WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE STUDY OF CHINA/COUNTRIES

Hans Kuijper*

ABSTRACT

In this paper the thesis is submitted that there is something fundamentally amiss in Western Sinology (Zhōngguóxué, as distinct from Hànxué, which is a kind of old-fashioned philology aggrandised with quasi- if not pseudo-philosophy): ‘China experts’ either pretend to be knowledgeable about everything related to China, in which case they cannot be taken seriously, or – eventually – admit not to be scientific all-rounders with respect to the country, in which case they cannot be called China experts. The author expects no tenured professor of Chinese Studies/History to share this view. Having exposed the weakness, indeed the scandal of Sinology as practised thus far, he also points out the way junior Sinologists should go. The fork in that road is two-pronged: translating or collaborating.

KEYWORDS: Sinology, area/country studies, complexity, scientific collaboration, e-research

 All things are one. (Heraclitus) There is nothing isolated. (Zhu Xi) Tout tient à tout. (French proverb)

INTRODUCTION

To mark its 50th anniversary, in April 2003, the Institute of International Relations, a think tank affiliated with the National Chengchi University, in Taipei, published a double issue of its flagship journal Issues & Studies on “The State of the China Studies Field”. The reasons given for this laudable initiative were: a) “the major jump in both data output within China and access to this data by scholars from outside the PRC”, and b) “the dramatic increase in the number and types of individuals analyzing China”. However, the reader who expects to find a critical assessment of how China has been studied will be disappointed. The (mainly Western) contributors to the special issue ignore the elephant in the room. None of them is brave enough to ask the key question: of all the Western scholars having occupied themselves with the “curious land” (David Mungello), who has really been in the business of “analyzing China”, qua China? We think the sad answer to this perfectly legitimate question is: nobody has! Let us explain.

THE STUDY OF CHINA EVALUATED

Sinologists – taken as such (students of China) and, we wish to stress, not taken as, e.g., literary students engaged in the study of Chinese literature, or economists specialising in the Chinese economy – share a common interest in China, just as Japanologists share a common interest in Japan (and Sovietologists shared a common interest in the erstwhile Soviet Union). However, Sinology – and the same holds, mutatis mutandis, for any other country study – is not defined by the perspective on the object of inquiry (China) but by the object itself. ‘China students’ (not: Chinese students!) have no tidy description of their enterprise; they omit to specify or develop their distinct research question and do not have a “research programme” (Imre Lakatos). Describing the scientific discourse is a prerequisite for meaningful exchange of ideas, but this requirement seems to have slipped from memory in the China debate. As a result, quite a bit of ambiguity has spread, which in turn has led to murky results. Sinologists are not in search of ordered/systematised knowledge of China qua China. Consequently, they do not see the structure of the country, its tapestry, its Gefüge, the intimate connections between its components, the features that determine its look and feel, the whole that differs from the sum of its parts. Nor do they see the structural change (Strukturwandel), the change pattern (Wandlungsstruktur), the interlocking relations between the transformations of the compound (the country).

‘China scholars’ do not really conceive of the enormous mass of things Chinese as belonging together, as constituting one thing. Having a material object, an explanandum (China), they do not have a formal object, an explanans (Sinological viewpoint), a fact they conveniently forget, try hard to gloss over, or do not like to be reminded of. Sinologists have not developed a domain ontology; they have no command of a body of theoretical concepts that would put them on the same footing as, but differentiate them from, linguists, literary students, demographers, geographers, archaeologists, law students, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, economists or political scientists, professionals who increasingly collaborate in international and – more important – interdisciplinary projects. The cosmos, the earth, the biosphere, man, language and society are the explananda studied by cosmologists, geologists, biologists, anthropologists, linguists and sociologists respectively, each group being divided into – ideally – intercommunicating subgroups. Sinologists, however, are holding their own territory but do not have their own theory. There is no Sinological counterpart of Franz Boas, Noam Chomsky, Ferdinand de Saussure, Georges Dumézil, Émile Durkheim, Ronald Dworkin, Mircea Eliade, Norbert Elias, Henri Fayol, Northrop Frye, Clifford Geertz, Erving Goffman, Torsten Hägerstrand, Herbert Hart, Leonid Kantorovich, John Maynard Keynes, Philip Kotler, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Kurt Lewin, Yuri Lotman, Erwin Panofsky, Jean Piaget, Adolphe Quételet, John Rawls, Carl Ritter, Georg Simmel, Herbert Simon, Ninian Smart, Herbert Spencer, Jonathan Turner, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Léon Walras, Max Weber or Wilhelm Wundt.

The way of finding out whether Sinologists really are what they pretend to be (experts on China) is making inquiries how comfortable they are with quantitative reasoning and information technology, about their familiarity with mixed methods research, how they classify their subjects, about their nomenclature (the key terms of their debate), about the property of the relations between their master concepts, about their argument’s underlying assumptions, about the kind and number of hypotheses they have framed, about the Grundstein and Gipfel of their conceptual Gebäude, about the core subject (problématique) of their discipline, about the landmarks/milestones in its history, or about the central point that assures its unity. Such a point would be a ‘black hole’, eine grundlegende Aporie, like the relationship between the continuous and the discrete in mathematics, between spacetime and matter in physics, between body and mind in psychology, between man and society (Mitwelt) in sociology, between natural law and legal positivism in jurisprudence, between efficiency and justice in economics, or between organisms and their natural environment (Umwelt) in ecology.

‘China experts’ have a keen eye for details but do not let them speak as parts of a whole. They do not have an architecture for organising the details, for presenting them into an intelligible system. Their writings excel in multitude rather than plenitude, in multa instead of multum (Pliny). We are provided with an aggregate but not with a whole, with a heap of stones (a few segments at most) but not with a well-founded and well-structured house, i.e. with a model representing China in and of itself, as a complexity of coupled human and natural systems. The mosaic, the score, the wiring of the country is not given. “The one is not shown in the many and the root is not connected with the twigs” (一 不 显 于 多, 本 不 贯 于 末). To be sure, the plures are insignificant so long as the unum is elusive. For “Im Aufbau des Ganzen werden die Züge erst bedeutend᾽᾽ (Goethe). In order to comprehend something, it is crucial to be able to see the ordinary in the extraordinary (type-token distinction). Not having their own model, and mistaking the cramming of facts for discernment in selecting the important ones, Sinologists are, therefore, not entitled to wear the sacred mantle of science, the hallmark of which is empirically and theoretically founded, systematised knowledge.

‘China students/scholars/experts’, taken literally, are undisciplined academics, dabbling in Chinese language, culture and history, but unable to point out the endogenous and exogenous variables of their research, let alone the (form of the) relations prevailing among them. Their publications, displaying breadth of scholarship rather than depth of insight, contain copious footnotes but a rigorous, sustained and substantive argument is difficult to find. Nobody knows whether their investigations suggested, or were guided by, a Sinological theory. Labouring through their (sometimes aggressively marketed) books, one feels like looking at the stars in company of an amateur astronomer, who keeps on pointing at objects in the sky — without a powerful telescope, without any attempt to reduce the incomprehensible multiplicity of the universe to a comprehensible simplicity, to design a theory, that is. To be convinced of this, the reader should open a volume of T’oung Pao, “the foremost journal on Sinology, covering history, literature, art, history of science, in fact, almost anything that concerns China”.

The study of China in the West has a long history, but a coherent scheme of basic concepts concerning China qua China has never been developed, the meaning of which can only be: the country, now rapidly moving to centre stage (economically, politically, and – the West fears – militarily), has never been truly analysed. It has been variously (and wildly) speculated but never really theorised about. A host of distinguished scholars has amassed facts and figures about (pre)Imperial, Republican and Communist China, but none of them seems to have attempted to reduce the incomprehensible multiplicity of this universe to a comprehensible simplicity. Monumenta Serica, another important scholarly journal, founded in 1934 and devoted to China, runs into 64 volumes, with an average of more than 500 pages, but features no article on the foundations/underpinnings of sinology. Principia Sinologica is the title of a book yet to be written.

The study of China belongs to the fuzzy category of ‘area studies’, the numerous practitioners of which seem to believe they can do without a textbook comparable to, say, Samuelson and Nordhaus (2009), Rita Atkinson et al (1999), or Heywood (2007). Basically disoriented, they still have to get their act together by organising themselves, as the members of the International Geographical Union (IGU) and the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnographical Sciences (IUAES) did. There is urgent need for an international journal devoted to the history, theory, methodology and philosophy of area/country studies, the unclassifiable animals among academic disciplines.

COUNTERING LIKELY OBJECTIONS

It may be objected that China is a country sui generis, and that notions having their origin in the West are not applicable to it, all the more so because the connotations and denotations of the words concerned have changed in the course of time. The central proposition of those who adopt this relativistic attitude is that China must be understood from within. Indigenous terms such as bian (变, 辩), chang (常), cheng (诚), dao (道), de (德), di (谛), dun (顿), fa (法), gong (公), gu (故), he (和), hua (化), huang (皇), ji (机, 极), jing (敬), jue (觉), kong (空), li (礼, 理), ling (灵), mei (美), min (民), ming (名, 命), pin (品), pu (朴), qi (奇, 气), quan (权), rang (让), ren (仁), shan (善), shen (神), sheng (圣), shi (势, 是, 时, 事, 实), shu (恕, 术), ti (体), tian (天), tiao (调), tong (通, 同), wei (为), wen (文), wu (无, 悟), xiao (孝), xin (心, 信), xing (性, 行, 形), xu (虚), xuan (玄), xue (学), yi (一, 义, 艺, 易), yong (用), you (有), yu (宇), yuan (元, 缘), zhen (真), zhi (致, 知, 智), zhong (中, 忠) and zhou (宙) should be the analytical categories, and scholarly research should be presented within their framework. China can never be understood from without, a conviction upheld by the Chinese themselves, particularly by those having a strong sense of nationalism. However, this line of reasoning cannot be taken without some qualifications:

Firstly, bringing out different translations of the same indigenous term, Sinologists come under the suspicion of simply not knowing what they are talking about. On this account, the reader should compare Feng (1953) with Cheng (1997), Cheng and Bunnin (2002), Cua (2003), Jullien (2007), Lai (2008), Zufferey (2008), Mou (2009) and Fraser (forthcoming). For example, ti (体) is confusingly rendered into “substance”, “body”, “model”, “style”, “principle”, “method”, “genre”, “essence”, “form”, “trend”, “nature”, “unity”, “noumenon”, “vigour”, “reality”, “foundation”, “constitution”, “constitutivité”, and “bone-structure”. Rendering ti into, say, “substance” is to overlook a fundamental difference between the Western and Chinese way of thinking. Whereas philosophy in the West, since Aristotle, has been biased in favour of “substance” (what a thing really is, without its accidental properties), Chinese educated in the wisdom of the Yijing and the Daodejing conceive of everything as something “all the time on the way to be something else” (Needham). Taking a dynamic/evolutionary/processual perspective reminiscent of Whitehead’s Process and Reality (Helin et al 2014, Chapters 2 and 4), they consider everything and everybody as fundamentally changing over time

instead of existing at some time. Where Westerners would say “yes” or “no”, Chinese, reluctant to embrace the “law of excluded middle”, reasoning “non-monotonically” and going beyond the “square of opposition” (Béziau and Gan-Krzywoszynska 2014), are likely to answer: “Well, not exactly”. They are alien to the philosophical concept of ontology and never engaged in a discussion about the distinction between esse/existentialism and essence/essentialism. They see relations as being essential (reality). They emphasise situation, postion and guanxi (Yang 1994), because, in their view, being is belonging, esse est inter-esse (being-in-between), spatially, temporally, socially or otherwise. For them, individuals/entities are intersections/nodes of relationships. Chinese have difficulty in understanding Plato’s dialogue Phaedrus, in which Socrates speaks, without fatuous redundancy, of the superlative reality of the forms as “really real reality”. The theological doctrines of “consubstantiality” and “transubstantiation”, over which so much ink and blood were spilt in the West, are beyond

them, because they fail to see the (importance of the) difference in meaning between homoousios (of same substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance). In contrast to Westerners, who have been deeply influenced by, and are only just beginning to distance themselves from, the Aristotelian-Cartesian-Newtonian preference for causative/serial/catenary/linear thinking (events/actions are concatenated), Chinese have been emphasising the importance of correlative/web-like/matrical/structure-related/nonlinear thinking (events/actions are multidirectionally interwoven, correspond to each other). They are geared to the ‘whatness’ instead of the ‘thatness’ of things. Adhering to Sunzi’s weiqi logic, they are not disposed to the Western logic of identity (logocentrism). In their view, difference (otherness) is prior to, and a condition of, identity (sameness); it is not itself identifiable (Kaipayil 2009, Taddei-Ferretti 2012,

