CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2China's Ethnic Minorities and RelationsComparative and World LiteratureLiterature: history, themes, analysis

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 81 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intersecting Nations, Diverging Discourses: The Fraught Encounter of Chinese and Tibetan Literatures in the Modern Era

Open access
Peacock, Christopher·2020·Columbia University
DOI 10.7916/d8-m4ej-pe03
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This is a two-pronged study of how the Chinese and Tibetan literary traditions have become intertwined in the modern era. Setting out from the contention that the study of minority literatures in China must be fundamentally multilingual in its approach, this dissertation investigates how Tibetans were written into Chinese literature, and how Tibetans themselves adopted and adapted Chinese literary discourses to their own ends. It begins with Lu Xun and the formative literary conceptions of nation in the late Qing and Republican periods – a time when the Tibetan subject was fundamentally absent from modern Chinese literature – and then moves to the 1980s, when Tibet and Tibetans belatedly, and contentiously, became valid subject matter for Han Chinese writers. The second aspect of the project situates modern Tibetan-language literature, which arose from the 1980s onwards, within the literary and intellectual context of modern China. I read Döndrup Gyel, modern Tibetan literature’s “father figure,” as working within unmistakably Lu Xun-ian paradigms, I consider the contradictions that arose when Tsering Döndrup’s short story “Ralo” was interpreted as a Tibetan equivalent of “The True Story of Ah Q,” and I analyze the rise of a “Tibetan May Fourth Movement” in the 2000s, which I argue presented a selective reading of modern China’s intellectual history. Throughout, I focus on the intersections and divergences at play and examine the ways in which these texts navigate complex and conflicting discourses of nationalism, statism, and colonialism. The conclusions of this research point us toward significant theoretical reconceptualizations of literary practices in the People’s Republic of China, which now include not only a vast body of Chinese-language writing on minority peoples, but also numerous minority-language literatures and distinct “national” literary traditions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.7916/d8-m4ej-pe03

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Peacock, C.
Corresponding author
Peacock, Christopher
Venue
Columbia University
Publisher
Columbia University
Published
2020
DOI
10.7916/d8-m4ej-pe03
OpenAlex
W3044793962
Cited by
2
References
83
Citations by year
2021: 2
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › China's Ethnic Minorities and Relations
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Comparative and World Literature
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literature: history, themes, analysis
Keywords
modern Chinese literature, Lu Xun, The True Story of Ah Q, nation and literature, nationalism, statism, colonialism, literary translation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review