Podcasts about sinologists

Artificial intelligence has been a frequent topic on Sinica in recent years — but usually through the lens of the two countries that have produced the leading models and companies: the United States and China. We've covered generative AI, national strategies, governance frameworks, and the geopolitical implications of AI leadership.This webinar, broadcast on the morning of August 14, broadens that lens to explore how other countries — and especially Ukraine — are approaching AI in the public sector. Around the world, governments are experimenting with AI well beyond chatbots and text generation: China's “City Brain” optimizes traffic, energy use, and public safety; U.S. agencies are streamlining services and automating benefits processing; and elsewhere, smart grids, predictive infrastructure planning, and AI-enabled e-governance are reshaping public administration. These projects reveal both the promise and the complexity of bringing AI into government — along with valid concerns over privacy, fairness, and inclusiveness.We'll look at what lessons Ukraine might draw from U.S. and Chinese experiences, the opportunities and challenges of adapting these practices, and the strategic risks of sourcing AI solutions from different providers — especially in the context of Ukraine's eventual postwar reconstruction.Joining us are three distinguished guests:Dmytro Yefremov, Board Member of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, with deep expertise in China's political and technological strategies and Ukraine's policy landscape.Wang Guan, Chairman of Learnable.ai in China, bringing extensive experience in AI applications for public administration and education.Karman Lucero, Associate Research Scholar and Senior Fellow at Yale Law School's Paul Tsai China Center, whose work focuses on Chinese law, governance, and the regulation of emerging technologies.Thanks to the Ukrainian Platform for Contemporary China, the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, and the Center for Slavic, Eurasian, and East European Studies at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill for organizing and sponsoring today's event. Special thanks to Vita Golod for putting together the panel and inviting me to moderate.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. China has never condemned the invasion, and its government and media have carefully avoided using term “Ukraine War,” opting instead to refer to the war as the “Ukraine crisis,” the “Russia-Ukraine conflict,” or the “special military operation,” a term that echoes Moscow's language. Beijing's approach to the Ukraine War has included support for Russia, a commitment China's own principles, including respecting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a professed desire for peace.This episode's discussion will focus on China's evolving posture toward the war and China's relationship with Ukraine. Joining the podcast this episode is Dr. Vita Golod, who is a Junior Research Fellow at the A. Yu Krymskyi Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy Sciences of Ukraine, and a Visiting Adjunct Instructor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.She is also the co-founder of the Ukrainian Platform for Contemporary China and a board member of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists.  Timestamps[00:00] Start[01:35] China's Relationship with Ukraine Prior to Russia's Invasion[05:06] President Zelenskyy's Accusations Against China [08:20] Contemporary Ukrainian Perceptions of Relations with China [12:14] Ukrainian Perceptions of Sino-Russian Relations[16:25] China as a Mediator and Peacemaker[19:06] China's Interests in the Outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War[21:21] What concrete steps could China take to facilitate peace? [23:14] China's Role in the Post-War Reconstruction of Ukraine[28:08] The Future of Sino-Ukrainian Relations

This week on Sinica: February 24 marks the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as I've done for the last two years, I moderated a panel organized by Vita Golod, a Ukrainian China scholar who happens to be here in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, at UNC as a visiting scholar. She's worked tirelessly to promote awareness of the war, and I'm honored again to have been asked to moderate this panel.The guests you'll hear from are:Dr. Una Aleksandra Bērziņa-Čerenkova, Director of the China Studies Centre at Riga Stradins University in Latvia. Fluent in Chinese, Russian, and English, she has collaborated with scholars like Kerry Brown of King's College London and has done extensive work on China's role in Europe and beyond.Dr. Dmytro Yefremov, Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations at the National University "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" in Ukraine. A board member of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, he specializes in China's foreign relations and has traveled extensively to China, providing firsthand insight into Ukraine's perspective on China's role in the war and beyond.Dr. Qiang Liu, Director of the Energy Economics Division at the Institute of Quantitative & Technical Economics within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). He also serves as the Co-chair and Secretary-General of the Global Forum on Energy Security. His research focuses on energy security, energy economics, and policy, with a particular emphasis on China's Belt and Road Initiative and its global energy partnerships.Dr. Klaus Larres, Richard M. Krasno Distinguished Professor of History and International Affairs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. An expert on transatlantic relations, U.S., German, and EU foreign policy, and China's role in the post-Cold War order, he has a profound interest in the history of the Cold War and the politics of Winston Churchill.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Chinese Communist Party guides the thinking of the masses through slogans. Some of these are written in huge letters on walls around the country. They are studied by party members, who try to figure out how society should respond. One of the most famous slogans is "reform and opening up." It has been in constant use since the late 1970s and although its meaning has changed significantly since then, Sinologists believe it remains a guiding principle for Xi Jinping. In this podcast, presenter Duncan Bartlett asks Professor Steve Tsang, Director of the SOAS China Institute, about the meaning of the phrase and its significance.