Vandermeersch 2013). Concepts constitute the building blocks of man’s thinking and galvanise him into action; they form, subtly interconnected, the fabric of his life. Consequently, as long as some important notions and their cognates remain vague, others must share this defect, making human thought and behaviour elusive. The requirement not to be vague about ideas that have been most potent and persistent in Chinese history is thus paramount. Though the argument about “meaning” continues (especially among philosophers), with the Siku Quanshu (Emperor Qianlong’s library, counting about 840,000,000 characters) now electronically accessible and various types of computer software available, a thorough investigation of the interconnected concepts basic to Chinese thinking through the ages has been greatly facilitated, a plain fact some ‘China experts’ do not seem to be aware of.

Secondly, epistemic relativism, the view that the truth of knowledge-claims is relative to the standards a society/culture uses in evaluating such claims, is an incoherent doctrine, unable to defend itself, because, if it is right, the very notion of rightness is undermined, in which case epistemic relativism itself cannot be right. However, if the relativistic stance is untenable, the non-relativist (universalist) also faces a tall problem: how to develop a view that includes an acceptable account of rationality and rational justification which is non-dogmatic, rejects any notion of a privileged framework in which knowledge-claims must be couched, and is self-referentially coherent (Krausz 2010). Universalists tend to be ethnocentric, arrogant and intolerant. We disagree with the relativist, who maintains that culture-bound disciplines are blocking our ability to understand another country, but we also have a different opinion from the universalist, who denies this.

he “emic-etic debate” among cultural anthropologists revolves around the question whether an account of actions should be given in terms that are meaningful to the actors belonging to the culture under study, or in terms applicable to actions in other cultures as well. Whereas the emic perspective focuses on intrinsic distinctions, only meaningful to the members of a given society, the etic view relies upon the extrinsic concepts and categories of scientific observers. This contradiction seems to be mistaken, for the points of view can be reconciled. A sensible combination of the emic and the etic lens yields a binocular vision, making depth perception possible (Kuijper 2014).

The fact that the great bulk of the ordered knowledge of social and human scientists is only based on the investigation of Western data does not imply the impossibility of cross-cultural dialogue, being a process in which the parties gradually learn to understand each other. The Okanagan (syilx) people, living in British Columbia and Washington (State), call this en’owkin, understanding through a gentle process of clarification and integration. A dialogue is not a debate. The former is geared to reaching an agreement (consensus), the latter to scoring a victory (meaning: somebody else’s defeat!); the one aims at inclusion, the other at exclusion. In an “authentic dialogue” (Gadamer) the participants do not talk at cross-purposes (dialogue de sourds) but actively listen to each other; rather than being bent on proving themselves right, they are eager to gain insight. A dialogue, or saṃvāda (Mayaram 2014), being a real, genuine conversation, will inevitably lead to comparing (not to be confused with equating), to the placing together and examining of two things in order to discover similarities and differences, an activity that plays a crucial role in every scientific discipline. And this comparing (which should never be the comparing of an ideal situation here with the messy reality there!) may result in a change of mind, a mental leap, a conceptual re-configuration.

It may also be objected that after the Second World War Sinology split into specialisms, making the jacks-of-all-trades-but-masters-of-none with regard to China a dwindling species. We think this assertion is to be taken cum grano salis. The change from ‘China study’/‘Chinakunde’ to ‘Chinese studies’/’Chinawissenschaften’, or “Sinologie als eine willkürliche Ansammlung von Einzelfächern” (Hans-Wilm Schütte), has not improved the situation. On close inspection, many so-called experts, focusing on one or another aspect of China, turn out to be amateurs only — sometimes gifted amateurs, able to express their ideas and opinions well, but non-professionals nonetheless. What is necessary here is to “rectify names” (zhengming). For Confucius said: “If names are incorrect, language is not in accordance with the truth of things, and if language is not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success” (Lunyu, Book XIII, Chapter 3). ‘Professor of Chinese’ doesn’t make sense (not any more than ‘professor of life’, ‘professor of man’, or ‘professor of

society’ does), unless this appellation of distinction is shorthand for “professor of linguistics with principal research interest in the Chinese language, or linguistics in China”. In much the same vein, we doubt whether every ‘professor of Chinese literature’ can be safely assumed to hold an academic degree in literary studies. ‘Lecturer/reader in Chinese economics’ will not do either, for Chinese economics is a nonexistent subject matter. To be sure, Chinese economists lecturing on the economy of, or the application of economic theory in, China (or another country) do exist. There are Chinese, Japanese, American, Indian, Arabic, Russian, European and Australian logicians, mathematicians, scientists and philosophers, some of them being of very high caliber, but there are not, and cannot be, such things as Chinese, Japanese, American, Indian, Arabic, Russian, European and Australian logic, mathematics, science or philosophy, a major point many Sinologists/area-students, muddle-headed about the subject they are writing on, seem to overlook. Many ‘China experts’, acknowledging the

impossibility of being a scientific all-rounder in regard to the country, have the bad habit of putting on the hat of a scientist without filling his shoes, that is, the habit of delivering lectures on the Chinese language, communication style, literature, legal system, political system, military system, educational system, health care system, financial system, economy, taxation, agriculture, energy sector, transportation sector, business activities, society, art(s), religion(s), psyche, culture or environment without any degree in linguistics, communication studies, literary studies, law, political science, military science, educational science, medicine, (corporate, public or international) finance, economics, taxation theory, agronomy, energy science, transportation studies, business administration, sociology, art history/criticism, science(s) of religion, psychology, Kulturwissenschaft(en) or ecology/sustainability science respectively. Only a few ‘China experts’ have taken the trouble to obtain a degree in any of the disciplines mentioned before ascending the pulpit. However, lecturing on a subject that lies within their purview, they often stray into forbidden domains — without duly notifying their credulous audience.

More, much more interesting things could be written on, for example, the concept and practice of law in China if, paradoxically, the authors were also well up in the writings of Plato, Cicero, Aquinas, Suárez, Althusius, Grotius, Hobbes, Pufendorf, Montesquieu, Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Henry Maine, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Otto von Gierke, François Gény, Roscoe Pound, Benjamin Cardozo, Giorgio Del Vecchio, Gustav Radbruch, Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt, Karl Llewellyn, Herman Dooyeweerd, Alf Ross, Lon Fuller, Patric Devlin, Herbert Hart, Julius Stone, Norberto Bobbio, Harold Berman, John Rawls, Joel Feinberg, Ronald Dworkin, Joseph Raz, Richard Posner, John Finnis, Duncan Kennedy, Robert Alexy, Roberto Unger, Jeremy Waldron, Ernest Weinrib, Dennis Patterson, and Andrei Marmor, among others.

Similarly, books, or articles, about ‘Chinese art’ would tremendously gain in importance if, in a way that only seems to be contradictory, the writers thereof were acquainted with the aesthetic views of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Brunelleschi, Alberti, Hume, Baumgarten, Winckelmann, Kant, Burke, Lessing, Schiller, Hegel, Coleridge, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, John Ruskin, Nietzsche, Heinrich Wölfflin, Benedetto Croce, Clive Bell, Collingwood, Erwin Panofsky, Walter Benjamin, Roman Ingarden, Susanne Langer, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Theodor Adorno, Harold Osborne, Nelson Goodman, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Ernst Gombrich, Clement Greenberg, Mikel Dufrenne, Monroe Beardsley, Richard Wollheim, Frank Sibley, Arthur Danto, Joseph Margolis, George Dickey, Stanley Cavell, Jacques Derrida, Roger Scruton, and Noël Carroll, among others.

A mature science consists of several subdisciplines. The workers in these special vineyards occupy themselves with a part without losing sight of the whole (see note 3). Biology, for example, deals with living things at different levels in the biosphere (as distinct from the litho-, hydro-, atmo- and noösphere). Its growth was triggered by a division of labour. Zoologists are interested in animals, ethologists in their behaviour, botanists in plants, mycologists in fungi, phycologists in algae, and microbiologists in bacteria and viruses. Here the ramification does not stop. Mammalogists are concerned with mammals, entomologists with insects, carcinologists with crustaceans, arachnologists with spiders and their relatives, ornithologists with birds, ichthyologists with fishes, malacologists with molluscs, and herpetologists with reptiles and amphibians. The point is that, despite their apparent differences, all the divisions and subdivisions are interrelated; mother, daughters and granddaughters are akin. The splitting of biology into specialisms has been guided by the same principles. There may be differences in dialect, the language spoken is the language of biologists, ‘cell’ being the key concept. After World War II, Sinology also started to diversify. By any stretch of the imagination, though, we cannot see how the subgroups thereof form a family; there is no intellectual kinship, no scientific lineage, no academic genealogy. The new style ‘China experts’ have nothing in common, in a distinctively scientific manner, that is. They still have no command of a characteristic network of basic notions related to China. There is an endless stream of books and articles ‘about China’, but there is no real Sinological debate. There are no schools of Sinological thought (comparable to schools of thought in political science, law, IR theory, psychology, learning theory, sociology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, literary theory, economics, or philosophy), simply because there is no Sinological language, a remarkable fact that seems to have gone unnoticed.

The claimed post-war “split of Sinology into specialisms” is a case of deceptive appearances. Books giving a general picture of China keep on rolling from the press, books not written by reporters, whose unscientific modus operandi may be excusable, but by tenured professors. Whoever believes that the all-rounders in respect of China are dead and gone is grossly mistaken. The touche-à-tout sans profondeur is still around; the jacks-of-all-trades-but-masters-of-none (or: only-one) are still alive and kicking. Some of these all-purpose China scholars do not even shrink from predicting the country’s future, clearly unaware of the nonlinear-science revolution of the 1970s, that emphasised the certainty of uncertainty and led to a redefinition of causality. If pretending to be, or making no objection to be introduced as, an expert on some aspect of China, without a degree in the discipline concerned, is reprehensible, downright unforgivable is it to make no bones about changing bonnets and to masquerade as connoisseur of China tout court. Those who are guilty of doing so (one only needs to watch the programme “Fareed Zakaria GPS” on CNN) corroborate Alexander Pope’s statement: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.

THE WAY AHEAD

What is to be done (Что делать)? Advising ‘China experts’ to go home and to look for another job is certainly not what we are thinking of. For one shall not throw the baby out with the bath water. Sinologists are (we hope) fluent in classical and modern Chinese. So, first and foremost, let them cultivate their talent! There are plenty of books eagerly awaiting translation.

