East Asian Studies - Critiques of The Field

Critiques of The Field

As part of the Opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1960s, younger faculty and graduate students criticized the field for complicity in what they saw as American imperialism. In particular, the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars debated and published alternative approaches not centered in the United States or funded, as many American programs were, by the American government or major foundations. They charged that Japan was held up as a model of non-revolutionary modernization and the field focused on modernization theory in order to fend off revolution. In the following decades, many critics were inspired by Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism, while others, writing from the point of view of the quantitative or theoretical social sciences, saw Area Studies in general and East Asian Studies in particular, as amorphous and lacking in rigor.

Critiques were also mounted from other points in the political spectrum. Ramon H. Myers and Thomas A. Metzger, two scholars based at the generally conservative Hoover Institution charged that "the 'revolution' paradigm increasingly overshadowed the 'modernization' paradigm" and “this fallacy has become integral to much of the writing on modern Chinese history,” discrediting or ignoring other factors in the history of modern China.