This week on Sinica, a conversation that I moderated on May 30th called “Assessing the Impact of US-China Rivalry on Ukraine and Taiwan,” put on by the Ukrainian Platform for Contemporary China. The main organizer was my friend Vita Golod, who is the chair of the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists. The panelists are: Dmytro Burtsev, a Junior Fellow at A. Krymskyi Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.Da Wei, Director of the Center for International Security and Strategy and Professor at the School of Social Sciences at Tsinghua University. Emilian Kavalski, Professor at the Centre for International Studies and Development at Jagiellonian University in Krakow. I Yuan, Adjunct Research Fellow at the Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week on Sinica, a special taping of an online event I moderated on February 22, just two days shy of the second anniversary of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The session was titled “The Ukrainian Factor in China's Strategy,” and it was organized by the Ukrainian Association of Sinologists, and featured that organization's chairperson, Vita Golod; Bartosz Kowalski, senior analyst at the Center for Asian Affairs at the University of Lodz; Lü Xiaoyu of Peking University's School of International Studies; and Klaus Larres, distinguished professor of history and international affairs, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Please support Sinica by becoming a subscriber at sinica.substack.com. Please note that I have discontinued Patreon, and ask all supporters to help out over on Substack. 2:42 – Introducing the guests6:19 – Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba's meeting with top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi12:19 – What do Ukraine and its allies want from China?16:59 – What inducements might Ukraine's Western allies offer China?21:51 – How has China's position changed over the course of the last two years?29:52 – The space for expression of pro-Ukraine voices in China32:08 – Ukrainian and Chinese popular opinion 36:44 – Does the diplomacy of sanctimony work on a realist power?48:00 – China's 12-Point Position51:48 – Does Russian economic dependency on China translate into leverage?54:04 – The overlap between China's 12 points and Zelenskyy's 10 points57:42 – How reliable is America as a partner in this election year?1:08:53 – How will this war end? What compromises are the sides willing to make?1:21:32 – Lü Xiaoyu's trip to Ukraine and his meeting with President ZelenskyyThere's a complete transcript to this episode available at sinica.substack.com.Sorry, no recommendations this week, but here's one from me: The new remake of James Clavell's epic novel Shògun, which is out on Hulu and FX. It's pretty mind-blowing!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Xi Jinping called on Monday for implementation of the Global Civilization Initiative, saying that China is ready to work with all parties to carry on the common values of humanity, featuring peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy and freedom, and to jointly promote the progress of human civilization.Xi, who is also general secretary of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks in a congratulatory message sent to the third Dialogue on Exchanges and Mutual Learning Among Civilizations and the first World Conference of Sinologists. The dual event opened on Monday in Beijing.Xi said in the message that throughout the long course of human history, nations from around the world have created civilizations with their own unique characteristics.Equal exchanges and mutual learning among various civilizations will provide strong spiritual guidance for addressing the challenges of the times and achieving common development for humanity, he said.Xi called for efforts to let cultural exchanges transcend estrangement, mutual learning transcend clashes, and inclusiveness transcend feelings of superiority.He expressed hope that Sinologists from various countries will act as messengers bridging Chinese civilization and the civilizations of the rest of the world, and will strive to promote cultural exchanges and enhance cultural understanding, friendship and cooperation.The event, with the theme of "implementing the Global Civilization Initiative to create a new vision for modernization," was organized by the Chinese Association for International Understanding.More than 300 representatives from nearly 80 countries participated in the event, including political leaders, cultural figures and Sinologists. Vice-President Han Zheng also attended the meeting and delivered a speech.The Global Civilization Initiative, proposed by Xi in March at the CPC in Dialogue with World Political Parties High-Level Meeting, called for respecting the diversity of civilizations, advocating the common values of humanity, valuing the inheritance and innovation of civilizations, and strengthening international people-to-people exchanges and cooperation.The initiative is widely hailed as another major public good provided to the world by China after the Global Development Initiative and Global Security Initiative, put forward by Xi in 2021 and 2022, respectively.Foreign participants at Monday's event commended the Global Civilization Initiative, saying that it will inject fresh, strong energy into the common development and progress of human society in a world fraught with multiple challenges and crises.As the world faces mounting challenges, there are more reasons for countries with different cultures to promote dialogue and consultation in order to solve global problems, they said.Simplice Mathieu Sarandji, executive secretary of the United Hearts Movement party and president of the National Assembly of the Central African Republic, said that in today's world, in which different countries' futures have become increasingly intertwined, it is important to pursue inclusiveness and coexistence of civilizations and promote exchanges and mutual learning.Alice Lau Kiong Yieng, a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Democratic Action Party and deputy speaker of Malaysia's House of Representatives, described the Global Civilization Initiative as a "visionary project that advances human civilization". She said the initiative identifies the strength of unity in diversity and illuminates the path to the future of mutual respect and understanding.Colin Patrick Mackerras, a Sinologist and emeritus professor at Griffith University in Australia, criticized some Western countries for preaching that their civilizations are superior to others, and said that various civilizations are equal and should learn from one another.Reporter: Cao Desheng

