how would this deeply troubled world look like if Western statesmen, politicians, and captains of industry were effectively advised on the policy to pursue towards China, Russia, or - lumping essentially different countries such as Egypt, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey together - the Middle East by COLLABORATING SCIENTISTS of the kind profiled in the paper?! Tenured professors of China/country studies, used to carve their material object (explanandum) up into parts the dilettante explanations of which they cannot but leave to their students/listeners to make chocolate out of them, seem to be opposing the dangerous, life-changing idea here advanced. They do not want their comfortable boat being rocked, seeing the argument for truly interdisciplinary China/country-research as threatening to their privileged position rather than as providing a great opportunity for them to do some soul-searching and to rethink thoroughly the way they have been working. Perhaps the author should resign himself to this situation and accept that man wants novelty but cannnot take, and gets disturbed by, too much of it.

2013

In this heavily annotated article the provocative thesis is submitted that there is something fundamentally wrong with Western Sinology, or 'Chinakunde', or 'Zhongguoxue' (as distinct from 'Hanxue', which is a kind of old-fashioned philology). 'China experts' either pretend to be knowledgeable about everything related to China, in which case they cannot be taken seriously, or - eventually - admit not to be scientific all-rounders with respect to the country, in which case they cannot be called 'China experts'. The author, who graduated in Sinology from Leyden University and in economics from Erasmus University Rotterdam, not only believes that the study of China has to be taken to a higher level (a belief he expects few tenured professors of Chinese Studies/History will share); he also explains how this long overdue task can be accomplished. Sinologists should take the complexity turn. They should treat China as a 'Ganzheit' (not: 'Gesamtheit'), as a territory-bound, history-moulded and culture-soaked totality of identifiable yet interdependent (f)actors, as a whole intimately interconnected with its numerous parts, as a hypercomplex system of complex, adaptive and non-linear systems of political, military, legal, economic, financial, social, medical, educational, artistic or other nature. Firmly distancing itself from multidisciplinary research (which in practice is a matter of juxta- rather than composition), the new study of China requires a well-thought-out, balanced division of labour. Close collaboration with ICT-driven, China-oriented experts in the natural, social and human sciences willing to co-operate with each other is a sine qua non for comprehending the country that seems to be moving to the centre stage of world politics. The study of China should be mile-wide and mile-deep. The heyday of Sinology is yet to come! An earlier version of this highly critical but undeniably constructive paper was rejected out of hand by the editors of leading 'Chinese/Asian Studies' journals. The author claims to have reason to suspect them (and other so-called China experts) of being 'bought by China'!

China Review International, 1998