Not the Same "Transcendence" and "Immanence": A Sociological Reading of Mou Zongsan and David Hall / Roger Ames'' Cultural Typologies
Date Issued
2008
Date
2008
Author(s)
Huang, Hwa-Yen
Abstract
This thesis engages sociologically a major debate in contemporary sinology and comparative philosophy, namely “the transcendence and immanence debate.” The focus of this debate is the controversy concerning the “different” cultural typologies constructed respectively by Mou Zongsan and David Hall / Roger Ames (Hall and Ames) , respectively, using apparently “identical” Western ideas of transcendence and immanence. The former characterizes Chinese culture as immanent transcendence and Western culture as outer transcendence, while the latter characterizes Chinese culture as immanence and Western culture as transcendence. In this debate, the “Third-Generation New Confucians” and others generally argue that Mou Zongsan is “right” while Hall and Ames are “wrong.” Further, the “Third-generation New Confucians” characterize the difference between Mou and Hall and Ames’ positions with value-laden dichotomies such as modern vs. postmodern and non-orientalist vs. orientalist. n contrast to the Third-Generation New Confucians’ value-laden and philosophical method, this thesis wishes firstly to prove the “incommensurability” between Mou and Hall and Ames’ cultural typologies, viewing them as discursive productions that correspond to different socio-cultural contexts through Pierre Bourdieu’s framework. After empirically proving the incommensurability between Mou and Hall and Ames’ typologies, this thesis will then inquire into the motive and context behind the Third-Generation New Confucians’ belief that Mou and Hall and Ames’ typologies are “commensurable,” and their characterizing these two typologies with the aforementioned value-laden dichotomies. ue to the special nature of Mou and Hall and Ames’ cultural typologies, this thesis has provisionally devised three methodological constructs that will aid the understanding of their different socio-cultural significance: uses concerning apparently “identical” ideas of transcendence and immanence, basic typological frameworks, and philosophical bridges. Following this methodological procedure, chapters two and three will inquire into the historicity of Mou and Hall and Ames’ basic typological frameworks. In chapters four and five, this essay will situate Mou and Hall and Ames’ discursive production (reconstructed with the aid of the three methodological constructs) in their respective contexts (the Cold War and the Communist-Nationalist struggle vs. contemporary Western society). After settling the “incommensurability” of these two cultural typologies, this thesis will lastly explore briefly the motive and context behind the Third-Generation New Confucians’ understanding Mou and Hall and Ames in the aforementioned manner.
Subjects
Sinology and Comparative Philosophy
Cultural Typology
Transcendence and Immanence
Mou Zongsan
David Hall and Roger Ames
Third-Generation New Confucians
Commensurability and Incommensurability
Governmentality
Modernity
Postmodernity
Type
thesis
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-97-R93325009-1.pdf
Size
23.53 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):3df6f66bce1fe5e311073fcf837d6f1b