An emailer asked that I post the syllabus for one of my courses, "Asia and the World." It does not deal with Chinese philosophy, but is, rather, an introduction to Asian politics and history, centering on the question: is there such a thing as "Asia"? A link to the syllabus, and a bit more explanation below the fold...
Let me first provide a bit more context.
This course functions as an introductory class for the Asian Studies major and for the International Studies concentration. It is also meant to draw first year enrollments away from other courses in the Political Science department. I design it with first and second-year students in mind, people who do not have any background in Asian politics or history, and who have not yet begun serious, college-level study of politics more generally.
I pose what I think is a stimulating quesiton up front: is there such a thing as "Asia"? to start students thinking about words that we usually take for granted. The underlying query is: are there sufficient similarities among all the various people and places we refer to as "Asia" to justify a common noun? We then go on to look, in detail, at three "Asian" countries - China, Japan, and India. I take the first two classes to examine the problem of cultural and political bias in any comparative study (how can we get outside our own particular social-cultural-political environment to understand others?), and I use a chapter from Edward Said's famous Orientalism to spark discussion.
The bulk of the class traces the historical trajectories of the three countries from about 1700 to the present. We consider some large concepts - what we might call world-historical forces that have shaped Asian and other development over the past centuries: imperialism, nationalism, and modernity.
I end tthe course with a return to the explicit question of "is there such a thing as 'Asia'," using a couple of chapters from a marvelous book, The Myth of Continents.
You can read the rest below. Comments and commentary are welcome.
Comments