“Globalized traditionalists” and “provincial globalizers” in non-Western intellectual fields: a multiscalar field analysis of the cultural fever debate

Matthew Ming tak Chew*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

This study’s primary objective is to investigate why “globalized traditionalists” (i.e., intellectuals who are highly globalized but adopt a traditionalist stance) and “provincial globalizers” (i.e., intellectuals who are hardly globalized but adopt a globalizing stance) are prevalent in some non-Western intellectual fields. These two groups feature counterintuitive intellectual characteristics and defy current studies’ findings on intellectual conflict. They have recurred in grand debates on Chinese culture since the 1920s; intellectual historians cannot explain them. This study’s secondary objective is to introduce the “multiscalar field perspective” and showcase its utility for the global sociology of knowledge. This study’s data were collected from primary documentary sources of the Cultural Fever debate, secondary studies, and in-depth interviews with participants of the debate.

Original languageEnglish
JournalChinese Sociological Review
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 1 Sep 2022

Scopus Subject Areas

  • Gender Studies
  • Demography
  • Anthropology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '“Globalized traditionalists” and “provincial globalizers” in non-Western intellectual fields: a multiscalar field analysis of the cultural fever debate'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this