Read on Twitter
Many thanks to @iandenisjohnson for raising public awareness of the new (German-language) publication "China(kompetenz)" #China #competence by APuZ. In this thread I would like to engage with an argument put forward by fellow co-author @RudyakMarina /1 https://twitter.com/iandenisjohnson/status/1361546766122844171?s=20
One of Dr Rudyak's key arguments is that "in order to reduce the knowledge asymmetry vis-à-vis China and to make better informed decisions, Sinologists are needed as knowledge brokers (my translation)" /2 https://www.bpb.de/apuz/326883/ueber-chinakompetenz-und-sinologie
I agree with Dr Rudyak that western China experts can play an important role in #cultural #translation. Language competency matters. Intercultural competence is helpful in people-to-people relations. Yet I also see problems in the way some German Sinologists speak in public /3
In November Professor Mechthild Leutner was widely criticised for her testimony on Xinjiang at a hearing at the Human Rights Commission of the German Bundestag /4 https://twitter.com/thorstenbenner/status/1329798924815708161?s=20
Professor Fischer responded to the controversy by pointing out that Professor Leutner should have made clear that she was only summarising the Chinese government position. But is it the job of Sinologists to simply summarise the CCP's viewpoints?/7 https://twitter.com/feiduoli/status/1330198684785635328?s=20
This reminded me of a wide-ranging interview of the German Sinologist Helmut Schmidt-Glintzer with NZZ in 2017. Among other topics he commented on the topic of bi- and multipolarity /6
He said that "China has long advocated a multipolar world and still does so. But the development of the last few years tends towards bipolarity, if one can still speak of poles. And that is certainly also a great challenge for everyone involved (...)" /7
"Will there be a new bipolarity between China and the USA? Or will there be a multipolar development after all? This question has not yet been definitively answered and I believe that how it is answered depends on other actors (author's translation)." /8
This answer could be seen as *summarising* the position of the Chinese party-state at that time, as evident from Xi Jinping's speech in 2017 in which he called for a 'multipolar' world based on 'development' and 'win-win cooperation' /9
http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/2017-09/03/c_129695215.htm
http://www.xinhuanet.com//english/2017-09/03/c_129695215.htm
Later in the NZZ interview he *commented* that "multipolarity, in the long run, may be the better way (author's translation)". In September 2020 he gave another interview, which was published by Chinanews. Here he was much more unequivocal /10
http://www.chinanews.com/ll/2020/09-02/9280545.shtml
http://www.chinanews.com/ll/2020/09-02/9280545.shtml
He is quoted as saying "尽管落实“同一个世界”理念面临着重大挑战，然而为了全人类的利益，也为了每一个国家的利益，除了建立一个和平而多极的世界，我们别无选择。然而，对这样一个世界认知的抵制正在反复出现，这就需要我们继续努力，勿忘建立一个和平与和谐世界的目标。" /11
He said: "We have no choice but to build a peaceful and multi-polar world. However, resistance to such a world perception is recurring, which requires us to continue to work hard and not forget the goal of building a peaceful and harmonious world (author's translation)" /12
Globalisation means that we now live in a single-information environment. Many participants in the China debate are bi- or multilingual. This means that it is now fairly easy to see how academics address different audiences. So was Schmidt-Glintzer inconsistent in his remarks?/13
In defense of Schmidt-Glintzer one could argue that he did at least partly reveal his view on multipolarity in the NZZ interview (2017). The much less ambiguous statement in his Chinese-language interview (2020) could be interpreted as an evolution of his initial position /14
Yet to me it seems as if he would like to have the best of both worlds: to be recognised as China expert in the western discourse & to say things that will be welcomed by 'official China'. In my view such practices do not inspire confidence in Sinologists as knowledge brokers /15
If German Sinologists would like play the role of an #honest #broker between China—both 'official' and 'unofficial China' that is—and western audiences they could consider Professor Geremie Barmé's approach of New Sinology /16 http://chinaheritage.net/reader/what-is-new-sinology/
Barmé writes: "New Sinology is about an intellectual, cultural and personal involvement with the Chinese world (be it in the [PR], Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan or globally) that is underpinned by traditions of academic independence, local fluency and disciplinary relevance." /17
"It is an approach to the Chinese and Sinophone world that pays due accord to the demands of academic disciplines while essaying a more holistic understanding relevant not only to academics, but also to a wider, engaged public." /18
New Sinology, as advocated by Barmé, is critical of "the overculture of the dominant Chinese Communist Party and what, through ideology, its policies, the mass media, the education system and its internal and global propaganda efforts the Party promotes as Official China" /19
German Sinology could play a much more significant role in the global discourse if it was more "vitally engaged with the Other China", which "has flourished again since the 1980s and exists variously in creative tension or subjugated compliance with Official China" /End
