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.

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

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.

Academia Letters, 2021

A topic widely debated among specialists is whether Sinology would have-or not-influence from 19th century Orientalism. Authors such as Simon Leys[2] categorically refuted this idea, while Adrian Chan[3] identified how the colonial and imperialist agenda profoundly influenced the strategies of research on China. In this brief article, we will discuss how Sinology and Orientalism were connected in 19th century Brazilian thought. Asians on the Brazilian scene To begin this analysis, it is necessary to understand that Brazil has an old relationship with Asian civilizations, since the time of the Portuguese empire. There was an intense population transit within the colonial world, with profound reflexes in the Brazilian scenario. The studies by Gilberto Freyre[4], José Leite[5] and Júlio Bandeira[6] reveal subsidies of a remarkable Chinese presence spread in the most diverse expressions of Brazilian art, such as the sculptures of Baroque from Minas Gerais. Recently, Paulina Lee[7] made a more complete list of these transits and appropriations in our culture. In especial, Freyre even argued that Brazil would not exist without Arab, African and Asian influences, and that European culture only effectively entered the country with the arrival of the Portuguese court in 1808. The silencing of Asian influences was perceived by this author before Edward Said launched his critique of Orientalism: "[Freyre] created a kind of Orientalism in reverse, in that he reversed the signs of Orientalist discourse, associating the positive value with the Orient and the negative value with the West. After making this inversion, Gilberto Freyre associates the Brazilian conformation-in its roots, trends and characteristic values-with the Orient, a term that in the symbolic economy of the author of Sobrados e Mucambos involves everything that is or means 'non-European' or 'anti-European"'.[8]

Brasiliana- Journal for Brazilian Studies, 2016

It is interesting to see people's reactions, whether they are academics or not, when they ask me what I do and I respond: I lecture and research in Brazilian Studies. A second question almost invariably follows this response: 'but what is that?' And the surprise moment comes next, when I reply that I don't k now exactly what it is, but that it is this very question that draws me to this area. In academia, we are accustomed to clearly defined areas of knowledge, each plainly displaying their own methods, theories, and objectives-'a principal of science!' When proposing a 'new' area, epistemological definition is necessary; even in purportedly interdisciplinary times, we continue to define areas of knowledge in a Kantian manner. It almost seems like a defence mechanism or a protectionist undertaking; perhaps even an existential endeavour: 'I am' an anthropologist, 'I am' a political scientist, 'I am' a linguist, 'I am' a chemist. Ultimately, these disciplinary labels of themselves evince particular worldviews, methods, and objectives.

2020

Traditional sinology in Spain is facing the contemporary transition of academic research. It has become an important phenomena and trend in the research of humanities studies, which contains and assimilates contemporary China studies. Starting from the historical origin of Spanish sinology, this article summarizes the development of sinology in contemporary Spain, and analyzes the characteristics and trends of these disciplines. It is found that new Spanish sinology is reviving in the form of China studies, which has been extended in more fields of politics, economics, international relations, sociology and anthropology and so on.

Nesse breve texto, iremos apresentar três caminhos possíveis para a construção de um conhecimento sobre a China, ensejando a elaboração de uma estratégia sinológica brasileira. Nossa proposta não é determinante ou conclusiva, mas pretende elaborar um quadro de perspectivas mais amplas sobre as quais poderemos trabalhar.

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.

China Review International, 1998