In What Ways We Depend: Academic Dependency Theory and the Development of East Asian Sociology

This paper calls for a paradigm shift in studying academic dependency, toward the paradigm of brokered dependency. Using Chinese academia as an example, I demonstrate how the neocolonial condition of academic dependency is always mediated through blockage-brokerage mechanisms. The two most salient blockage-brokerage mechanisms of dependency in the Chinese context are linguistic barrier and authoritarian malepistemization, and the effects of the latter consist of three layers: institutional, informational, and incorporational. On top of their domestic impacts, those mechanisms jointly exacerbate spectacularized postcoloniality in anglophone-hegemonic global academic publishing. The paradigm of brokered dependency not only represents a more nuanced approach to the study of academic dependency, but also underscores the fact that the dismantling of the neocolonial condition cannot be conceived and pursued in isolation from comprehending and confronting the authoritarian condition, especially when the latter pertains under the disguise of anticolonialism.

Section: Introduction: China and Academic Dependencymentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Linguistic Barrier As a Blockage-brokerage Mechanismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brokered Dependency, Authoritarian Malepistemization, and Spectacularized Postcoloniality: Reflections on Chinese Academia

Lin

2022

“…However, based on my intensive observations and experiences with the climbing rankings of NUS and our anthropology (and sociology) program in the last few years, this is far from achieving academic autonomy. Instead, these global rankings have reinforced dependency on the West for its recognition (see, for instance, Lee & Chen, 2022). Simultaneously, the rankings have intensified the crisis of humanity in academia, meaning that humanistic values in the humanities and social sciences are reduced to numerical calculations (e.g., citations, H-index, etc.)…”

Section: The Story About My Native Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing Like a Native Anthropologist: A Post-Postcolonial Reflection on the Native Turn in Asian Academia

Tenzin

2022

This article aims to delve into the “native turn” emerging in anthropology and broad academia in Asia and the Global South in the last two decades, represented by their growing momentum in decolonization, autonomy, and “indigenization.” There, however, exists a tendency in anthropology, especially among non-Western and “mixed” anthropologists, to dismiss the idea of native(s) or native anthropologists and sometimes replace it with the amorphous notion of “halfies.” I contend that many of the “halfies” scholars, informed by postcolonial and postmodern thoughts, tend to misread the de facto postcolonial conditions in which the West continues to dominate in the existing world-systems. I argue that it is vital to acknowledge the native turn as an ethnographical fact because this recognition is closely associated with the prospect of decolonizing anthropology and Western-dominated knowledge production. Next, I use my experience of the native turn(s) to Tibetan and Chinese sociocultural institutions and political sensibilities to better contextualize and exemplify the examined broad native turn in anthropology and social science in Asia. Furthermore, I propose a multifaceted view of natives or nativeness as a necessary step to engage more constructively with the idea of native(s) and the native turn. In so doing, I advocate a post-postcolonial critique to make a timely and necessary intellectual intervention.

“…In a critical examination of the top 22 sociology programs in East Asia (including China), Lee and Chen (2022) show convincingly that Asian sociology has become more dependent on, rather than autonomous from, the Western academic center or USA academia in particular. For instance, adopting the ranking agency’s standards reinforces the global division of academic labor.…”

Section: Setting the Stage: China Dependency And Global Knowledge Pro...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Dependency and Knowledge Production Amid China’s Rise

Tenzin

Lee

2022

Self Cite

There remains a serious lack of a comprehensive examination of academic dependency, decolonization, and indigenization in China and East Asia. Our special issue is intended to fill this gap by situating this issue in the Chinese context, thanks to China’s extraordinary leaps in its economy and higher education and enhanced indigenizing movements. In particular, we hope to open a new dialog on the dynamic relationship between the rise of China, academic (and other) dependency, and global knowledge production. Our findings show that China’s rise complicates and enriches our understanding of dependency. For instance, despite the state-orchestrated indigenization in Chinese academia and China’s potential role as a new global hub of knowledge production, its academia, especially social science, is still highly dependent upon the Western academic center for ideas and recognition. This is partly exemplified by the fact that Chinese universities attach great importance to Western-acknowledged academic excellence through the global university rankings. However, we argue that the existing academic dependency theory fails to capture and explain this complex situation. In so doing, we call for a paradigm shift in rethinking academic dependency by placing it in the multilayered and multi-domain dependency circumstances and conditions. In advancing this agenda, we advocate a field-grounded and cross-disciplinary approach.