Unfortunately, one takeaway for readers of this book should be the difficulty that not only outside analysts but even party insiders face when trying to understand elite politics in Leninist regimes. Sinologists have always struggled to see inside the “black box,” and the track record is not strong. Yet getting history right is immensely important, as the past is one of the few places that allow us to understand structural features that might persist. – Joseph Torigian, Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion (2022) The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner‑party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history's two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes. Professor Torigian's insightful and accessible journal articles with hyperlinks and book recommendations from this interview for listeners interested in exploring related concepts and ideas: Open Access Global Studies Quarterly article ‘A New Case for the Study of individual Events in Political Science' as mentioned regarding influence of historical institutionalism in his approach; Open Access Journal of Cold War Studies article which serves as a sequel to his book – ‘You Don't Know Khrushchev Well: The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics'; Robert Caro's Working : Researching, Interviewing, Writing; David Halloway's Stalin and The Bomb; Chinese University of Hong Kong's 中华人民共和国史 (Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guoshi) Theda Skopol's States and Social Revolutions – A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China which is required reading for students in his masters-level class on China and Russia. See also Joseph's illuminating ‘War on the Rocks' post-doc blog post of January 2017 in which, among other things, he correctly anticipates the PRC's top leadership succession as non-event. Joseph Torigian is assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C. His research focuses on the study of the politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on elite power struggles, civil-military relations, and grand strategy. His research agenda draws upon comparative politics, historical institutionalism and international relations with a focus on relevant questions about the long-term political trajectories of both China and Russia. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Unfortunately, one takeaway for readers of this book should be the difficulty that not only outside analysts but even party insiders face when trying to understand elite politics in Leninist regimes. Sinologists have always struggled to see inside the “black box,” and the track record is not strong. Yet getting history right is immensely important, as the past is one of the few places that allow us to understand structural features that might persist. – Joseph Torigian, Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion (2022) The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner‑party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history's two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes. Professor Torigian's insightful and accessible journal articles with hyperlinks and book recommendations from this interview for listeners interested in exploring related concepts and ideas: Open Access Global Studies Quarterly article ‘A New Case for the Study of individual Events in Political Science' as mentioned regarding influence of historical institutionalism in his approach; Open Access Journal of Cold War Studies article which serves as a sequel to his book – ‘You Don't Know Khrushchev Well: The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics'; Robert Caro's Working : Researching, Interviewing, Writing; David Halloway's Stalin and The Bomb; Chinese University of Hong Kong's 中华人民共和国史 (Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guoshi) Theda Skopol's States and Social Revolutions – A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China which is required reading for students in his masters-level class on China and Russia. See also Joseph's illuminating ‘War on the Rocks' post-doc blog post of January 2017 in which, among other things, he correctly anticipates the PRC's top leadership succession as non-event. Joseph Torigian is assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C. His research focuses on the study of the politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on elite power struggles, civil-military relations, and grand strategy. His research agenda draws upon comparative politics, historical institutionalism and international relations with a focus on relevant questions about the long-term political trajectories of both China and Russia. