File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Translating Domesticity in Chinese History and Historiography

TitleTranslating Domesticity in Chinese History and Historiography
Authors
Keywordshome
education
gender
family
ideology
Issue Date2019
PublisherAmerican Historical Association. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.indiana.edu/~ahr/index.html
Citation
The American Historical Review, 2019, v. 124 n. 4, p. 1278-1289 How to Cite?
AbstractThis article examines knowledge about “domesticity” in China in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and argues against the naturalization of Euro-American historiographical frameworks around “domesticity.” “Domesticity” was not a Chinese concept: although Confucianism had long connected the household to the state through ideology and prescriptive practices, Anglo-American ideas about “domesticity” were translated into Chinese first by way of Japan in the late nineteenth century, and second by way of American missionary educators in the twentieth century. “Domesticity” did not translate easily into Chinese, however; neither the ideology nor its pedagogical practices ever became popular in China. The history of translating “domesticity” into Chinese thus reveals that Euro-American historiographical terms that were once thought to be universal map poorly onto other places and suggests that we need more inclusive frames for comparative gender history.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/308127
ISSN
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLa Couture, E-
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-12T13:42:53Z-
dc.date.available2021-11-12T13:42:53Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationThe American Historical Review, 2019, v. 124 n. 4, p. 1278-1289-
dc.identifier.issn0145-5311-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/308127-
dc.description.abstractThis article examines knowledge about “domesticity” in China in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and argues against the naturalization of Euro-American historiographical frameworks around “domesticity.” “Domesticity” was not a Chinese concept: although Confucianism had long connected the household to the state through ideology and prescriptive practices, Anglo-American ideas about “domesticity” were translated into Chinese first by way of Japan in the late nineteenth century, and second by way of American missionary educators in the twentieth century. “Domesticity” did not translate easily into Chinese, however; neither the ideology nor its pedagogical practices ever became popular in China. The history of translating “domesticity” into Chinese thus reveals that Euro-American historiographical terms that were once thought to be universal map poorly onto other places and suggests that we need more inclusive frames for comparative gender history.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherAmerican Historical Association. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.indiana.edu/~ahr/index.html-
dc.relation.ispartofThe American Historical Review-
dc.subjecthome-
dc.subjecteducation-
dc.subjectgender-
dc.subjectfamily-
dc.subjectideology-
dc.titleTranslating Domesticity in Chinese History and Historiography-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailLa Couture, E: elac@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityLa Couture, E=rp02316-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ahr/rhz644-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85075372505-
dc.identifier.hkuros330367-
dc.identifier.volume124-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage1278-
dc.identifier.epage1289-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000501756100005-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats