Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editor's Introduction

Editor's Introduction Fall 1996 vi the postwar U.S. hegemonic project of “using social science to objectify others” led not simply to the scholarly dogma cycled through U.S. sinological circles-“Chinese are by nature apolitical”- but more invidiously, to the ludicrous spectacle of comprador colonial intellectuals fighting one another to endorse the very social science categories (e.g., “politics”) that are integral only because they erase the semiotic space of colonial intellectuals like themselves. Chiu flirts mendaciously with the notion of “collusion-for-survival,” which he claims cuts in both directions in an analytic sense. Yes, one might accept for the moment the comprador’s plea “we had no other choice,” but only until one looks to the empircal record. Performing his own analytic, Chiu calls on the record of the New Territories Rural Committee (HYK), which having withstood all manner of egregious efforts aimed at destroying it, still marshalled the collusion-for-survival mode to conduct politics undercover. It is not that the “politics” as a category or social practice is absent from the record, Chiu argues, but that what is seen to count in the political field of vision (particularly under colonial occupation) must always include “gaming,” and requires a careful, educated scholarly eye that is http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png positions asia critique Duke University Press

Editor's Introduction

Barlow, Tani E.
positions asia critique , Volume 4 (2) – Sep 1, 1996
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/editor-s-introduction-RZxQLYHtPt

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 1996 by Duke University Press
ISSN
1067-9847
eISSN
1527-8271
DOI
10.1215/10679847-4-2-v
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Fall 1996 vi the postwar U.S. hegemonic project of “using social science to objectify others” led not simply to the scholarly dogma cycled through U.S. sinological circles-“Chinese are by nature apolitical”- but more invidiously, to the ludicrous spectacle of comprador colonial intellectuals fighting one another to endorse the very social science categories (e.g., “politics”) that are integral only because they erase the semiotic space of colonial intellectuals like themselves. Chiu flirts mendaciously with the notion of “collusion-for-survival,” which he claims cuts in both directions in an analytic sense. Yes, one might accept for the moment the comprador’s plea “we had no other choice,” but only until one looks to the empircal record. Performing his own analytic, Chiu calls on the record of the New Territories Rural Committee (HYK), which having withstood all manner of egregious efforts aimed at destroying it, still marshalled the collusion-for-survival mode to conduct politics undercover. It is not that the “politics” as a category or social practice is absent from the record, Chiu argues, but that what is seen to count in the political field of vision (particularly under colonial occupation) must always include “gaming,” and requires a careful, educated scholarly eye that is

Journal

positions asia critique – Duke University Press

Published: Sep 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.