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Unfortunately, one takeaway for readers of this book should be the difficulty that not only outside analysts but even party insiders face when trying to understand elite politics in Leninist regimes. Sinologists have always struggled to see inside the “black box,” and the track record is not strong. Yet getting history right is immensely important, as the past is one of the few places that allow us to understand structural features that might persist. – Joseph Torigian, Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion (2022) The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner‑party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history's two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes. Professor Torigian's insightful and accessible journal articles with hyperlinks and book recommendations from this interview for listeners interested in exploring related concepts and ideas: Open Access Global Studies Quarterly article ‘A New Case for the Study of individual Events in Political Science' as mentioned regarding influence of historical institutionalism in his approach; Open Access Journal of Cold War Studies article which serves as a sequel to his book – ‘You Don't Know Khrushchev Well: The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics'; Robert Caro's Working : Researching, Interviewing, Writing; David Halloway's Stalin and The Bomb; Chinese University of Hong Kong's 中华人民共和国史 (Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guoshi) Theda Skopol's States and Social Revolutions – A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China which is required reading for students in his masters-level class on China and Russia. See also Joseph's illuminating ‘War on the Rocks' post-doc blog post of January 2017 in which, among other things, he correctly anticipates the PRC's top leadership succession as non-event. Joseph Torigian is assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C. His research focuses on the study of the politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on elite power struggles, civil-military relations, and grand strategy. His research agenda draws upon comparative politics, historical institutionalism and international relations with a focus on relevant questions about the long-term political trajectories of both China and Russia. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

Unfortunately, one takeaway for readers of this book should be the difficulty that not only outside analysts but even party insiders face when trying to understand elite politics in Leninist regimes. Sinologists have always struggled to see inside the “black box,” and the track record is not strong. Yet getting history right is immensely important, as the past is one of the few places that allow us to understand structural features that might persist. – Joseph Torigian, Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion (2022) The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner‑party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history's two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes. Professor Torigian's insightful and accessible journal articles with hyperlinks and book recommendations from this interview for listeners interested in exploring related concepts and ideas: Open Access Global Studies Quarterly article ‘A New Case for the Study of individual Events in Political Science' as mentioned regarding influence of historical institutionalism in his approach; Open Access Journal of Cold War Studies article which serves as a sequel to his book – ‘You Don't Know Khrushchev Well: The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics'; Robert Caro's Working : Researching, Interviewing, Writing; David Halloway's Stalin and The Bomb; Chinese University of Hong Kong's 中华人民共和国史 (Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guoshi) Theda Skopol's States and Social Revolutions – A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China which is required reading for students in his masters-level class on China and Russia. See also Joseph's illuminating ‘War on the Rocks' post-doc blog post of January 2017 in which, among other things, he correctly anticipates the PRC's top leadership succession as non-event. Joseph Torigian is assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C. His research focuses on the study of the politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on elite power struggles, civil-military relations, and grand strategy. His research agenda draws upon comparative politics, historical institutionalism and international relations with a focus on relevant questions about the long-term political trajectories of both China and Russia. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Unfortunately, one takeaway for readers of this book should be the difficulty that not only outside analysts but even party insiders face when trying to understand elite politics in Leninist regimes. Sinologists have always struggled to see inside the “black box,” and the track record is not strong. Yet getting history right is immensely important, as the past is one of the few places that allow us to understand structural features that might persist. – Joseph Torigian, Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion (2022) The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner‑party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history's two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes. Professor Torigian's insightful and accessible journal articles with hyperlinks and book recommendations from this interview for listeners interested in exploring related concepts and ideas: Open Access Global Studies Quarterly article ‘A New Case for the Study of individual Events in Political Science' as mentioned regarding influence of historical institutionalism in his approach; Open Access Journal of Cold War Studies article which serves as a sequel to his book – ‘You Don't Know Khrushchev Well: The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics'; Robert Caro's Working : Researching, Interviewing, Writing; David Halloway's