Over the last 150 years or so, numerous books belonging to any of the four categories into which Chinese bibliographers traditionally put their sources, viz “classics”(jing), “history”(shi), “philosophy”(zi), and “literature”(ji), have been translated into a European language. However, not every author who has participated in the great Chinese conversation about the basic principle of order (in nature and society) has found a translator of his work, the assiduity and diligence of Édouard Biot, Cyril Birch, Édouard Chavannes, Séraphin Couvreur, Robert des Rotours, Homer Dubs, Jan Duyvendak, Alfred Forke, Esson Gale, Olaf Graf, David Hawkes, James Hightower, Wilt Idema, Wallace Johnson, David Knechtges, John Knoblock, Franz Kuhn, James Legge, Victor Mair, Göran Malmqvist, Georges Margouliès, Richard Mather, William Nienhauser, Max Perleberg, Rainer Schwarz, Nancy Lee Swann, Erwin von Zach, Arthur Waley, Burton Watson, Stephen West, Richard Wilhelm, Martin Woesler and other translators notwithstanding.

Remarkably, there is no translation of the Great Books of the Chinese World comparable to the Great Books of the Western World. The latter, published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., is a set of 60 volumes containing 517 works (by 130 authors) in mathematics, physical sciences, life sciences, social sciences, history, philosophy, and imaginative literature. Three criteria governed the selection (by Robert Hutchins and Mortimer Adler) of these books, which made their appearance in a time span covering more than 25 centuries (from Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey to Claude Lévi-Strauss’ Structural Anthropology). They were chosen by virtue of their dealing with issues, problems or facets of human life that are of major concern today as well as at the time in which they were written. They are worth reading carefully many times or studying over and over again. And they have very broad and general significance; their authors have something of importance to say about a large number of great ideas making up the abstract and complex infrastructure of Western thought.

Only a fraction of the rich Chinese literature has found its way to Gallimard’s world-famous Bibliothèque de la Pléiade. The integral, annotated translation of the Zhengshi [Dynastic Histories], the importance of which can hardly be exaggerated, is the dream of many historians. Sima Guang’s Zizhi Tongjian [Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government]; the Shitong [Ten Encyclopedic Histories of Institutions]; the monumental Gujin Tushu Jicheng [Complete Collection of Illustrations and Writings from the Earliest to Current Times], which – in the 18th century – attempted to embody the whole of China’s cultural history; Shen Kuo’s Mengxi Bitan [[[Dream]] Brook Brush Talks]; Li Jie’s Yingzao Fashi [Treatise on Architectural Methods]; the extant collections of Zhaoling Zouyi [Edicts and Memorials]; the treasure troves known as Daozang [[[Daoist]] Canon], Daozang Jiyao [[[Essentials]] of the Daoist Canon] (extra-canonical texts) and Dazangjing [[[Chinese Buddhist Canon]]]; the invaluable Dunhuang manuscripts; and thousands of Difangzhi [Local Gazetteers] are waiting to be (further) opened up by Sinologists for scientists unable to read Chinese. So are the works mentioned in the three-volume Zhongguo Fazhishi Shumu [Annotated Bibliography of Chinese Legal History], compiled by Zhang Weiren and published, in 1976, by Academia Sinica. In addition, a new, philosophically as well as historically annotated translation of the Zhuzi Jicheng [Complete Collection of the Works of Ancient Philosophers] in which the important distinctions between words/characters, thoughts and things are not blurred would be warmly welcomed; and an incomplete list of modern and contemporary books deserving (in our view) to be translated reads as follows:

Jin Yuelin, Luoji [[[Logic]]], 1935; • Fu Qinjia, Zhongguo Daojiao Shi [The History of Daoism in China], 1937; • Cai Yuanpei, Zhongguo Lunlixue Shi [A History of Chinese Ethics], 1937; • Tang Yongtong, Han Wei Liangjin Nanbei Chao Fojiao Shi [The History of Buddhism in the Han, Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties], 1938; • Feng Youlan, Zhen Yuan Liu Shu [Six Books on Purity and Primacy], 1939-1946; • Jin Yuelin, Lun Dao [On Dao], 1940; • Sun Benwen, Shehuixue Yuanli [[[Wikipedia:Principles|Principles]] of Sociology], 1944; • Chen Yinke, Tangdai Zhengzhi Shi Shulungao [Draft of a Political History of the Tang Dynasty], 1946; • Zhang Dongsun, Zhishi yu Wenhua [[[Knowledge]] and Culture], 1946; • Liang Shuming, Zhongguo Wenhua Yaoyi [The Essence of Chinese Culture], 1949; • Hou Wailu, Zhongguo Sixiang Tongshi [Comprehensive History of Chinese Thinking], 1957-1963; • Xiong Shili, Tiyonglun [On Ti and Yong], 1958; • Xiong Shili, Mingxinpian [[[Illuminating]] the

Mind], 1959; • Hu Jichuang, Zhongguo Jingji Sixiang Shi [A History of Economic Thought in China], 1962-1981; • Chen Guofu, Daozang Yuanliu Kao [On the Origin and Development of the Daoist Canon], 1963; • Zhou Jinsheng, Zhongguo Jingji Sixiang Shi [A History of Economic Thought in China], 1965; • Xu Fuguan, Zhongguo Yishu Jingshen [The Aesthetic Spirit of China], 1966; • Yin Haiguang, Zhongguo Wenhua de Zhanwang [The Future of China’s Culture], 1966; • Tang Junyi, Zhongguo Zhexue Yuanlun Yuanxing Pian [Fundamental Discussions of Chinese Philosophy: Human Nature], 1968; • Mou Zongsan, Xinti yu Xingti [[[Mind]] and Nature], 1968; • Tang Junyi, Zhongguo Zhexue Yuanlun Yuandao Pian [Fundamental Discussions of Chinese Philosophy: Dao], 1973; • Qian Mu, Guoshi Dagang [Outline of (Our) National History], 1974; • Lao Sze-kwang, Zhongguo Zhexue Shi [A History of Chinese Philosophy], 1974-1981; • Tang Junyi, Shengming Cunzai yu Xinling Jingjie [[[Human Existence]] and Spiritual Horizon], 1977; • Li Zehou, Zhongguo Jindai Sixiang Shilun [Historical Treatise on Modern Chinese Thought], 1979; • Zhu Guangqian, Tan Meishu Jian

[Letters on Beauty], 1980; • Zhang Dainian, Zhongguo Zhexue Dagang [Outline of Chinese Philosophy], 1982; • Jin Yuelin, Zhishilun [[[Wikipedia:Theory|Theory]] of Knowledge], 1983; • Huang Gongwei, Fajia Zhexue Tixi Zhigui [Guide to the System of Legalist Phi Sun Longji, Zhongguo Wenhua de “Shenceng Jiegou” [The “Deep Structure” of Chinese Culture], 1983; • Liang Shuming, Renxin yu Rensheng [[[Human]] Heart and Human Life], 1984; • Sa Mengwu, Zhongguo Zhengzhi Sixiang Shi [A History of Chinese Political Thought], 1984; • Wu Hui, Zhongguo Gudai Liu Da Jingji Gaigejia [Six Great Economic Reformers in Ancient China], 1984; • Mou Zongsan, Yuanshanlun [A Treatise on the Highest Good], 1985; • Shen Jiaben, Lidai Xingfa Kao [On the Penal Code in Successive Dynasties], 1985 (reprint); • Li Zehou, Zhongguo Gudai Sixiang Shilun [Historical Treatise on Ancient Chinese Thought], 1985; • Li Yuri, Sunzi Bingfa Yanjiu [Studies on Sunzi’s Art of War], 1986; • Tao Jianguo, Liang Han Wei Jin zhi Daojia Sixiang [[[Daoist]] Thought in the Han, Wei and Jin Dynasty], 1986; • Li Zehou, Zhongguo Xiandai Sixiang Shilun [Historical Treatise on Contemporary Chinese Thought], 1987; • Jin Wulun, Wuzhi Kefenxing Xinlun [A New Theory on the Divisibility of Matter], 1988; • He Lin, Wenhua yu Rensheng [[[Wikipedia:Culture|Culture]] and Human Life], 1988; • Zhu Bokun, Yixue Zhexue Shi [A History of the Philosophy of Yi(jing) Study], 1988; • Tang Liquan, Zhouyi yu Huaidehai zhi Jian [Between the Yijing and Whitehead], 1989; • Li Kuangwu, Zhongguo Luoji Shi [A History of Chinese Logic], 1989; • Huang Renyu, Zibenzhuyi yu Nianyi Shiji [[[Capitalism]] and the 21st Century], 1991; • Hu Weixi, Chuantong yu Renwen [[[Tradition]] and Culture], 1992; • Gu Xin, Zhongguo Qimeng de Lishi Tujing [History and Prospect of Chinese Enlightenment], 1992; • Zhang Dainian, Zhang Dainian Xueshu Lunzhu Zixuan Ji [Collection of the Academic Writings of Zhang Dainian Selected

by Himself], 1993; • Feng Qi, Zhihui San Lun [Three Essays on Wisdom], 1994; • Zhang Liwen, Zhongguo Zhexue Fanchou Jingxuan Congshu [Compendium of Selected Categories in Chinese Philosophy], 1994; • Chiu Hungdah, Xiandai Guoji Fa [[[Wikipedia:Modern|Modern]] International Law], 1995; • Mou Zongsan, Renwen Jiangxilu [Lectures on Culture], 1996; • Chen Shaofeng, Zhongguo Lunlixue Shi [A History of Chinese Ethics], 1997; • Li Qiang, Ziyou Zhuyi [Liberalism], 1998; • Ge Zhaoguang, Zhongguo Sixiang Shi [A History of Chinese Thinking], 1998-2000; • Bai Shouyi (ed.), Zhongguo Tongshi [Comprehensive History of China], 1999; • Chen Lai, YouWu zhi Jing [The Border Area between Being and Nonbeing], 2000; • Chen Lai, Zhuzi Zhexue Yanjiu [A Study of Master Zhu’s Philosophy], 2000; • Lao Sze-kwang, Wenhua Zhexue Jiangyan Lu [Lectures on Cultural Philosophy], 2002; • Lao Sze-kwang, Xujing yu Xiwang [[[Illusion]] and Hope], 2003; • Yu Ying-shih, Zhu Xi de Lishi Shijie [The Historical World of Zhu Xi], 2003; • Zhang Jialong, Zhongguo Luoji Sixiang Shi [A History of Logical Thinking in China], 2004; • Li Zehou, Shiyong Lixing yu Legan Wenhua [[[Wikipedia:Pragmatic|Pragmatic]] Reason and the Culture of Contentment], 2005; • Sun Zhongyuan, Zhongguo Luoji Yanjiu [Studies on Chinese Logic], 2006; • Zhang Liwen,

Hehexue [The Philosophy of Harmony], 2006; • Ji Xianlin, Sanshinian Hedong, Sanshinian Hexi [Thirty Years East of the River, Thirty Years West of the River], 2006; • Lao Sze-kwang, Weiji Shijie yu Xin Xiwang Shiji [A World of Crisis and the New Century of Hope], 2007; • Wang Hui, Xiandai Zhongguo Sixiang de Xingqi [The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought], 2008; • Li Bozhong, Zhongguo de Zaoqi Jindai Jingji [[[China’s]] Early Modern Economy], 2010; • Yao Dali, Dushi de Zhihui [The Wisdom of Reading History], 2010; • Liu Yingsheng, Hailu yu Lulu [Maritime and Continental Routes], 2010; • Tang Yijie & Li Zhonghua (eds.), Zhongguo Ruxue Shi [A History of Confucianism], 2010-2011; • Wang Liqi, Yantielun Jiaozhu [[[Discourses]] on Salt and Iron Collated and Annotated], 2011; • Jin Guantao and Liu Qingfeng, Zhongguo Xiandai Sixiang de Qiyuan [The Origins of Modern Thought in China], 2011; • Yi Wu, Yijing de Chubian Xue [[[Yijing]]: Learning to Deal with Changes], 2012; • Huang Ying-kuei, Wenming zhi Lu [The Path towards Civilisation], 2012; • Jin Yaoji, Zhongguo de Xiandai Zhuanxiang [[[China’s]] Modern(ity) Turn), 2013; • Yang Kuo-shu, Zhongguoren de Jiazhiguan [[[Wikipedia:Chinese|Chinese]] Views of Values], 2013.

Finally, over the last three decades, eminent Chinese economists have variously written about the unprecedented growth of their country’s economy. Their main theoretical/empirical work has, alas, seldom been translated into a Western language. Translating, that humble, yet ever so important activity, is the strength, doing scientific research the weakness of Sinologists not graduated in any of the social or human sciences. They should, therefore, concentrate on the former and link up with scientists for the latter. If they desire to embark on the study of a subject related to China, we would counsel them not to run the risk of being

shipwrecked because of shortage of seamanship. Instead, they should look around for China oriented scientists to set up a joint venture. In this way, the party lacking disciplinary grounding has the right analytical tools at his disposal, whereas the party unable to read Chinese has access to primary sources. For “There is no more excuse for sinologists writing incompetently on technical subjects than for scientists working incompetently upon texts” (Denis Twitchett). It would be wrong, however, to conclude that partial views add up to a Totalbild, to a complete and coherent picture of the articulated, multileveled whole of China. What we have got when the various joint ventures finally come out with their product is a patchwork rather than a tapestry, a juxtaposition rather than a composition, a pile of well-made bricks rather than a house, an ‘aggregate’ (Gesamtheit) rather than a ‘whole’ (Ganzheit).

CHINA IS A COMPLEX SYSTEM OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS

Each country is a territory-bound, history-moulded, multi-minded, at one time open, at another time closed system of inextricably intertwined physical, chemical, biological and social systems. It has a “face” (Gestalt), a style, a character, a distinctive “sound” or “beat”, a particular “flavor” (rasa), a cultural heritage expressing its soul. Constantly changing, sometimes revolutionarily, it has properties none of its constituent subsystems has (much in the same way as the nature of water is irreducible to the attributes of hydrogen and oxygen; and a computer or television picture is more than the sum total of the bits of the pixels into which it can be decomposed). Not being an aggregate of (groups of) humans who live on an expanse of land, but a superorganism, a hierarchically

ordered, non-fragmentable holon, an exceedingly complex system of complex systems, and an intricately evolving compound/composite (the elements of which are held together by a mysterious kind of chemistry), a country cannot be understood by studying its parts one by one, by considering each or some of them out of its/their context. It can only be understood across the disciplines, that is to say, inter- or transdisciplinarily. Like the ant that cannot see the pattern of the carpet, a country student can never grasp the whole picture of it, not only because it is hard enough to be expert in one scientific domain and enormously difficult to learn two (let alone more than two) disciplines, but also because the whole of the country is something else than the sum total of its parts. Composition goes far beyond juxtaposition. So we need genuine scientific collaboration. The human body can only be dissected/analysed at the price of cutting vital connections. Breaking a country up into morsels for scientists from separate, non-communicating departments to chew on (the multidisciplinary approach) amounts to destroying a “system” (σύστημα, constitution) in order to comprehend it. The crux of the matter is that the parts and the whole are interconnected,

intertwined and interinvolved; they are inseparable from, and non-subordinatable to, each other. Quite simply: it takes two to tango. Countries, big or small, have to be thrown into a fresh perspective. Concepts borrowed from the burgeoning science of complex systems must be applied to them. Studies have been done on the complexity of cells/neurons, brains, organisms, companies/organisations, cities, polities, economies, societies, ecosystems and “social-ecological systems” (SESs), even on the complexity of the entire globe (complexity being defined as “elements that react to the pattern they together create”). It is time to explore

the possibility and feasibility of studying the complexity of countries, of recasting the issues related to them in terms of complex systems. At this critical juncture, when mankind’s survival is at stake, we can no longer afford to think and behave as if the intricately patterned and dynamically evolving economic, financial, political, legal, military, social, cultural, educational, religious, ecological, and foreign-relations systems of a nation-state are not interconnected, are not corresponding to, interfacing with, or mapping onto each other. It is time to imagine China through the miraculous language of 

mathematics/logic, “the cosmic eye of humanity” (Eberhard Zeidler); time to search for equations and inequalities, intersections and interactions, (inter)dependencies and coherencies; time to look for links and loops, homologies and isomorphies, correspondences and correlations, analogies and (self)similarities, kinds and grades of embeddedness, dynamic interfaces, the relationships between structures, the invariance/constant in the variety/change; time to contextualise categories and to elucidate the pathways underlying China’s functioning; time to trace, map and computationally visualise the web of its

mutually sustaining elements, the network of its variously connected and continually changing multilayered institutions; time to investigate how the whole of the country, being a huge semiotic one-many, a complex “system of systems” (SoS), is held together and differs from that of another country, like Rembrandt’s Night Watch from Picasso’s Guernica. Hopefully, the day will soon come that ‘China/country experts’ – and their twin brothers/sisters ‘big historians’ – see the difference between description (telling a story only) and analysis (providing an explanation), and show interest in the latest developments of, and close relationships between, mathematics, philosophy and the science of (complex) systems. 

Basically, complex systems scientists are exclusively interested in properties common to all complex systems, leaving it to non-formal scientists, in the fields of natural or cultural research, to study the differences between these systems. Practically, however, they confine themselves to a particular system and follow essentially one of two approaches. The first method is the building and study of a mathematical model that only contains the most important properties of the

system. The tools used in such studies include, but are not limited to, dynamical systems –, game –, and information theory. The second approach is building a more comprehensive and realistic model, usually in the form of a computer simulation, representing the interacting parts/agents of the system, and then watching and studying the emergent behaviour that appears. The power of computer simulation, aka computational modelling, has far exceeded anything possible using traditional paper-and-pencil mathematical modelling. The two approaches can be combined. The science of complex systems encompasses the study of particular systems and the study of systems in general; any advance in one of them makes a contribution to the other. Mark Newman, who is associated with the renowned Center for the Study of Complex Systems, at the University of Michigan, concludes a recent survey as follows:

“Complex systems [[[science]]] is a broad field, encompassing a wide range of methods and having an equally wide range of applications. The resources reviewed here cover only a fraction of this rich and active field of study. For the interested reader there is an abundance of further resources to be explored when those in this article are exhausted, and for the scientist intrigued by the questions raised there are ample opportunities to contribute. Science has only just begun to tackle the questions raised by the study of complex systems and the areas of our ignorance far outnumber the areas of our expertise. For the scientist looking for profound and important questions to work on, [the study of] complex systems offers a wealth of possibilities.” The science of complex systems is an early 1980s outgrowth of a) the science of systems (the study of the general properties of systems), b) cybernetics (the study of control and communication in

systems), c) system dynamics (the study of the behaviour of systems over time), d) synergetics (the study of the fundamental principles of pattern formation in systems), e) nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (the study of the emergence of dissipative structures), f) catastrophe theory (the study of sudden shifts in the behaviour of a system arising from small changes in its environment) and g) mathematical biology (the mathematical study of the mechanisms involved in biological processes). In the late 1990s, the ‘complexity turn’ took place: social scientists changed their attitude to, and became increasingly interested in, complexity science.

The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management, published a few years ago (Allen et al 2011), is “the first substantive scholarly work to provide a map of the state-of-the-art research in the growing field emerging at the intersection of complexity science and management studies”. Given that each company belongs to an industry (line of business), which is one of the sectors of an economy, which in turn is one of the systems a country consists of, we hope that this paper will convince the reader of the importance of redesigning Sinology, of the significance of forging bridges between complexity science(s) and ‘China studies’.

SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION

China can be compared with a brilliant-cut diamond, that sparkles in the sun. There will be no sparkling/brilliance until variously educated scientists shed light on the country, which is a multiplex reality. Having many faces/facets, it should be approached integratively. The scientific ‘attack’ on China should be a concerted one; the operation should be a combined, joint effort. Like every country, it should be studied interdisciplinarily (and – to make sensible assessments possible – comparatively); it should be depicted cubistically (with different viewpoints amalgamated into a multifaceted whole), because the whole and the parts of China are mutually implicated. China is a universe the centre of which is everywhere.

There are different ways of scientific collaboration, but they have a common denominator. The scientists involved understand that reality, being the nexus of interrelated phenomena irreducible to a single dimension (ordo connexio rerum), can never be grasped by separate disciplines, which have formed the layout of universities since the 18th century. While specialisation (read: fragmentation) has yielded sharper analytical acuity within particular knowledge domains, where the ceteris paribus clause has been the self-imposed, unrealistic rule of operation (unrealistic because other relevant things never remain unaltered!), the goal of reaching integrated understanding has receded. Depth of focus has been achieved at the expense of breadth of view. Some scientists begin to realise that

difficult, real-life problems require the pooling of disciplinary knowledge and analytical skills. It may be very hard for one (wo)man to become an expert in two disciplines, but two (wo)men jointly well-versed and well-trained in two disciplines, e.g. physics and chemistry, chemistry and biology, biology and psychology, psychology and sociology, sociology and economics, or – and here the circle closes – economics and physics, can co-produce something of great value. Interdisciplinary research is not a simple case of summing (Ʃ), of aggregating several disciplines into one, multidisciplinary research project. Extra effort is needed to achieve the promise of synergy, by forming a cohesive team that combines the expertise of different (groups of) people. Cross-disciplinary collaboration is difficult, because it requires a conceptual turnaround, lacks prestige in classical academia, seems to threaten the position of deeply

entrenched colleagues, has to overcome institutional barriers, and places one outside the circle of standard job slices. However, it has considerable added value: not only personal, because it enriches the life of those involved, and social, because its results tend to be more robust, but also scientific, because the collaboration minimises duplication, lights up blind spots, fosters analogical reasoning, leads to cross-fertilisation, creates collective intelligence (Malone and Bernstein 2014) and stimulates innovation (provided the members of the team actively listen to, and challengingly question, each other; provided they attempt to argue on the same wavelength, so to speak [Waldrop 2011]). The adversaries of interdisciplinary (as distinct from: international) collaboration do not have to worry: it means integration, not fusion, of disciplines; it is based on the salad bowl concept, on the principle 1 + 1 > 2. Its participants are comparable to the members of a symphony orchestra who are professional players of different instruments put in tune.

