Joseph Levenson and the possibility for a dialogic history

Abstract

In contrast to the criticism that his work represents a Euro-centric view of China, we argue that Joseph Levenson’s understanding of China involves a third dimension – Judaism – at the level of his historical perspective and methodology. Built on in-depth analysis of Levenson’s work, in particular his Confucian China and Its Modern Fate, as well as his unfinished yet profound writings on Judaism and Jewish history, we find that his understanding of Jewish tradition plays a crucial role in his analysis of the history of modern China. We argue that what Levenson practiced was a historical methodology that we name “dialogic history.” We believe that dialogic history provides us a potential answer to the question of how we can understand another culture without being imperialists, essentialists, or Orientalists. Dialogic history is also history in action because when this kind of dialogue is conducted, a new space can be created in which history is no longer a one-sided monologue.

Keywords:

• Joseph R. Levenson
• dialogic history
• Confucian China and Its Modern Fate
• tradition
• modernity
• comparative history
• Judaism

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Martin Jaffee, Joseph Esherick, Mark Elliott, R. Kent Guy, Wen-hsin Yeh, Michael Chang, Joshua Goldstein, Wennan Liu, James Millward, William Rowe, Tobie Meyer-Fong, Janet Theiss, Paul Katz and two anonymous reviewers for their critiques and suggestions. We also thank the participants of the following conferences for their very helpful comments: “Berkeley-Korea University Forum on East Asian Cultural Studies” (Seoul, 2009), “Confucianism and Inter-Religious Dialogue” (Tel Aviv University, 2009), and “Producing Knowledge about China” (UC Berkeley, 2010).

Notes

¹ Said, Orientalism.

² Levenson (Joseph R. Levenson, hereafter ‘Levenson’), “Genesis of Confucian China,” 283–284.

³ Schwarcz, “Review,” 355.

⁴ Cohen, China Unbound, 52.

⁵ Ibid., 63.

⁶ Van Slyke, “Joseph Levenson’s Approach to History,” 94.

⁷ Ibid., 94–95.

⁸ Spence, “Tensions,” 114.

⁹ Rosemary Levenson, “Notes on ‘Choice of Jewish Identity,’” 177.

¹⁰ Meisner and Murphey, “Editor’s Notes,” 3.

¹¹ Schurmann, “Joseph Levenson on China and the World,” 61.

¹² Ibid., 72.

¹³ McDonald, “Historian’s Quest,” 88.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid., 87–88.

¹⁶ Ibid., 88.

¹⁷ Novick, That Noble Dream, 330.

¹⁸ Schwartz, “History and Culture,” 101.

¹⁹ Schwarcz, “Review,” 350.

²⁰ Ibid., 367.

²¹ Ibid., 354.

²² There are obvious connections between Levenson’s thoughts and those of modern Jewish thinkers, including his contemporaries, and we can tell from the references in his books that he was reading their works. Due to limitations of space, this paper will not discuss these connections.

²³ He does mention Maimonides in several places, but not in the sense of Rabbinic Judaism. He also mentions Pirki Avoth in his notes that are housed in the Joseph Richmond Levenson Papers in the Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley.

²⁴ Levenson, Confucian China, vol. 3, 124–125.

²⁵ This is from page two of a three-page untitled note on crisis in Jewish history, undated, in the Joseph Richmond Levenson Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Hereafter, “Crisis.”

²⁶ Ibid., 2.

²⁷ Ibid., 1.

²⁸ Ibid., 3.

²⁹ Ibid., 2.

³⁰ Levenson, “Choice of Jewish Identity,” 182.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Ibid.

³³ This is from the second page of a two-page untitled, undated note comparing Judaism and Greek tradition in the Joseph Richmond Levenson Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Hereafter, “Greek.”

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ Levenson, “Choice of Jewish Identity,” 182.

³⁶ Crisis, 1.

³⁷ Levenson, “Choice of Jewish Identity,” 182.

³⁸ This is from an undated note titled “Conclusion” in the Joseph Richmond Levenson Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Rosemary Levenson, “Notes on ‘Choice of Jewish Identity,’” 178.

⁴¹ Greek, 2.

⁴² Ibid.

⁴³ Buber, “Teaching and Deed,” 234.