Stalin and The Bomb; Chinese University of Hong Kong's 中华人民共和国史 (Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guoshi) Theda Skopol's States and Social Revolutions – A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China which is required reading for students in his masters-level class on China and Russia. See also Joseph's illuminating ‘War on the Rocks' post-doc blog post of January 2017 in which, among other things, he correctly anticipates the PRC's top leadership succession as non-event. Joseph Torigian is assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C. His research focuses on the study of the politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on elite power struggles, civil-military relations, and grand strategy. His research agenda draws upon comparative politics, historical institutionalism and international relations with a focus on relevant questions about the long-term political trajectories of both China and Russia. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/russian-studies

Unfortunately, one takeaway for readers of this book should be the difficulty that not only outside analysts but even party insiders face when trying to understand elite politics in Leninist regimes. Sinologists have always struggled to see inside the “black box,” and the track record is not strong. Yet getting history right is immensely important, as the past is one of the few places that allow us to understand structural features that might persist. – Joseph Torigian, Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion (2022) The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner‑party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history's two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes. Professor Torigian's insightful and accessible journal articles with hyperlinks and book recommendations from this interview for listeners interested in exploring related concepts and ideas: Open Access Global Studies Quarterly article ‘A New Case for the Study of individual Events in Political Science' as mentioned regarding influence of historical institutionalism in his approach; Open Access Journal of Cold War Studies article which serves as a sequel to his book – ‘You Don't Know Khrushchev Well: The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics'; Robert Caro's Working : Researching, Interviewing, Writing; David Halloway's Stalin and The Bomb; Chinese University of Hong Kong's 中华人民共和国史 (Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guoshi) Theda Skopol's States and Social Revolutions – A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China which is required reading for students in his masters-level class on China and Russia. See also Joseph's illuminating ‘War on the Rocks' post-doc blog post of January 2017 in which, among other things, he correctly anticipates the PRC's top leadership succession as non-event. Joseph Torigian is assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C. His research focuses on the study of the politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on elite power struggles, civil-military relations, and grand strategy. His research agenda draws upon comparative politics, historical institutionalism and international relations with a focus on relevant questions about the long-term political trajectories of both China and Russia. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

Unfortunately, one takeaway for readers of this book should be the difficulty that not only outside analysts but even party insiders face when trying to understand elite politics in Leninist regimes. Sinologists have always struggled to see inside the “black box,” and the track record is not strong. Yet getting history right is immensely important, as the past is one of the few places that allow us to understand structural features that might persist. – Joseph Torigian, Prestige, Manipulation, and Coercion (2022) The political successions in the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, are often explained as triumphs of inner‑party democracy, leading to a victory of “reformers” over “conservatives” or “radicals.” In traditional thinking, Leninist institutions provide competitors a mechanism for debating policy and making promises, stipulate rules for leadership selection, and prevent the military and secret police from playing a coercive role. Here, Joseph Torigian argues that the post-cult of personality power struggles in history's two greatest Leninist regimes were instead shaped by the politics of personal prestige, historical antagonisms, backhanded political maneuvering, and violence. Mining newly discovered material from Russia and China, Torigian challenges the established historiography and suggests a new way of thinking about the nature of power in authoritarian regimes. Professor Torigian's insightful and accessible journal articles with hyperlinks and book recommendations from this interview for listeners interested in exploring related concepts and ideas: Open Access Global Studies Quarterly article ‘A New Case for the Study of individual Events in Political Science' as mentioned regarding influence of historical institutionalism in his approach; Open Access Journal of Cold War Studies article which serves as a sequel to his book – ‘You Don't Know Khrushchev Well: The Ouster of the Soviet Leader as a Challenge to Recent Scholarship on Authoritarian Politics'; Robert Caro's Working : Researching, Interviewing, Writing; David Halloway's Stalin and The Bomb; Chinese University of Hong Kong's 中华人民共和国史 (Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guoshi) Theda Skopol's States and Social Revolutions – A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China which is required reading for students in his masters-level class on China and Russia. See also Joseph's illuminating ‘War on the Rocks' post-doc blog post of January 2017 in which, among other things, he correctly anticipates the PRC's top leadership succession as non-event. Joseph Torigian is assistant professor in the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C. His research focuses on the study of the politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on elite power struggles, civil-military relations, and grand strategy. His research agenda draws upon comparative politics, historical institutionalism and international relations with a focus on relevant questions about the long-term political trajectories of both China and Russia. Keith Krueger lectures part-time in the Sydney Business School at Shanghai University. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Hal Brands (@HalBrands), professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, is the author of The Twilight Struggle: What the Cold War Teaches Us about Great-Power Rivalry Today. Along with co-host Emily Jin @ew_jin) of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), we discuss: How the US capitalized on Soviet heavy-handedness in the developing world How technology impacted the broader trajectory of the Cold War The US's never-ending cycles of self-confidence and self-doubt Today's Sinologists versus Cold War Sovietologists Why the only person who can stop the war in Ukraine is the one who started it Outro music: Nancy by Ak Benjamin ft. Marz23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agIvGYMA7Cw CHECK OUT THE CHINATALK SUBSTACK! https://chinatalk.substack.com Support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ChinaTalk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hal Brands (@HalBrands), professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, is the author of The Twilight Struggle: What the Cold War Teaches Us about Great-Power Rivalry Today. Along with co-host Emily Jin @ew_jin) of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), we discuss: How the US capitalized on Soviet heavy-handedness in the developing world How technology impacted the broader trajectory of the Cold War The US's never-ending cycles of self-confidence and self-doubt Today's Sinologists versus Cold War Sovietologists Why the only person who can stop the war in Ukraine is the one who started it Outro music: Nancy by Ak Benjamin ft. Marz23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agIvGYMA7Cw CHECK OUT THE CHINATALK SUBSTACK! https://chinatalk.substack.com Support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ChinaTalk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sino-Japanese relations are often portrayed as a rivalry hindered by historical grievances. Joshua Fogel, Canada Research Chair at York University, Toronto, explores a different side of China’s relationship with Japan. Fogel is the author of many books on Sino-Japanese relations, with his latest book, Japanese for Sinologists, forthcoming from University of California Press. The Harvard on China podcast talks to Joshua Fogel about his recent research on Kanzo Uchiyama—the founder of Shanghai’s Uchiyama Bookstore and close friend of Chinese literary giant Lu Xun—about how this deep friendship fostered a personal connection between China and Japan and provides grounds for further research on Sino-Japanese relations. The "Harvard on China" podcast is hosted by James Evans at Harvard's Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies. Listen to more podcasts on the Fairbank Center's SoundCloud page.

Tanya Storch‘s recent book, The History of Chinese Buddhist Bibliography: Censorship and Transformation of the Tripitaka (Cambria, 2014), focuses on the development of Chinese Buddhist catalogs from their first appearance in the third century to the eighth century, when printed editions of the canon took over the catalog’s role of identifying and delimiting the Chinese Buddhist canon. Storch has written this work with two goals in mind, which correspond to two different audiences she is targeting. On the one hand, she aims to present the first-ever English-language overview of Chinese Buddhist bibliography, a feat she accomplishes through an examination of catalogs in their chronological order of appearance (chapters 2-5). Along the way she highlights a number of important points and developments: the way in which Sengyou (445-518) was indebted to earlier catalogs other than Daoan’s, Buddhist appropriation of the organizing principles used in catalogs of Confucian texts, the unprecedented production of catalogs of Buddhist texts during the short-lived Sui dynasty (581-618), the growth of the sutra section of the canon and simultaneous shrinking of the Vinaya section, and the reasons for the eventual decline of the catalog’s authority, to name but a few to name but a few of the issues that Storch addresses. The extraordinary number of names of people and texts appearing in these chapters would be overwhelming for readers not prepared for such detail were it not for the tables that Storch has thoughtfully included at the end of each of these four chapters, in which she lays out the contents and structure of the various catalogs discussed therein. This is in addition to a very helpful seventeen-page table appended to the end of the book that provides in table format an overview of the first five centuries of Chinese Buddhist bibliography. Storch’s second goal is to make Chinese Buddhist bibliography accessible to non-specialists. Because discussions of the Chinese Buddhist canon are written in Japanese or Chinese, or, if in a Western language, they are written for other Sinologists or scholars of Chinese Buddhism, the Chinese Buddhist canon has been consistently absent from academic treatments of canon formation and sacred scripture in comparative perspective. (Incidentally, scholarship on the corpus of Confucian classics has been more