Analyzing the debates on the issue of indigenization of social sciences in China: A perspective of performance

Abstract

In the previous disputes on the indigenization of social science, Chinese scholars mainly focused on whether the Western social science knowledge is universal, so that it is applicable to China, and ignored the attitude differences between different disciplines of social science on the issue of knowledge indigenization in China. These attitude differences reflect a deeper problem of knowledge ontology. Knowledge ontology claims that reality is in part the result of idea performance. As far as China is concerned, whether the knowledge of Western social science is applicable to China depends on whether the Western modern ideas are performable in China. The performability of these ideas in China varies with different domains: the instrumental domain and the value field. Most scholars in the instrumental domain are inclined to accept the position of knowledge cosmopolitanism (universality of knowledge), while most scholars in the value domain adopt the position of knowledge localism (indigenization of knowledge). Which domain becomes the instrumental one and which field becomes the value one are defined by the state. Many Chinese intellectuals formed the motivation and confidence of the indigenization of social science, mainly because of the change of national cultural identity.