⁴⁴ Radin, “Levenson: Dimensions of Historian” cited in The Mozartian Historian, 77–78. In response to the conventional view that Judeo–Christian tradition is European, Levenson says, “The adjective ‘Judeo–Christian’ is coin of the realm of ‘interfaith relations.’ It has an irenic ring, and many Jews accept the combination. Instead of contempt for Jewish values, it seems to promise respect, and a ticket to admission to Western culture. Unfortunately, it is a children’s ticket, not an adult’s; and admission under these terms dismisses the authenticity of Judaism. Somehow, the Christian component assimilates, it seems, all the Judaism anyone needs, so that Judaism tout court is superfluous. And Jewish identity is watered down so that Jewish survival seems irrelevant.” (“Choice of Jewish Identity,” 188)

⁴⁵ Radin, “Joseph R. Levenson,” cited in The Mozartian Historian, 77–78.

⁴⁶ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 289.

⁴⁷ Levenson, “Choice of Jewish Identity,” 183.

⁴⁸ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 290.

⁴⁹ Greek, 1.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 2.

⁵¹ Levenson, Confucian China, vol. 3, 113.

⁵² Ibid., 35.

⁵³ Ibid., 36.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 37.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 38.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 37–38.

⁵⁷ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 288.

⁵⁸ Levenson, “Choice of Jewish Identity,” 180.

⁵⁹ Buber, “Teaching and Deed,” 237.

⁶⁰ Levenson, Confucian China, vol. 3, 4.

⁶¹ Ibid.

⁶² Ibid.

⁶³ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 281.

⁶⁴ McDonald, “Historian’s Quest,” 79.

⁶⁵ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 283.

⁶⁶ For Liao Ping’s life, see Huang Kaiguo, Liao Ping pingzhuan, 1–41.

⁶⁷ Levenson, Confucian China, vol. 3, 8.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 4.

⁶⁹ Ibid.

⁷⁰ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 290.

⁷¹ Weber, The Religion of China, 131–133.

⁷² Ibid., 161.

⁷³ Levenson, Confucian China, vol. 1, 42.

⁷⁴ Levenson, “Review,” 127.

⁷⁵ Levenson, Confucian China, 3:3.

⁷⁶ This is from an unpaginated and undated note on Jacob Neusner’s The Religious Uses of History from the Joseph Richmond Levenson Papers, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Levenson wrote: “Problem: why rabbis anti-history? Answer: cf. post-Confucianists.”

⁷⁷ Cohen, Israel is Real, 49.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 56.

⁷⁹ Schwarcz, “Review,” 361.

⁸⁰ Levenson, Revolution and Cosmopolitanism, xviii.

⁸¹ Buber, Between Man and Man, 114–115.

⁸² Levenson, Confucian China, vol. 1, xxvii.

⁸³ Ibid., 175.

⁸⁴ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 279.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 283.

⁸⁶ Buber, Between Man and Man, 115.

⁸⁷ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 281.

⁸⁸ Ibid., 283.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 283–284.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 280.

⁹¹ Ibid., 283.

⁹² Levenson, “Choice of Jewish Identity,” 185.

⁹³ Ibid., 184.

⁹⁴ Levenson, “Genesis of Confucian China,” 283.

⁹⁵ Ibid., 281.

⁹⁶ Ibid., 285.

⁹⁷ Schwarcz, “Review,” 356.

⁹⁸ On Levenson’s view of Judaism’s peripheral position, see Note 12.

⁹⁹ Rosemary Levenson, “Notes on ‘Choice of Jewish Identity,’” 179.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Madeleine Yue Dong

Madeleine Yue DONG, PhD, is a professor of history at the University of Washington in Seattle. She is the author of Republican Beijing: The City and Its Histories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), co-editor of Everyday Modernity in China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006), co-author of The Modern Girl Around the World (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008), and editor of Beyond Area Studies: Selected Western Scholarship on Modern Chinese History (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2013). She is currently writing a book on the competing narratives of Qing history in the early twentieth century.

Ping Zhang

Ping ZHANG, PhD, is professor for Chinese and East Asian Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is the author of Avot: The Wisdom of Our Fathers (Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 1996), The Jewish Way of the World – Derech Eretz Zuta (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2003), and The Mishnah: A Study and Translation of Seder Zeraim (Ji’nan: Shandong University Press, 2011). He is currently continuing to translate and annotate the Mishnah into Chinese.