accessible, and thus this body of texts has not suffered the same fate.) Lamenting this fact, Storch hopes to make the Chinese tripikakaa “household name.” To this end, she devotes chapter 7 to a comparison of the Chinese canon and Chinese Buddhist canonical authority to the development of the New Testament and Hellenistic catalogs of texts. She considers, for example, the way in which both Chinese catalogers and those attempting to delimit the boundaries of the New Testament both attempted to verify the authenticity of a given text by verifying the authenticity of the transmitter of that text, the transmitter being the translator in the case of Chinese Buddhism and the apostle in the case of the New Testament. In this way, Storch’s book will be of great value not only to those attempting to understand the notions of canon, orthodoxy, and religious authority in the context of Chinese Buddhism (and Chinese textual culture more generally) but also to those examining these concepts in cross cultural perspective, particularly with regard to the past evaluations of sacred scripture and corpora of such texts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tanya Storch‘s recent book, The History of Chinese Buddhist Bibliography: Censorship and Transformation of the Tripitaka (Cambria, 2014), focuses on the development of Chinese Buddhist catalogs from their first appearance in the third century to the eighth century, when printed editions of the canon took over the catalog’s role of identifying and delimiting the Chinese Buddhist canon. Storch has written this work with two goals in mind, which correspond to two different audiences she is targeting. On the one hand, she aims to present the first-ever English-language overview of Chinese Buddhist bibliography, a feat she accomplishes through an examination of catalogs in their chronological order of appearance (chapters 2-5). Along the way she highlights a number of important points and developments: the way in which Sengyou (445-518) was indebted to earlier catalogs other than Daoan’s, Buddhist appropriation of the organizing principles used in catalogs of Confucian texts, the unprecedented production of catalogs of Buddhist texts during the short-lived Sui dynasty (581-618), the growth of the sutra section of the canon and simultaneous shrinking of the Vinaya section, and the reasons for the eventual decline of the catalog’s authority, to name but a few to name but a few of the issues that Storch addresses. The extraordinary number of names of people and texts appearing in these chapters would be overwhelming for readers not prepared for such detail were it not for the tables that Storch has thoughtfully included at the end of each of these four chapters, in which she lays out the contents and structure of the various catalogs discussed therein. This is in addition to a very helpful seventeen-page table appended to the end of the book that provides in table format an overview of the first five centuries of Chinese Buddhist bibliography. Storch’s second goal is to make Chinese Buddhist bibliography accessible to non-specialists. Because discussions of the Chinese Buddhist canon are written in Japanese or Chinese, or, if in a Western language, they are written for other Sinologists or scholars of Chinese Buddhism, the Chinese Buddhist canon has been consistently absent from academic treatments of canon formation and sacred scripture in comparative perspective. (Incidentally, scholarship on the corpus of Confucian classics has been more accessible, and thus this body of texts has not suffered the same fate.) Lamenting this fact, Storch hopes to make the Chinese tripikakaa “household name.” To this end, she devotes chapter 7 to a comparison of the Chinese canon and Chinese Buddhist canonical authority to the development of the New Testament and Hellenistic catalogs of texts. She considers, for example, the way in which both Chinese catalogers and those attempting to delimit the boundaries of the New Testament both attempted to verify the authenticity of a given text by verifying the authenticity of the transmitter of that text, the transmitter being the translator in the case of Chinese Buddhism and the apostle in the case of the New Testament. In this way, Storch’s book will be of great value not only to those attempting to understand the notions of canon, orthodoxy, and religious authority in the context of Chinese Buddhism (and Chinese textual culture more generally) but also to those examining these concepts in cross cultural perspective, particularly with regard to the past evaluations of sacred scripture and corpora of such texts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tanya Storch‘s recent book, The History of Chinese Buddhist Bibliography: Censorship and Transformation of the Tripitaka (Cambria, 2014), focuses on the development of Chinese Buddhist catalogs from their first appearance in the third century to the eighth century, when printed editions of the canon took over the catalog’s role of identifying and delimiting the Chinese Buddhist canon. Storch has written this work with two goals in mind, which correspond to two different audiences she is targeting. On the one hand, she aims to present the first-ever English-language overview of Chinese Buddhist bibliography, a feat she accomplishes through an examination of catalogs in their chronological order of appearance (chapters 2-5). Along the way she highlights a number of important points and developments: the way in which Sengyou (445-518) was indebted to earlier catalogs other than Daoan’s, Buddhist appropriation of the organizing principles used in catalogs of Confucian texts, the unprecedented production of catalogs of Buddhist texts during the short-lived Sui dynasty (581-618), the growth of the sutra section of the canon and simultaneous shrinking of the Vinaya section, and