Comments on: Rice Paddies

By: lirelou

lirelou — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 07:54:58 +0000

In the world of the Salriman, I would have included readings on both South Korea and Taiwan, particularly this last as it provides such contrast to the mainland’s economic and political development. The “salriman” doesn’t really fit in with Singapore, but that too is worthy of some review.

By: Alan Baumler

Alan Baumler — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:29:25 +0000

Have you seen Holcombe’s Genesis of East Asia book? That is the only one I have seen that really integrates all of East Asia. Sadly it does not covern enough time to be used as a text for Rice Paddies. If he could be persuaded to extend it teaching that class would be a very different thing.

By: CW Hayford

CW Hayford — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:13:45 +0000

Yes, the “Introduction to Everything (Asia)” is a real problem. You can’t “cover” all the new topics by talking faster and printing text books in smaller type. But most students will not advance to upper level courses; the Intro is it. So I don’t think we can ditch the “Rice Paddies” survey in favor of “One Rice Paddy” or “One Furrow in My Rice Paddy.”

The approach which I called Fairbank’s actually grew out of a much broader Wilsonian liberal rethinking of American relations with the world after WWI. The “American Century” was on the horizon and these chastened Wilsonians looked to prepare the public for their new responsibilities. We’re in a parallel situation now. Globalization Inc. requires new rethinking. Maybe “East Asia” is not the rubric, but let’s not replace it with (with all respect to the venue in which we’re talking) a “frog in the well” course.

By: Alan Baumler

Alan Baumler — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:24:57 +0000

Charles,

I did not know that the class went all the way back to the 30′s, which is something worth knowing. I do find however, that it is getting harder and harder to use this class. As there is more and more you could possibly teach it gets harder to figure out what to do. As students get to be more and more willing to study Asia you can fill more classes. On the other hand, none of the ways of splitting it up really appeal either.

By: CW Hayford

CW Hayford — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:51:47 +0000

Alan’s comments are, as always, apt and interesting.

But actually the Harvard Rice Paddies course goes back to the 1930′s, when Fairbank and Edwin O. Reischauer teamed up. They wanted to get beyond the diplomatic history approach used in earlier courses, which reduced China and Japan to passive and often incompetent responders, but to show them as “cultures,” as we would now say. They presumed that “China” and “Japan” were not hermetically sealed units represented only by their political systems, as in that diplomatic approach, but had long, relevant histories. Fairbank asked “How can Chinese foreign policy be discussed before one discusses the Confucian state?” An introductory “modern” course, he said, “must begin with the late Chou dynasty.”

But he and Reischauer also veered away from the sinological approach, which, at least in the United States, mostly stuck to classical texts. They wanted the course be interesting and appeal to future citizens, not future scholars. It had to come down to the present and not get bogged down in academic trivia. Fairbank also pioneered the use of photos and maps to spark the imaginations of the undergraduates.

Some of these points we now take for granted, while others (such as the advantages of teaching China and Japan together) are sometimes left behind.

By: Jonathan Dresner

Jonathan Dresner — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:32:25 +0000

I’ve had good luck with Gallows in my modern Japan courses, but I’ve never tried to use it in a Rice Paddy (yes, they still called it that at Harvard ten years ago) survey. Actually, we don’t teach that course here, for which I’m kind of grateful: I always felt like it was “China plus” and I’d rather do them separately.