Workers in both the natural and the cultural (i.e. cognitive, behavioural, social, and human) sciences are increasingly using mathematical methods and techniques. Since the bridge between these sciences and mathematics (the wider, higher and deeper growing study of topics such as quantity, structure, space, and change) is heavily traveled, the interdisciplinary dialogue is stimulated. Moreover, scientific collaboration is facilitated by e-research, which may be called a major break-through in science and technology. It combines a) vast quantities of digitised data (digital libraries), b) supercomputers running sophisticated software, and c) high-tech connectivity between computers (cloud ̶ and grid computing, semantic web). With modern computers, almost any form of knowledge can be precisely expressed, and multi-dimensional computations of complex multi-scale phenomena are not beyond reach anymore. The potential of the Internet, implying the availability of all information for everyone, instantly and everywhere, seems to be boundless. WIDE AND DEEP

Unmistakably, there is something terribly wrong with Western Sinology (Zhōngguóxué). The field is not circumscribed. Unable to define their disciplinary matrix, lacking a research agenda, not having built a domain ontology (a precise explanation of the basic terms of their discourse), not commanding a theory of their own, and not searching for systematised knowledge with regard to China in and of itself, the so-called China experts in Europe and America are not scientists, even if “science” is broadly defined. Ignoring the elephant in their room and refusing a Reflexion auf eigenes Tun, these scholars boldly claim to synthesise the results of all kinds of professional study regarding the country of their choice, but – without a conceptual framework, i.e. without a model representing China as such – they are not able to present a comprehensive and coherent picture of the country, not to mention a lucid exposition of its dynamics, its phase

transitions, its transformation logic. Browsing and trespassing rather than really “putting together” is what these heroic polymaths are good at. Having no degree in any of the disciplines concerned, they do not shrink from rushing in where angels fear to tread. Implicitly claiming to be scientific all-rounders in respect of China, these jacks-of-all-trades keep the reader/listener/viewer in the dark as to how the parts fit into the whole and, conversely, how the whole stands interconnected with the parts. Their China approach is mile-wide-but-inch-deep. Though their population is dwindling, they are by no means extinct, their scholarship often being the pretentious garbed in the unintelligible. The claimed post-war “split of sinology into specialisms” has worsened the situation, because there is confusion and obfuscation as to who has a thorough grounding in a scientific discipline and who has not. Some, and we believe many, ‘China experts’ are actually amateurs who have the bad habit of donning the hat of a scientist without filling his shoes. Others have no qualms about introducing themselves simply as “Professor at the University of … (name of city)”. A courteous request to present academic credentials is considered a token of disrespect, and deeply ingrained customs (old boys network) preclude fundamental internal criticism, causing intellectual inbreeding, a deplorable situation politicians

choose to turn a blind eye to. Occasionally – we confine ourselves to one example – someone, knowing very well that studying a language is not the same as studying the literature written in that language, decided to enrol for literary studies before hurling him/herself at the Chinese literature. His/her monodisciplinary approach to the country is then mile-deep-but-inch-wide (the truth would be intolerably stretched if such a person permitted people to call him/her “China expert”). However, the problem with these one-dimensional scientists, who Max Weber would have derogatorily called Fachmenschen (de- or compartment people), is that they are accusable of silo/stovepipe thinking, of not seeing the big country-picture, of being unable to think systemically (to discern the parts as well as the whole). To remove this odium, these pundits have a tendency to cross boundary lines, blissfully ignorant about the dangers of skating on thin ice.

Readers taking pains to check the list of contributors to ‘Chinese/Asian Studies’ journals will discover that the editorial boards of these competing periodicals (the number of titles runs into the dozens) have not been consistent in their declared policies on the professionalism of authors. All too often, published articles are not “of the highest academic standard”. In our view, the wheat has not always been separated from the chaff, and experts in their own field of study are still allowed by editors who may not be kosher themselves to veer off course, that is, to leave their academic home turf and to enter unlawfully upon somebody else’s professional domain.

Brill’s Encyclopedia of China (2008), the English translation of Das große China-Lexikon: Geschichte, Geographie, Gesellschaft, Politik, Wirtschaft, Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (Primus Verlag, 2003), is another graphic example of what we call the scandal of Sinology. Let the potential buyer of this prohibitively priced tome first examine in which discipline from which university in which country its contributors graduated. We hope he/she will then realise the danger of being informed about a subject of great importance by a bunch of people being amateurs only but shamefully masquerading (and presented!) as China professionals. The fork in the road ahead for Western Sinologists is two-pronged: translating (where the Hanxuejia come into play) or collaborating. They are reported/supposed to be fluent in classical and modern Chinese. So our advice would be: cobbler, stick to your last. There are numerous important Chinese books eagerly awaiting

translation. If their desire is to embark on the study of a China related subject, we would counsel them not to venture forth on too vast a sea, but to look around for China oriented experts (i.e. scientists [in the first place] who have a special interest in China) to set up a joint venture, with the caveat that partial views do not add up to a picture of the whole of China. For making good use of organised and structured databases, they need to be interconnected. Partial studies that are not nicely dovetailed or firmly interlocked with each other present the reader with a spectacle coupé, with a Humpty-Dumpty broken into bits. Such studies (one may think of those collected in the only chronologically ordered set of hefty tomes entitled Cambridge History of China, this work being a far cry from a clear account of China’s figurations, a profound, multiperspective narrative/story of its past) do not constitute a coherent whole. They lack the critical and unifying (not: uniform) framework that could be provided by the science of systems and the related science of networks, the theoretical parts of which must appeal to researchers really willing to work together and fully aware of the awesome power of making the right distinctions and abstractions.

Parceling up neglects relations that matter. Compartmentalisation, or departmentalisation, the breaking down (mentally) of a complex system into “more manageable” subsystems easily results in losing sight of the context, of the environment, of the surroundings, of the conditions under which these subsystems operate within their suprasystem. A good physician and a commander-in-chief know this. We need a cubistic, multi-professional perspective, a multimodal integration. If and only if they are orderly and specifically put together (assembled), single parts/modules/entities/agents make up a whole, as every architect, astronaut, chef de cuisine, choreographer, composer, flower arranger (ikebana), gardener, novelist, even a football coach can tell. The interactions and interfaces between the components of a country (e.g. its political, legal, military, economic, financial, social, educational, and cultural system) need to be

investigated, much in the same way as the fundamental structure of the human language faculty is examined in current linguistics, that is to say, the interfaces between phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. For, as the ancients intuitively knew already, the perpetual interplay of components (a process involving exclusiveness-dissimilarity-uniqueness-discreteness as well as inclusiveness-similarity-commonness-continuity) is the basic principle of life and the core of all matter; it is the very essence of intelligence, creativity and harmony. In the words of Chinese-American theoretical physicist Kerson

Huang: “Interaction makes the world tick”. Studying China multidisciplinarily is fatally flawed; it will lead to hamartia, to “missing the mark” (illuminating the whole country); it is bound to result in a building not held together by cement, in the sterile juxtaposition of accounts forming a picture of incompatible colours. Partition walls must be lowered (but certainly not removed). What we need is detribalisation, collaborative scholarship, a well-coordinated joint effort, a disciplinarily integrated approach, that facilitates consilience, the joyful jumping together of scientific knowledge.

The main thrust of this debunking argument is that China ought to be seen under the aspect of its whole, sub specie totius, which is not to say that analysis, as understood in analytic philosophy (see note 4), is unimportant. Scrutinising parts/aspects of the country, one has to view them “from the angle of totality” (Shen Kuo). China, being understood as a unity (a notion distrusted by poststructuralists thinkers), by taking all in all, must be depicted not in a “flat”, or “curved”, but in a “fully rounded” way (these terms were coined by E.M. Forster). For knowledge of the whole is knowledge of each and every part of it, and the

other way around. It cannot be overstressed: in order to be scientific, the approach to China should be integrative, orchestral. Professional players should put their various instruments in tune and perform a symphony. Different perspectives must be brought together into the same dialogue space. Being a large, intricate and culture-soaked society cum polity cum economy cum geography cum history, China has to be studied truly interdisciplinarily. Only connect! That is the whole of our sermon (see note 6). EINHEIT IN VIELFALT; UNITY IN DIVERSITY; BHINNÊKA TUNGGAL IKA; JUNTOS COMO UNO; E PLURIBUS UNUM; 多 元 一 体. For, just as with the cable (a number of wires/strings bonded or braided together to form a single product), L’UNITÉ FAIT LA FORCE, the unity whose potential many a university has forgotten to exploit, the force we desperately need to be able to cope with mankind’s predicament. Besides collaboration between Sinologists and China oriented

scientists, we need ICT-driven collaboration between these scientists. In other words, we are in need of Sinologists who are prepared to work together with scientists having a) profound knowledge in a particular discipline, b) a special interest in China, c) proficiency in communicating with other “T-shaped”, China oriented experts, and d) skill in using the tools provided by rapidly developing e-research; with scientists being, additionally, conscious of the important but often forgotten fact that geography (the study of who, what, how, why and where) is nothing but history in space, while history (the study of who, what, how, why and when) is only geography in time. The methods of grounded theory and “structured dialogic design” (Flanagan and Christakis 2010) could be used to engage the stakeholders in a productive conversation; the newest techniques of categorisation, concept mapping, information visualisation/virtualization, PowerPoint presentation and “big data analysis” (Wang 2014, Preface) could be applied to stimulate their imagination; and much could be learned from those having first-hand experience in operations – and/or project management (Wikipedia: “big science” and “list of megaprojects”!). First and foremost, however, Sinologists (presumed to be highly competent to translate) and China oriented scientists willing to team up with each other should consult people versed in network – and (complex)

systems science. For these are the fast evolving fields of research that may provide a conceptual framework within which the closely intertwined patterns of China can be described and analysed in a meaningful way. What is more, these are the disciplines that can play a crucial role in understanding any country/nation and, ultimately, die ganze verknotete und vernetzte Welt, which is – we hope those involved in global, or international (relations), studies will really realise it – a hypercomplex, dynamic system of complex systems of complex systems in the cosmos (the grand total). Multidisciplinarity is certainly not the solution to the problem of Western Sinology. Changing from the mile-wide-but-inch-deep approach of the generalist (‘China study’) to the mile-deep-but-inch-wide approach of juxtaposed partial studies (‘Chinese studies’), one gets out of the frying pan into the fire. (Western) Sinologists should decisively act, attempt to engage the interest of scientists from various quarters, and treat China as a Ganzheit, as a territory-bound, history-moulded and goal-directed totality of identifiable and yet interdependent actors and factors. The study of China, in particular the long overdue interdisciplinary study of its modernisation, should be mile-wide-and-mile-deep, and the most important words should be “coordination” and “integration”. The dilemma as to whether to take the road to “knowing nothing about everything” or to “knowing everything about nothing” in respect of the country will then be broken, and both the wood and its trees will be seen. Firmly

distancing itself from multidisciplinary research, the study of China we have in mind requires a well-thought-out, perfectly balanced division of labour, i.e. the specialisation of cooperating individuals valued by Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim. Parts and whole, it bears repeating, are mutually implicated and inseparable from each other. It takes two different persons to perform a pas de deux. Entangled, Yin and Yang form Taiji, the fundamental concept that was created in ancient China and has been visualised as the symmetrical but undichotomisable  diagram but that the West, used to black-white, on-off and yes-no thinking (first/last quarter moon symbol!), appears to have great difficulty in understanding. Working together as a scientific team informed about the latest developments in (complex) systems ̶ and network science is the key to understanding China as such, to comprehending the country taken as a distinct but not separated (i.e. comparable) entity.

The change to interdisciplinary research in the study of China will be a paradigm (thought pattern) shift. Reading John King Fairbank’s widely acclaimed book China: A New History (Belknap, 1992), one might be impressed by the ease with which the great American China-scholar wrote about all kinds of subjects related to the country he had fallen in love with. However, it should not be overlooked that Professor Fairbank, whose well-known students were Benjamin Schwartz, Mary C. Wright, Rhoads Murphey, David Nivison, Albert Feuerwerker, Merle Goldman, Thomas Metzger, Philip Kuhn, Paul Cohen, Orville Schell, Andrew Nathan and Ross Terrill (to name but a few influential Sinologists), is to blame for encroaching upon foreign territory, for having entered without announcement/permission the domains of professionals. Now let J.K. Fairbank & Co. be a legal person with many cross-communicating heads, each graduated in, and familiar with the history of,

geography, demography, archaeology, linguistics, literary studies, economics, taxation theory, agronomy, (corporate, public and/or international) finance, business administration, political science, law, military studies, medicine, psychology, sociology, anthropology, mythology, pedagogy, semiotics, cybernetics, informatics, communication studies, transportation studies, religious studies, art history (Kunstwissenschaft), energy studies, ecology (sustainability science) or philosophy, and – common denominator – having mainly research interest in a particular, his/her discipline related aspect of China. We dare say this scientific, the university spirit epitomising community, by focusing on the process of finding answers to carefully formulated shared questions and then pooling the resources of its members, would be able to produce a book on the complex and multi-faceted history of the country entirely different from, and more thoroughly researched than, the one written by JKF, provided the poly-dimensional mapping project is well managed, provided the scientific orchestra is well

conducted, by somebody knowing how to create order in the cacophony of sciences (as Dmitri Mendeleev did when he created order in the apparent chaos of chemical elements). Were such a comprehensive, diasynchronically focused book (series) published, the giant step from multi- to interdisciplinary research (and production), vom Nebeneinander zum Ineinander, from “conjunction” (e.g. hammer and nail, shoes and laces, or quill and inkpot) to “inherence” (e.g. body and organs, family and members, or university and faculties), would have been taken, a decisive move those subscribing to the fundamental idea of Das Bauhaus would loudly applaud but no automobile ̶ , aircraft ̶ , or spacecraft manufacturer would be surprised at. Having only superficially dealt with this matter of utmost importance, we leave it to be further discussed at the highest echelon of the world’s top universities. CONCLUSION

With philosophy, mathematics, science and technology changing their character, the study of China should be lifted onto a higher plane, higher than what ‘China experts’ at the School of Oriental [sic] and African Studies (SOAS), the German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), the National Institute of Oriental [sic] Languages and Civilisations (INALCO), the Brookings Institution, the China Research Center (Atlanta), the Universities of British Columbia, California, Cambridge, Chicago, Coimbra, Edinburgh, Erlangen-Nürnberg, Helsinki, Leeds, Leuven, Ljubljana, Munich, Naples (l’Orientale), Nottingham, Oslo, Oxford, Pittsburg, Rome (Sapienza), Salamanca, Tokyo, Vienna and Warsaw, the East Asian Institute (Singapore), Collège de France, Le Centre d’études sur la Chine modern et

contemporaine (Paris), Academia Sinica (Taipei), the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and Fudan –, Nanjing –, Peking –, Shanghai Jiao Tong ̶ , Tsinghua –, Xi’an Jiao Tong ̶ , Zhejiang –, Columbia –, Princeton –, Stanford –, Yale –, Kyoto –, Aarhus –, Bologna ̶ , Heidelberg –, Humboldt ̶ , Leibzig –, Leiden –, Lund –, Sofia –, Stockholm –, Uppsala –, Vilnius –, Lomonosov Moscow State –, Saint Petersburg State –, Jawaharlal Nehru –, National Taiwan –, Seoul National – and Australian National University apparently aim at; higher than the declared objective of the leadership of CCPN Global, that “unique global academic society for advancing

the study of China and the Chinese from a comparative perspective” launched in March 2013; higher than what Professor Mikhail Titarenko and his colleagues at the Institute of Far Eastern [sic] Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (currently in the process of being radically reformed) seem to have in mind; even higher than what Professor Amako Satoshi, chairman of the Central Planning Committee of NIHU’s programme “Contemporary Chinese Area Studies” and chief editor of The Journal of Contemporary China Studies (2012 ff.), allegedly attempts to achieve.

If the purpose of Sinology, Chinakunde, Синология or Chūgokugaku is to make a fine weave, its approach should be historical/longitudinal/warp-like as well as cross-sectional/transversal/weft-like, i.e. the whole shebang should be accounted for. Those embarking on the study of China as such should take a leaf out of the handbook of historical sociology (Norbert Elias, Michael Mann) or historical anthropology (Marshall Sahlins, Christoph Wulf), cull the pages of the

international journal Social Evolution & History (2002 ff), and proceed like poets and painters, like evolutionists and ecologists, but never forget that “jeder Mensch mehr kann sein als nur Glied einer Masse” (Karl Jaspers). Acquainted with “multidimensional modelling” (Romero and Abelló 2009), “multilevel modelling” (Wang et al 2012) and – der Dritte im Bunde – “agent-based modelling”, they should take a synchronoptic view, pay attention to the contemporary and the

noncontemporary (unfinished past), and always bear in mind that paths (being multi- rather than dialectic processes) and patterns (being arrangements/orderings at a certain point in time) are point-counterpointedly related — on macro-, meso- and microscale. In other words, they should connect the dots and consider the Chinese condition ‘in the round’. Briefly, their discourse, coherently foregrounding/highlighting one group of (f)actors after another, should be complexity/nonlinearity-oriented. Researchers in the field of (semantic) systems biology or cellular and developmental (neuro)biology might provide a clue as to exactly how to proceed.

With each and every one of the cultural sciences beginning to realise that without the help of the other neither will be able to proceed very far, the heyday of Sinology is yet to come. However, this crucial point (Wende!) in the history and evolution of that odd field of research called “China study”, or “Chinese Studies”, cannot be reached until one thing, being not only an événement but also an avènement, has been accomplished: the official opening of a truly

scientific, genuinely interdisciplinary and professionally managed China research centre, i.e. the inauguration of an Institute for Advanced China Study (Think Tank, or Centre of Excellence), fitting neatly into the university imagined by Elkana and Klöpper (2012), affiliated with a yet to be established and ICSU and ISSC connected International Union of Area/Country Studies and linked up with the global e-infrastructure. Meanwhile, the organisation of an international conference on comprehending, and coping with, the complexity of China might be worth considering, the meeting being a world forum co-organised by

Associations/Societies of Sinologists (e.g. EACS), co-supported by the European Consortium for Asian Field Study (ECAF) and really committed to improving the current state of the study of China. “Really”, because the high-profile “World Forum on China Studies”, co-sponsored by the State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China and the Shanghai Municipal Government, is a complete farce, a shameless show of partisanship. The participants in the onsite and/or online conference/congress we are thinking of, especially the younger generation among them, will undoubtedly benefit from a fundamental, critical, open and professionally moderated discussion. Noun phrases like “systems thinking”, “research synthesis”, “nonlinear behavior”, “circular causality”, “feedback loop”, “agent-based modelling”, “pattern formation”, “data compression”, “concept mapping”, “upper ontology”, “conceptual modelling”, “knowledge integration, –

cartography and – management”, “network evolution”, “sub/superlinear scaling”, “system dynamics”, “strange attractors”, “structural transition”, “stigmergic behaviour”, “networks of networks”, “scientific collaboration”, “soft computing”, “multi-formalism modelling”, “intelligent information systems”, “e-research” and “semantic web” are increasingly used, not only in the natural but also in the cultural sciences. The main reason for this is the closing of the gap yawning between the two worlds/domains. This deliberately provocative article is nothing but a wake-up call for ‘China experts’, not only in Europe and the USA but also elsewhere, to be aware of this and to act accordingly, that is, to make the complexity turn in order to reveal the whole elephant. It has been our intention throughout the paper to convince the reader that there is an elevated place (a meta position) where the huge body and bewildering variety of data on a country can be compressed into a falsifiable or refutable theory, where multiplicity (multa) can be turned into simplicity (multum), where – in the case at issue – a breathtaking view of the whole of China can be gained. At that high altitude, long-held convictions will be disestablished and the Eureka effect, the Aha-

Erlebnis will be, that – by seeing both the many in the one and the one in the many; by realising that kinds of fruit, like apples and oranges, can be compared – one finally com-prehends (fasst zusammen). Beautiful and profound is, therefore, the old Chinese proverb: “the pattern is one, the parts are different” (理 一 分 殊). China, being a universe the centre of which is everywhere (like an organism the hereditary material of which is encountered in each and every one of its cells), should be studied 1) professionally (i.e. by China oriented people not only running the gamut of the natural and cultural sciences, but also taking full advantage of the latest in information and communications technology), 2) on the basis of reliable/primary sources, and 3) with the translation skill of sinologists being put to good use. The country (indeed, each country) should be approached respectfully (account also being taken of its history), looked at with an open, unbiased mind, and presented in a critical but fair and honest way. China, like a Buckminsterfullerene (buckyball), is a Gestalt; a particular plurality; it is a dense and intricate network of ties developed over a long period of time; it is an enormous organisation of numerous agents/individuals-in-

process having different, often convoluted and sometimes strained relations with each other; it is a cluster of institutions (commonly cognised patterns by which societal games are recurrently played and expected to be played); it is a complex and dynamic system of hierarchical systems; it is a non-linear universe, to be studied as such by China oriented, truly collaborating experts from various disciplines, linguistics, or literary theory/criticism, being only one of them. China is a partly self-organising system, to be defined in terms of space, time (spatio-temporal organization), structure and agency (social cohesion); it is an entirety, a “difficult whole” (Robert Venturi), a holon (not a pan), to be described holographically. China, l'autre du monde indo-européen, somehow behaves (Schmid and Schweikard 2009); it has a personality, symbolised by its flag and national anthem, and embodied/personified by its head of state, because its people have a sense of belonging (sustained by the Chinese script) and constitute a community of destiny (which does not preclude the possibility of rivalries and internal conflicts); it has interests none of its parts has (Frieden et al 2013); it has its own particular culture, the rayonnement of which cannot be measured. The country has a character (zhonghuaxing), which is not like the characteristic colour spectrum of a chemical compound (being only the sum total of the spectra, or Einzelcodes, of the elements that make it up); it has unique emergent properties, that cannot be attributed to any of its constituent subsystems; it is an

individuum, something that cannot be divided up without losing its history-and-geography-related identity. The argument advanced in this bold article boils down to a single, deceptively simple statement: without scientific collaboration, there will be no (empirically and theoretically founded) knowledge of a country. To know a man, it has been said, you have to walk a mile in his shoes; and to know a city, you have to walk a thousand miles. To know a country, we would like to add, you need nothing less than a scientific team. Understanding both the constituent parts of a country and the whole of the country behind all its parts should be the ultimate goal of the – depending on the level of analysis – more or less finely meshed study of it. Change in the field of China/country studies may be really difficult (the tyranny of habit!) but is absolutely necessary. Our inspiration came from the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, the creator of Allgemeine

Systemlehre who (influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure?) has been described as “the least known intellectual titan of the twentieth century”. His Leitmotiv was “unity-through-diversity” (providing space for different perspectives while sharing a common goal). Our hope is that “the brick we have thrown will attract a jadestone from others” (抛 砖 引 玉) — for the improvement of intercultural and international understanding, for more peace and harmony in this hyperconnected yet deeply troubled world. We do not ask for agreement; we rather hope there will be a fundamental discussion, a great conversation. For ‘Truth springs from argument amongst friends’ (David Hume) and Du choc des opinions jaillit la vérité.

Summa summarum: CHINA ORIENTED EXPERTS FROM ALL DISCIPLINES, UNITE!

REFERENCES

Afeissa, Hicham-Stéphane. 2014. La fin du monde et de l’humanité. Paris: PUF.

Aldrich, John (ed.). 2014. Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: OUP.

Allen, Peter, Maguire, Steve and McKelvey, Bill (eds.). 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Anandarajan, Murugan and Anandarajan, Asokan (eds.). 2010. e-Research Collaboration. Berlin: Springer.

Atkinson, Rita, Atkinson, Richard, Smith, Edward, Bem, Daryl and Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan. 1999. Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Ball, Philip. 2009. Nature’s Patterns: A Tapestry in Three Parts (Shapes, Flow, and Branches) . Oxford: OUP.

Balsinger, Philipp. 2005. Transdisziplinarität: Systematisch-vergleichende Untersuchung disziplinenübergreifenden Wissensschaftspraxis. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

Bammer, Gabriele. 2013. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity. Canberra: ANU Press.

Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. NewYork: Hampton Press.

Batty, Michael. 2013. The New Science of Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Beauregard. 2012. Brain Wars. New York: HarperCollins.

Bejan, Adrian and Zane, Peder. 2012. Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Berman, Bob. 2014. Zoom: How Everything Moves: From Atoms and Galaxies to Blizzards and Bees. NY: Little, Brown and Company.

Berdyaev, Nikolai. 1927 (2009). Freedom and the Spirit. San Rafael, CA: Semantron Press.

Béziau, Jean-Yves and Gan-Krzywoszynska, Katarzyna (eds.). 2014. New Dimensions of the Square of Opposition. München: Philosophia Verlag.

Bhaskar, Roy, Frank, Cheryl, Høyer, Karl-Georg, Naess, Petter and Parker, Jenneth (eds.). 2010. Interdisciplinarity and Climate Change. London: Routledge.

Blitstein, Pablo. 2008. “A New Debate about Alterity”. Accessed on 1-11-14: www.uba.ar/ceca/newsletters/diciembre_08/newsletter-english_diciembre_08.php.

Bourgine, Paul. 2013. “Complex Systems Science as a New Transdisciplinary Science”. Accessed on 1-11-14: www.diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com/complex-systems-science-as-a-new-transdisciplinary-science.

Breyer, Thiemo, Etzelmüller, Gregor, Fuchs, Thomas and Schwarzkopf, Grit (eds.). 2013 Interdisziplinäre Anthropologie: Leib – Geist – Kultur. Heidelberg: Winter.

Brondízio, Eduardo and Moran, Emilio. 2013. Human – Environment Interactions: Current and Future Directions. Dordrecht: Springer.

Bronkhorst, Johannes. 2013. “Anekāntavāda, The Central Philosophy of Ājīvikism?”. International Journal of Jaina Studies 9:1, 1-11.

Bunge, Mario. 2003. Emergence and Convergence: Qualitative Novelty and the Unity of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

—. 2010. Matter and Mind. NY: Springer.

Burgess, John. forthcoming. Rigor and Structure. Oxford: OUP. Byrne, David and Callaghan, Gill. 2014. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

Cabell, Kenneth and Valsiner, Jaan (eds.). 2014. The Catalyzing Mind: Beyond Models of Causality. NY: Springer.

Caplat, Guy. 2008. Modèles et métamodèles. Lausanne: PPUR.

Capra, Fritjof and Luisi, Pier. 2014. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: CUP.

Chaisson, Eric. 2001. Cosmic Evolution: Rise of Complexity in Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chaitin, Gregory. 2005. Metamaths: The Quest for Omega. London: Atlantic Books.

Cheng, Anne. 1997. Histoire de la pensée chinoise. Paris: Seuil.

Cheng, Chung-Ying and Bunnin, Nicholas (eds.). 2002. Contemporary Chinese Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chibbaro, Sergio, Rondoni, Lamberto and Vulpiani, Angelo. 2014. Reductionism, Emergence and Levels of Reality. Berlin: Springer.

Ching, Francis. 2013. Building Structures Illustrated: Patterns, Systems, and Design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Chopp, Rebecca, Frost, Susan and Weiss, Daniel (eds.). 2014. Remaking College: Innovation and the Liberal Arts College. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Christian, David, Stokes Brown, Cynthia and Benjamin, Craig. 2013. Big History: From Nothing to Everything. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Churchland, Patricia. 2013. Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain. NY: W.W. Norton.

Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP.

Clemens Jr, Walter. 2013. Complexity Science and World Affairs. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Coen, Enrico. 2012. Cells to Civilizations: The Principles of Change that Shape Life. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

Contucci, Pierluigi, Menezes, Ronaldo, Omicini, Andrea and Poncela-Casasnovas (eds.). 2014. Complex Networks V: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Complex Networks CompleNet 2014. Berlin: Springer.

Crane, Mary. 2001. Shakespeare’s Brain: Reading with Cognitive Theory. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

Cua, Antonio (ed.). 2003. Encyclopedia of Chinese Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Curtis, Kenneth and Bentley, Jerry (eds.). 2014. Architects of World History. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

D’Agostino, Gregorio and Scala, Antonio (eds.). 2014 Networks of Networks: The Last Frontier of Complexity. Berlin: Springer.

Damasio, Antonio, Harrington, Anne, Kagan, Jerome, McEwen, Bruse and Moss, Henry (eds.). 2001. Unity of Knowledge: The Convergence of Natural and Human Science. NY: New York Academy of Sciences.

De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, Stopczynski, Arkadiusz, Shmueli, Erez, Pentland, Alex and Lehman, Sune. 2014. “The Strength of the Strongest Ties in Collaborative Problem Solving”. Accessed on 1-11-14: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep05277.

De Rosnay, Joël. 1975. Le Macroscope: vers une vision globale. Paris: Seuil.

Dedié, Günter. 2014. Die Kraft der Naturgesetze: Emergenz und kollektive Fähigkeiten von den Elementarteilchen bis zur menschlichen Gesellschaft. Hamburg: Tredition.

DeFries, Ruth. 2014. The Big Ratchet: How Humanity Thrives in the Face of Natural Crisis. NY: Basic Books.

Descombes, Vincent. 2013. Les embarrass de l’identité. Paris: Gallimard.

Diamandis, Peter and Kotler, Steven. 2012. Abundance: The Future is Better than You Think. NY: Free Press.

Diehl, Ulrich. 2013. “Jasper’ Existenzerhellung der Freiheit”. Accessed on 1-11-14: http://philpapers.org/rec/DIEJED.

Dimitrov, Vladimir. 2011. A New Kind of Social Science: Study of Self-Organization of Human Dynamics. Morrisville, NC: Lulu Press.

Du Sautoy. Marcus. 2008. Symmetry: A Journey into the Patterns of Nature. New York: HarperCollins.

Dutton, William and Jeffries, Paul (eds.). 2010. World Wide Research: Reshaping the Sciences and Humanities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ehrlich, Paul and Ehrlich, Anne. March 7, 2013. “Can a Collapse of Global Civilization Be Avoided?”. Proceedings of The Royal Society B 280 (1754), 1-9.

—. September 22, 2013. “Future Collapse: How Optimistic Should We Be?”. Proceedings of The Royal Society B 280 (1767), 1-2.

Elkana, Yehuda and Klöpper, Hannes. 2012. Die Universität im 21. Jahrhundert. Hamburg: Körber-Stiftung.

Epperson, Michael and Zafiris, Elias. 2013. Foundations of Relational Realism. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

Faggini, Marisa and Parziale, Anna (eds.). 2014. Complexity in Economics: Cutting Edge Research. NY: Springer.

Feng, Youlan, trans. Derk Bodde. 1953. A History of Chinese Philosophy, Vol. II. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

Flanagan, Thomas and Christakis, Alexander. 2010. The Talking Point: Creating an Environment for Exploring Complex Meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Information Age Publishing.

Floridi, Luciano. 2014. The Fourth Revolution: How the Infosphere is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: OUP.

Fraser, Chris. forthcoming. Chinese Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press. French, Steven. 2014. The Structure of the World. Oxford: OUP.

Frieden, Jeffry, Lake, David and Schultz, Kenneth. 2013. World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions. NY: W.W. Norton.

Frodeman, Robert, Thompson Klein, Julie and Mitcham, Carl (eds.). 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fuchs, Thomas. forthcoming. Ecology of the Brain. Oxford: OUP.

Gallois, André. 1998. Occasions of Identity. Oxford: OUP.

Gasser, Georg and Stefan, Matthias (eds.). 2013. Personal Identity: Complex or Simple?. Cambridge: CUP.

Geertz, Clifford. 2001. Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

Gethmann, Carl, Carrier, Martin, Hanekamp, Gerd, Kaiser, Matthias, Kamp, Georg, Lingner, Stephan, Quante, Michael and Thiele, Felix. forthcoming. Interdisciplinary Research and Trans–disciplinary Validity Claims. Berlin: Springer.

Gould, Stephen Jay. 2003. The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox: Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities. NY: Harmony Books. Gray, Wayne (ed.). 2007. Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems. New York: OUP.

Greve, Jens and Schnabel, Annette (eds.). 2011. Emergenz: Zur Analyse und Erklärung komplexer Strukturen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Grinin, Leonid, Baker, David, Quaedackers, Esther and Korotayev, Andrey (eds.). 2014. Teaching & Researching Big History: Exploring a New Scholarly Field. Volgograd: Uchitel.

Haken Hermann and Portugali, Juval. forthcoming. Information Adaptation: The Interplay between Shannon Information and Semanantic Information in Cognition. Berlin: Springer.

Helin, Jenny, Hernes, Tor, Hjorth, Daniel and Holt, Robin (eds.). 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Process Philosophy & Organization Studies. Oxford: OUP.

Hersch, Reuben. 1997. What is Mathematics Really? Oxford: OUP.

Hertzberger, Herman. 2014. Architecture and Structuralism: The Ordering of Space. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene (ed.). 2011. The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research. New York: OUP. Heywood, Andrew. 2007. Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hofkirchner, Wolfgang (ed.). 2009 ff. Exploring Unity Through Diversity. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.

Ibrahim, Fawzi. 2012. Capitalism versus Planet Earth: An Irreconcilable Conflict. Sheffield: Muswell Press.

Jacobs, Jerry. 2013. In Defense of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jameson, Frederic. 1972. The Prison–House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton, NJ: PUP. Jencks, Charles. 2003. The Garden of Cosmic Speculation. London: Frances Lincoln.

Ji, Sungchul,. 2012. Molecular Theory of the Living Cell. New York: Springer.

Johnson, Jeffrey. 2014. Hypernetworks in the Science of Complex Systems. Singapore: World Scientific.

Jullien, François. 2007. La pensée chinoise dans le miroir de la philosophie. Paris: Seuil.

Jungert, Michael, Romfeld, Elsa, Sukopp, Thomas and Voigt, Uwe (eds.). 2013. Interdisziplinarität: Theorie, Praxis, Probleme. Darmstadt: WBG.

Kagan, Jerome. 2009. The Three Cultures: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and the Humanities in the 21st Century. NY: CUP.

—. 2010. The Temperamental Thread: How Genes, Culture, Time, and Luck Make Us Who We Are. NY: Dana Press.

Kaipayil, Joseph. 2009. Relationalism: A Theory of Being. Bangalore: JIP Publications. Kelly, Michael. September 22, 2013. “Why a Collapse of Global Civilization Can Be Avoided: A Comment on Ehrlich & Ehrlich”. Proceedings of The Royal Society B 280 (1767), 1-3.

Kenny, Anthony. 2012. A New History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Koch, Christof. 2012. Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Krausz, Michael (ed.). 2010. Relativism: A Contemporary Anthology. New York: Columbia University Press.