the reasons for the eventual decline of the catalog’s authority, to name but a few to name but a few of the issues that Storch addresses. The extraordinary number of names of people and texts appearing in these chapters would be overwhelming for readers not prepared for such detail were it not for the tables that Storch has thoughtfully included at the end of each of these four chapters, in which she lays out the contents and structure of the various catalogs discussed therein. This is in addition to a very helpful seventeen-page table appended to the end of the book that provides in table format an overview of the first five centuries of Chinese Buddhist bibliography. Storch’s second goal is to make Chinese Buddhist bibliography accessible to non-specialists. Because discussions of the Chinese Buddhist canon are written in Japanese or Chinese, or, if in a Western language, they are written for other Sinologists or scholars of Chinese Buddhism, the Chinese Buddhist canon has been consistently absent from academic treatments of canon formation and sacred scripture in comparative perspective. (Incidentally, scholarship on the corpus of Confucian classics has been more accessible, and thus this body of texts has not suffered the same fate.) Lamenting this fact, Storch hopes to make the Chinese tripikakaa “household name.” To this end, she devotes chapter 7 to a comparison of the Chinese canon and Chinese Buddhist canonical authority to the development of the New Testament and Hellenistic catalogs of texts. She considers, for example, the way in which both Chinese catalogers and those attempting to delimit the boundaries of the New Testament both attempted to verify the authenticity of a given text by verifying the authenticity of the transmitter of that text, the transmitter being the translator in the case of Chinese Buddhism and the apostle in the case of the New Testament. In this way, Storch’s book will be of great value not only to those attempting to understand the notions of canon, orthodoxy, and religious authority in the context of Chinese Buddhism (and Chinese textual culture more generally) but also to those examining these concepts in cross cultural perspective, particularly with regard to the past evaluations of sacred scripture and corpora of such texts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tanya Storch‘s recent book, The History of Chinese Buddhist Bibliography: Censorship and Transformation of the Tripitaka (Cambria, 2014), focuses on the development of Chinese Buddhist catalogs from their first appearance in the third century to the eighth century, when printed editions of the canon took over the catalog’s role of identifying and delimiting the Chinese Buddhist canon. Storch has written this work with two goals in mind, which correspond to two different audiences she is targeting. On the one hand, she aims to present the first-ever English-language overview of Chinese Buddhist bibliography, a feat she accomplishes through an examination of catalogs in their chronological order of appearance (chapters 2-5). Along the way she highlights a number of important points and developments: the way in which Sengyou (445-518) was indebted to earlier catalogs other than Daoan’s, Buddhist appropriation of the organizing principles used in catalogs of Confucian texts, the unprecedented production of catalogs of Buddhist texts during the short-lived Sui dynasty (581-618), the growth of the sutra section of the canon and simultaneous shrinking of the Vinaya section, and the reasons for the eventual decline of the catalog’s authority, to name but a few to name but a few of the issues that Storch addresses. The extraordinary number of names of people and texts appearing in these chapters would be overwhelming for readers not prepared for such detail were it not for the tables that Storch has thoughtfully included at the end of each of these four chapters, in which she lays out the contents and structure of the various catalogs discussed therein. This is in addition to a very helpful seventeen-page table appended to the end of the book that provides in table format an overview of the first five centuries of Chinese Buddhist bibliography. Storch’s second goal is to make Chinese Buddhist bibliography accessible to non-specialists. Because discussions of the Chinese Buddhist canon are written in Japanese or Chinese, or, if in a Western language, they are written for other Sinologists or scholars of Chinese Buddhism, the Chinese Buddhist canon has been consistently absent from academic treatments of canon formation and sacred scripture in comparative perspective. (Incidentally, scholarship on the corpus of Confucian classics has been more accessible, and thus this body of texts has not suffered the same fate.) Lamenting this fact, Storch hopes to make the Chinese tripikakaa “household name.” To this end, she devotes chapter 7 to a comparison of the Chinese canon and Chinese Buddhist canonical authority to the development of the New Testament and Hellenistic catalogs of texts. She considers, for example, the way in which both Chinese catalogers and those attempting to delimit the boundaries of the New Testament both attempted to verify the authenticity of a given text by verifying the authenticity of the transmitter of that text, the transmitter being the translator in the case of Chinese Buddhism and the apostle in the case of the New Testament. In this way, Storch’s book will be of great value not only to those attempting to understand the notions of canon, orthodoxy, and religious authority in the context of Chinese Buddhism (and Chinese textual culture more generally) but also to those examining these concepts in cross cultural perspective, particularly with regard to the past evaluations of sacred scripture and corpora of such texts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices