Philadelphia nhk的 Somewhere Street： Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, 費城，這座“兄弟之愛之城”，是美國東海岸僅次於紐約的第二大城市......。 中共政權下的神話/宣傳？ Chinese Cosmopolitanism by Shuchen Xian g《中國世界主義》捍衛了一種被遺忘的中國認同與差異觀： 和諧，神話嗎。

 

7:10-8:00

Philadelphia
Somewhere Street


Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love, is the East Coast's second-largest city in the US after NYC. It's the birthplace of the US and was once the capital. It's now a favorite for history buffs.

費城

某街

費城，這座“兄弟之愛之城”，是美國東海岸僅次於紐約的第二大城市。它是美國的誕生地，也曾是首都。如今，它深受歷史愛好者的喜愛。

項淑晨的《中國世界主義》現已推出平裝版，本書以引人深思的方式捍衛了一種被遺忘的中國認同與差異觀。

歷史上，西方與差異的遭遇往往是災難性的：對原住民的種族滅絕與驅逐、跨大西洋奴隸貿易、以及殖民主義。然而，中國卻走了一條截然不同的歷史道路。在《中國世界主義》一書中，項淑晨認為，中國文化傳統從其形成之初到整個帝國歷史，始終是一個融合了各種不同文化的熔爐。與西方將自身與不同文化的碰撞視為文明與野蠻之間本體論上不可調和的二元對立不同，中國是一個在差異中孕育出的動態認同。項認為，原因在於哲學層面：中國哲學擁有豐富的概念資源，能提供理解多元主義的另類視角。

項解釋說，「中國」身分並非西方所理解的種族認同；它並非由共同血統或遺傳連結在一起的人群，而是多種文化融合的產物。她認為，用西方種族論述來建構中國人對非中國人的看法是一種範疇錯誤。項指出，中國既具有內部的國際化視野，將不同的民族融入共同的認同之中；又具有外部的國際化視野，了解遙遠的國度，卻並無征服它們的意識形態需求。她將中國人對效能的理解——被描述為「和諧」——與西方對秩序的理解進行對比，認為中國人試圖透過讓別人自發性地接受自身地位的優越性來獲得對他人的影響力。她認為，這些來自中國哲學的思想為理解當今多極世界提供了一種新方法，並能為當代種族批判哲學的討論做出寶貴的貢獻。

Princeton University Press 

9小時 ·

Now in #paperback, Chinese Cosmopolitanism by Shuchen Xiang is a provocative defense of a forgotten Chinese approach to identity and difference.

Enjoy 30% off with code PUP30: https://hubs.ly/Q048FV_H0

Historically, the Western encounter with difference has been catastrophic: the extermination and displacement of aboriginal populations, the transatlantic slave trade, and colonialism. China, however, took a different historical path. In Chinese Cosmopolitanism, Shuchen Xiang argues that the Chinese cultural tradition was, from its formative beginnings and throughout its imperial history, a cosmopolitan melting pot that synthesized the different cultures that came into its orbit. Unlike the West, which cast its collisions with different cultures in Manichean terms of the ontologically irreconcilable difference between civilization and barbarism, China was a dynamic identity created out of difference. The reasons for this, Xiang argues, are philosophical: Chinese philosophy has the conceptual resources for providing alternative ways to understand pluralism.

Xiang explains that “Chinese” identity is not what the West understands as a racial identity; it is not a group of people related by common descent or heredity but rather a hybrid of coalescing cultures. To use the Western discourse of race to frame the Chinese view of non-Chinese, she argues, is a category error. Xiang shows that China was both internally cosmopolitan, embracing distinct peoples into a common identity, and externally cosmopolitan, having knowledge of faraway lands without an ideological need to subjugate them. Contrasting the Chinese understanding of efficacy—described as “harmony”—with the Western understanding of order, she argues that the Chinese sought to gain influence over others by having them spontaneously accept the virtue of one’s position. These ideas from Chinese philosophy, she contends, offer a new way to understand today’s multipolar world and can make a valuable contribution to contemporary discussions in the critical philosophy of race.