Krummel, John. 2010. “Transcendent or Immanent? Significance and History of Li in Confucianism”. .Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37:3, 417-437.

Kuijper, Hans. 2000. “Is Sinology a Science?”. China Report 36:3, 331-354.

—. 2013. “The Modernisation of China”. Available at: www.academia.edu (fill in author’s full name).

—. 2014. “Perception: An Interdisciplinary Essay”. Available at: www.academia.edu (fill in author’s full name).

Lai, Karyn. 2008. An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy. Cambridge: CUP.

Lakhani, Jahan, Benzies, Karin and Hayden, K. Alix. 2012. “Attributes of Interdisciplinary Research Teams: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature”. Clin Invest Med 35:5, E260-E265.

Larsen, Randy, Buss, David and Wismeijer, Andreas. 2013. Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature. Boston: McGraw-Hill Education.

Laughlin, Robert. 2006. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. NY: Basic Books.

Lederman, Leon and Hill, Christopher. 2004. Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

Li, Shenzhi. 1999. “Reflections on the Concept of the Unity of Heaven and Man (TIAN REN HE YI)”. Pohl, Karl-Heinz (ed.). Chinese Thought in a Global Context. Leiden: Brill, 115-128.

Lineweaver, Charles, Davies, Paul and Ruse, Michael (eds.). 2013. Complexity and the Arrow of Time. Cambridge: CUP. Liu, Jeeloo. 2005. “The Status of Cosmic Principle (li) in Neo-Confucian Metaphysics”. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32:3, 391-407.

Lovelock, James. 2009. The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. NY: Basic Books.

Lowe, Jonathan. 2009. More kinds of Being: A Further Study of Individuation, Identity and the Logic of Sortal Terms. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

MacGregor, Neil. 2011. A History of the World in 100 Objects. New York: Viking Press.

Maldonado, Carlos Eduardo (ed.). 2013. Derivas de Complejidad. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad del Rosario.

Malone, Thomas and Bernstein, Michael (eds.). 2014. Handbook of Collective Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Markowich, Peter, Burger, Martin and Caffarelli, Luis (eds.). 2014. “Partial differential equation models in the socio- economic sciences”. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A 372 (2028).

Mathieu, Nicole and Schmid, Anne-Françoise (eds.). 2014. Modélisation et interdisciplinarité. Paris: Quæ.

Mayaram, Shail (ed.). 2014. Philosophy as Saṃvāda and Svarāj: Dialogical Meditations on Daya Krishna and Ramchandra Gandhi. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McCabe, Viki. 2014. Coming to Our Senses: Perceiving Complexity to Avoid Catastrophes. New York: OUP.

McGuinness, Brian (ed.). 1987. Unified Science: The Vienna monograph series originally edited by Otto Neurath. Dordrecht: Reidel..

McNeill, John Robert and McNeill, William Hardy. 2003. The Human Web: A Bird’s Eye View of World History. NY: W.W. Norton.

Meadows, Donella. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Medicus, Gerhard. 2013. Was uns Menschen verbindet: Humanethologische Angebote zur Verständigung zwischen Leib- und Seelenwissenschaften. Berlin: VWB Verlag.

Michelucci, Pietro (ed.). 2013. Handbook of Human Computation. NY: Springer.

Mingers, John. 2014. Systems Thinking, Critical Realism and Philosophy: A Confluence of Ideas. London: Routledge.

Montuori, Alfonso. 2013. “Complexity and Transdisciplinarity: Reflections on Theory and Practice”. Accessed on 1-11 -14: www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02604027.2013.803349?journalCode=gwof20. Mou, Bo (ed.). 2009. History of Chinese Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Nagel, Thomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos. NY: OUP.

Newman, Mark. 2010. Networks: An Introduction. Oxford: OUP.

Nielsen, Michael. 2012. Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

O’Grady, William, Archibald, John, Aronoff, Mark and Rees-Miller, Janie. 2009. Contemporary Linguistics: An Introduction. Boston: Bedford-St. Martin’s.

Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Parker, Jenneth. 2014. Critiquing Sustainability, Changing Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Piaget, Jean. 1968. Le structuralism. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Pombo, Olga, Torres, Juan Manuel, Symons, John and Rahman, Shahid (eds.). 2012. Special Sciences and the Unity of Science. NY: Springer.

Popper, Karl. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Pratten, Stephen (ed.). 2014. Social Ontology and Modern Economics. London, Routledge.

Procházka, Martin, Malá, Markéta and Šaldová, Pavlína (eds.). 2010. The Prague School and Theories of Structure. Göttingen: V&R Unipress.

Putnam, Hilary. 2002. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P. Ramage, Magnus and Shipp, Karen. 2009. Systems Thinkers. London: Springer.

Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: OUP.

Reck, Erich (ed.). 2013. The Historical Turn in Analytic Philosophy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Repko, Allen, Szostak, Rick and Buchberger, Michelle. 2014. Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rickart, Charles. 1995. Structuralism and Structures. Singapore: World Scientific.

Röd, Wolfgang et al (eds.). 1984 ff . Geschichte der Philosophie. München: C.H. Beck.

Romero, Oscar and Abelló, Alberto. 2009. “A Survey of Multidimensional Modeling Methodologies”. International Journal of Data Warehousing and Mining 5:2, 1-23.

Rose, Nikolas and Abi-Rached, Joelle. 2013. Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

Rošker, Jana. 2012. Traditional Chinese Philosophy and the Paradigm of Structure (Li 理). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Ryan, Alan. 2012. The Making of Modern Liberalism. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

Šalamon, Tomáš, 2011. Design of Agent-Based Models: Developing Computer Simulations for a Better Understanding of Social Processes. Repin: Bruckner. Samuelson, Paul and Nordhaus, William. 2009. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Santinello, Giovanni, and Blackwell, Constance (ed.). 1993 ff. Models of the History of Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Schelling, Friedrich von. 1809. “Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit”. Accessed on 1-11-14: www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/19Jh/Schelling/sch_frei.html.

Schmicking, Daniel and Gallagher, Shaun (eds.). 2010. Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. NY: Springer.

Schmid, Hans and Schweikard, David (eds.). 2009. Kollektive Intentionalität: Eine Debatte über die Grundlagen des Sozialen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Schrift, Alan (ed.). 2010. The History of Continental Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Searle, John. 2010. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: OUP.

Seifert, Josef. 1989. Das Leib-Seele Problem und die gegenwärtige philosophische Diskussion. Eine kritisch- systematische Analyse. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft

Shubin, Neil. 2013. The Universe Within: Discovering the Common History of Rocks, Planets, and People. NY: Pantheon,

Sing, Simron, Haberl, Helmut, Chestow, Marian, Mirtl, Michael and Schmid, Martin (eds.). 2013. Long Term Socio- Ecological Research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Skyttner, Lars. 2001. General Systems Theory: Ideas & Applications. Singapore: World Scientific.

Slingerland, Edward. 2008. What Science Offers the Humanities: Integrating Body and Culture. NY: CUP.

— and Collard, Mark (eds.). 2012. Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities. NY: OUP. Soames, Scott. 2014. The Analytic Tradition in Philosophy, Vol. I: The Founding Giants. Princeton, NJ: PUP.

Spier, Fred. 2010. Big History and the Future of Humanity. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Spohn, Wolfgang. 2014. “How Essentialism Properly Understood might Reconcile Realism and Social Constructivism”. Galavotti, Maria, Dieks, Dennis, Gonzalez, Wenceslao, Hartmann, Stephan, Uebel, Thomas and Weber, Marcel (eds.). New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. NY: Springer, 255-265.

Starr, Cecie, Taggart, Ralph, Evers, Christine and Starr, Lisa. 2013. Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Stewart, John. 2014. “The Direction of Evolution: The rise of cooperative organization”. Accessed on 1-11-14: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2014.05.006.

Strathern, Mark and McGlade, James (eds.). 2014. The Social Face of Complexity Science: A Festschrift for Professor Peter M. Allen. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.

Straub, Jürgen. 2004. “Identität”. Jaeger, Friedrich and Liebsch, Burkhard (eds.). Handbuch der Kulturwissenschaften, Vol. I: Grundlagen und Schlüsselbegriffe. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 277 ̶ 303.

Sturrock, John. 2003. Structuralism. Hoboken.NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sun, Ron (ed.). 2012. Grounding Social Sciences in Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sun, Yue. 2014. “Chinese Traditions and Big History”. Grinin, Leonid, Baker, David, Quaedackers, Esther and Korotayev, Andrey (eds.). Teaching & Researching Big History: Exploring a New Scholarly Field. Volgograd: Uchitel, 112-121.

Surdulescu, Radu. 2000. Form, Structure and Structurality in Critical Theory. Bucharest: E.U.B.

Swaab, Dick. 2014. We are our Brain. NY: Spiegel & Gray.

Tabery, James. 2014. Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Taddei-Ferretti, Cloe (ed.). 2012. Going Beyond Essentialism: Bernard J.F. Lonergan, An Atypical Neo-Scholastic. Naples: Italian Institute for Philosophical Studies.

Taylor, Mark. 2001. The Moment of Complexity: Emerging Network Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tegmark, Max. 2014. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. NY: Alfred Knopf.

Thompson Klein, Julie. 2010. Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Thorén, Henrik and Persson, Johannes. 2013. “The Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity”. Accessed on 1-11-14: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10838-013-9233-5.

Turchin, Valentin. 1977. The Phenomenon of Science. NY: Columbia University Press.

Vanderrmeersch, Léon. 2013. Les deux raisons de la pensée chinoise. Paris: Gallimard.

Vicari, Giuaseppe. 2008. Beyond Conceptual Dualism. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Vincent, Jean-Didier and Lledo, Pierre-Marie. 2014. The Custom-Made Brain. New York: Columbia University Press.

Vrahimis, Andreas. 2013. Encounters between Analytic and Continental Philosophy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vukovich, Daniel. 2012. China and Orientalism: Western Knowledge Production and the P.R.C. London: Routledge.

Waldrop, M. Mitchell. 2011. “Physics meets cancer: The Disruptor”. Accessed on 1-11-14: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/474020a.

Wang, Jichuan, Xie, Haiyi and Fisher, James. 2012. Multilevel Models. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Wang, John (ed.). 2014. Encyclopedia of Business Analytics and Optimization. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Wang, Yingxu. 2013. Cognitive Informatics for Revealing Human Cognition. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Wechsler, Dietmar and Hurst, Annette. 2011. “Interdisziplinäre Systemintegration und Innovationsgenese: Ein methodologischer Zugang für die interdisziplinäre Forschung”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42:1, 141- 155.

Welsch, Wolfgang, Singer, Wolf and Wunder, André (eds.). 2011. Interdisciplinary Anthropology. Berlin: Springer.

Wilson, Edward. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. NY: Alfred Knopf.

—. 2012. The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: W.W. Norton. Wolf-Branigin, Michael. 2013. Using Complexity Theory for Research and Program Evaluation. New York: OUP.

Yang, Mayfair Mei-hui. 1994. Gifts, Favors, and Banquets: The Art f Social Relationships in China. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press;

Zeidler, Eberhard (ed.). 2004. Oxford Users’ Guide to Mathematics. New York: OUP.

Ziporyn, Brook. 2012. Ironies of Oneness and Difference: Coherence in Early Chinese Thought; Prolegomena to the Study of Li 理. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

—. 2013. Beyond Oneness and Difference: Li 理 and Coherence in Chinese Buddhist Thought and its Antecedents. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Zufferey, Nicolas. 2008. Introduction à la pensée chinoise. Paris: Marabout.

Rotterdam November 2014