China Studies in India—3
I feel deeply honoured to have been invited to deliver the Keynote Address at this Fourth All-India Conference of China Studies (2011), held this time at the University of Hyderabad, an institution for which, over several years of association in various capacities, I have developed a strong affection. I also feel humble in this present company of accredited China scholars. Although my first two academic degrees were in Chinese Studies—in fact, old-style language/literary studies that went by the now unfashionable and politically incorrect title of ‘Oriental Studies’—I have spent most of my professional life as a sociologist/socio-cultural anthropologist. I should say that the focus of Indian sociology, as with other social science disciplines in the Indian context, has been almost exclusively on India, the unwritten (and in my opinion misguided) assumption being that such inward-focused research is transparently of greater social relevance—to the ‘masses’ or to ‘policy-makers’, as the case may be. There is an old English idiom, deployed of course in a completely different context, that says: ‘Nothing so dead as an old flame’. My own continuing involvement with China Studies through all these years, albeit on the professional periphery, speaks to the contrary. But my attachment is not merely sentimental, fanning the dying embers of an erstwhile passion. I truly believe that a comparative perspective, born of familiarity with another society (besides Europe/the US which is invariably our default ‘Other’) may constructively renovate our sociological understanding of ‘Indian’ society. At the same time, I also fully believe that China Studies must engage fully and self-consciously
Bias in the study of modern China in the West
FOR TOO LONG, it would seem, debate in India on the sensitive question of SinoIndian relations has been carried on more by reference to the imagined authority of sympathetic or hostile foreigners than by direct confrontation between Indian intellectuals of dinering views. Against this background, China Report’s special number on Sino-Indian relations (vol. VI, no. 6 November-December 1971) and, in particular, Mira Sinha’s recent article, &dquo;Wanted:
Same Same But Different - also in Europe! A New Methodological Approach in Cross-Country Analysis of Communication Structuresapplied to five EU member states
The EU still lacks a truly European public sphere. On this level, there is still a clear lack of integration between individual member states. This means that national public spheres and cultures are still of great importance for European communication and media professionals. Comparative research into the similarities and differences between different nations is therefore valuable for cross-border PR communication activities. This paper lays out the methodological foundation for such research, discussing possible approaches and difficulties associated with comparative research. The author then introduces a potential heuristic framework for comparative analysis: the International Corporate Communication Compass. This framework is applied to five case-study EU countries (Denmark, Germany, France, Poland and the UK), showing the differences and similarities in a range of different contexts that affect public communication in all its forms. The conclusion examines how the results of such studies could be used in order to compare communication identities of different countries. This can potentially help in the development of a European public identity on the long run and in a first step can led towards a better, more adapted communication structure about European citizenship. Ultimately, communication structures within the EU might become more Europeanized than they