Category Archives: China

Feb 10

Feb 14 (Thursday): Peng Xu (Mock Job Talk)

Posted on by

Peng Xu

(PhD Candidate,  East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago)

“Courtesans versus Literati: Gendered Soundscapes in Late-Ming Singing Culture (1547-1644)”

Abstract:
 
Drawing upon the recent scholarship on sound studies, particularly cultural musicology and art historical inquiries into sound, I propose a hermeneutic approach to late-Ming singing refracted through the history of auditory experience. What were the sonic features—what the theorist R. Murray Schafer terms “keynote”—of the basic performance models of the time? How did they carry specific gendered implications? With these questions in mind, I probe the dichotomy between the courtesans’ vocal chamber music and the vigorous singing of elite men. The typical late-Ming courtesan’s solo performance took place under relatively quiet acoustic conditions and featured pleasing-sounding soft voice and hyperfeminine vocal production described metaphorically in contemporary criticism as “the midnight oriole.” In contrast, mountain hikers, mostly male, performed solo songs marked by significant sonority and high physical effort in natural landscapes with rich ambient noise, especially the sound of rapid streams and waterfalls

Feb. 14 (Thursday) 4:00-6:00 p.m.

Location: Judd 313

 

Mar 07

March 27 (Tuesday): Julia Strauss

Posted on by

Julia Strauss

Senior Lecturer in Chinese Politics, SOAS, University of London

“Theatres of Land Reform: Repertoire and Campaign in Su’nan and Taiwan, 1950-53″

(co-sponsored with East Asia: Politics, Economy, and Society workshop)

4-6 pm, March 27 (Tuesday)

Location: Pick Hall Lounge

  

Abstract: Although scholars have been reluctant to directly compare the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan, in the early to mid 1950s, these two consolidating party-states had far more in common than is generally supposed. For both,the pursuit of land reform was key to the regime consolidation and perceived legitimacy of the regime. For both land reform was a signature policy and was implemented as a campaign by which each regime fundamentally reordered relations economic and political relations in the countryside. This article explores a range of surprising similarities as well as points of divergence. It focusses in particular on the ways in which land reform campaigns were organized, justified and pursued, the ways in which particular pre-existing rhetorics and repertoires were invoked, the ways in which large numbers were mobilized in support of the campaign, and the specific “theatres” in which the power of state mandated land reform was displayed.