
One can hardly imagine a more typically Orientalist discipline than philology. Its heyday in the late nineteenth century coincided with the height of colonial domination of Asia by some European nations. Thanks to the critical programme of Edward Said and those inspired by him in the late twentieth century, we now understand how Oriental philology went fist in glove with the violence of colonialism. Philologists could dissect the wording of Oriental texts because colonial armies stuffed them into Western libraries and museums. Indeed, the field itself 'now carries a hint of criminality'. How do we live with the original sin of Oriental philology, which is rooted in the expropriation of the written heritage of Asian societies? Can we reconcile the epistemological premises of philology with indigenous ways of handling texts, or will they always be each other's Other? What possible use does today's world have for such a culpable and disengaged discipline as Oriental philology?
[SHS.LITT] Humanities and Social Sciences/Literature, [SHS.HIST] Humanities and Social Sciences/History
[SHS.LITT] Humanities and Social Sciences/Literature, [SHS.HIST] Humanities and Social Sciences/History
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
