Contemporary East Asia and the Confucian Revival. Edited by Jana S. Rosker and Natasa Visocnik. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. (book review)
Contemporary East Asia and the Confucian Revival. Edited by Jana S. Rosker and Natasa Visocnik. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. (book review)
复制标题
当代东亚与儒家复兴。
DOI：
10.1111/rsr.13758
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Balogh Lehel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Balogh;Lehel;Balogh Lehel;Balogh Lehel
复兴由Jana S编辑Rošker和Nataša Visočnik。泰恩河畔纽卡斯尔，英国：剑桥学者出版社，2015年。Pp. xl+ 227。精装本91.95美元罗什克尔，中国研究教授，沿着Visočnik，助理教授，都在卢布尔雅那大学亚洲研究系，斯洛文尼亚，已经汇编了一个丰富多彩的论文选择与广泛的主题-从教育到美学，道德和政治-有一个单一的金线贯穿其中：所谓的“儒学复兴”，似乎在东亚乃至全球范围内的后现代性的理论和实践发展上都留下了不可磨灭的印记。尽管西方理论家习惯性地将“传统”和“现代”描绘成相互排斥的，但罗斯克和维索奇尼克认为，相反，“传统和现代之间的关系并不一定涉及冲突”。因此，该书的作者试图证明，“现代儒学”远非反动或彻头彻尾的保守，而是相当进步的，事实上，它是“新亚洲现代化意识形态中最重要的因素之一”。这本书包括十二章，每一章都涉及“儒家复兴”的不同方面。第一章（卢卡·库利伯格）和第二章（汉斯·屈纳）考察了在中日政治宪法形成过程中有影响的“国学”的儒家特征。第三章（Téa Sernelj）和第四章（Rošker）通过分析当代两位著名理论家徐复观和牟宗三的著作来探讨“儒家复兴”的哲学基础。第五章（于尔基·卡利奥）和第六章（海伦娜·莫托）讨论了中国“儒家核心观念的现代重塑”，而第七章（安德烈·卡里奥）和第八章（维索奇尼克）则探讨了巴西和日本对儒家遗产的接受。第9章（Mugur Zlotea）、第10章（Ralph Weber）和第11章（Dessein Bart）集中讨论了儒家思想在中国的重要性，特别关注共产主义和儒家价值观和实践之间不断变化的关系。最后，本卷在第12章（芭芭拉·皮勒·皮勒利奇）结束，对最近一本关于古代中国的选集进行了书评。总的来说，这本文集的事业是值得称赞的，因为它成功地表明，与马克斯·韦伯的主导信念相反，新教伦理对现代化的推进并不是绝对必要的，而且“东亚模式能够产生一种非个人主义的现代性版本”。
REVIVAL. Edited by Jana S. Rošker and Nataša Visočnik. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. Pp. xl+ 227. Hardback, $91.95. Rošker, Professor of Chinese Studies, along with Visočnik, Assistant Professor, both at the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, have compiled a colorful selection of papers with wide-ranging topics—from education to aesthetics to morality and politics—that have one single golden thread running through them: the so-called “Confucian revival” that appears to have left its indelible mark on both theoretical and practical developments of the late modernity in the East Asian and in the global context, as well. Although Western theorists habitually tend to portray “traditional” and “modern” to be mutually exclusive, Rošker and Visočnik argue that, on the contrary,“the relations between tradition and modernity do not necessarily involve conflict.” Thus, the authors of the volume set out to demonstrate that “Modern Confucianism,” far from being reactionary or downright conservative, is fairly progressive, and, in fact,“one of the most significant elements within the new Asian modernization ideologies.” The book comprises twelve chapters, each dealing with different aspects of the “Confucian revival.” Chapters 1 (Luka Culiberg) and 2 (Hans Kuehner) examine the Confucian characteristics of the influential “National Studies” in the formation process of the Chinese and Japanese political constitutions. Chapters 3 (Téa Sernelj) and 4 (Rošker) look at the philosophical foundations of the “Confucian revival” by analyzing two famed contemporary theoreticians’ work: that of Xu Fuguan and Mou Zongsan. Chapters 5 (Jyrki Kallio) and 6 (Helena Motoh) address “the modern reshaping of central Confucians concepts” in China, while Chapters 7 (André Bueno) and 8 (Visočnik) investigate Brazilian and Japanese receptions of the Confucian heritage. Chapters 9 (Mugur Zlotea), 10 (Ralph Weber), and 11 (Dessein Bart) focus on the significance of Confucianism in the PRC, with special regard to the ever-shifting relationship of Communist and Confucian values and practices. Finally, the volume concludes in Chapter 12 (Barbara Pihler Ciglic) with a book review of a recent anthology on Ancient China. Overall, the enterprise of this collection is praiseworthy as it succeeds in showing that, contrary to Max Weber’s dominant belief, Protestant Ethic is not absolutely essential for the advancement of modernization, and that the “East Asian model is capable of generating a non-individualistic version of modernity.”