Daoist Studies is the academic field dedicated to study, education, and research on the Daoist tradition. A small but growing field, Daoist Studies includes Americanists, anthropologists, historians, linguists and philologists, philosophers, religionists, Sinologists, sociologists, and translators. Members of the professional guild of Daoist Studies are those educators and researchers committed to understanding the Daoist tradition in as accurate, informed and nuanced of a way as possible. This includes the investigation of unquestioned assumptions and interpretative legacies.
Because of the intricate relationship between Daoism and Chinese culture, scholars are most often trained in Sinological institutes or departments of East Asian languages and literatures and of religious studies. In addition to proficiency in classical and modern Chinese, graduate study, which usually results in a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy), includes developing reading ability in English, French and Japanese as well as more comprehensive interpretative and theoretical knowledge. The translation of Daoist literature (including critical reflection on “translation”) and textual analysis remain the dominant interpretative approach, but more scholars are becoming versed in comparative religious studies, ethnography and material culture studies.
Historically speaking, the study of Daoism originated in English, Dutch, French, German and Japanese colonial interests in China, and the early history of Daoist Studies was similarly dominated by French and Japanese Sinology. The “colonialist and missionary period of Daoist Studies” was tied to Western geopolitical, military and economic interests in China, an ethnocentric and imperialist mentality that identified European civilization as the pinnacle of human culture (or Japanese culture in the case of Japan), as well as a worldview and domination strategy that either accepted Christianity as the only “true religion” or imagined a world committed to rationalistic and secular ideologies. These various modes of empire came to a head during WWII, with the rise of German and Japanese nationalism. In the case of Daoism, research was most often framed, whether consciously or not, as a method to understand the indigenous (read: “primitive”) population and to devise effective colonialist and missionary programs. That is, the study of Daoism was not framed in terms of understanding and respecting Daoism on its own terms. Early Western European and Japanese Sinological interest in Daoism was followed by the “discovery” of Daoism by American Sinology (modeled on its French counterpart) and, more recently, by Chinese historians themselves. In the contemporary world, each of these discourse communities have distinctive interpretative tendencies and emphases: Chinese scholarship and textual and intellectualist concerns; French scholarship and social scientific approaches; Japanese scholarship and detailed philology and historiography; North American scholarship and textual and historical concerns. It should also be noted that Chinese and Japanese scholarship tends to be more insular than the North American and European field, meaning that Chinese scholars primarily read other Chinese scholars and that Japanese scholars primarily read other Japanese scholars.
Sinology-
The Sinological approach to Daoist Studies emphasizes the importance of Daoism for
increasing knowledge of Chinese culture and history. For this, the would-
However, the cultural constructs, methodological approaches, and academic control exerted by representatives of the Sinological position have not only increased our understanding of Daoism—they have also limited our understanding.
Daoism is a Chinese religious tradition which has been continually modified and transformed for some two thousand years and which is currently being transmitted and adapted to a global context. Daoism is no longer simply a Chinese religious tradition; it is now a global religious and cultural phenomenon, existing in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, and practiced by people of a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. It is also slowly becoming established in the United States in various forms, with varying degrees of connection with the earlier Chinese religious tradition. Such a recognition makes space in Daoist Studies for Americanists and anthropologists studying the globalization of Daoism as well as for intellectual historians studying Western constructions of “Daoism.”
Daoist Studies, conventionally associated with Sinology, textual study and Chinese area studies, is now expanding to include other theoretical and methodological approaches: anthropology, archaeology, comparative religion, cultural studies, intellectual history, material culture studies, philosophy, sociology, women’s studies, and so forth. Daoist Studies may no longer be equated with or encompassed by the study of “Chinese religions.” The field of Daoist Studies recognizes Daoism as a religious tradition worthy of independent research; Daoist practitioners and communities cannot be reduced to data for the study of Chinese culture, history, or religion.
As yet, alternative interpretative approaches to Daoist Studies either have not been proposed or are in initial stages of development. The most prevalent alternative model, which is usually dismissed or ignored by historians of Chinese Daoism, centers on intellectual history. Representatives of this model often present their research in terms of “comparative philosophy,” focusing on classical Daoist texts, specifically the Daode jing and Zhuangzi, in terms of “thought” and “thinking” (sixiang 思想). While intellectual history has some important things to say about the ways in which “Daoism” has been understood and constructed, like comparative philosophy it fails to consider Daoism for what it is: a global religious tradition with radically different visions of the human condition. That is, reducing Daoism to an “intellectual” or “philosophical” tradition and studying it as a system of “thought” involves a process of domestication and colonization. In addition, it often presupposes an antiquated and inaccurate interpretation of Daoism in terms of an original, pure “philosophical Daoism” that is wholly different from later “religious Daoism.”
Recently, a new model based on comparative religious studies has begun to be utilized and explored. The comparative religious studies model, as yet not fully developed, focuses on Daoism as a religious tradition deserving of independent study and not reducible to data for the study of Chinese history and culture. In terms of secondary scholarship, this comparative model utilizes various theoretical and methodological insights developed in the interdisciplinary study of religion. Broader issues derived from and applicable to the comparative study of religion play a central role in this approach. Specifically, one might concentrate on anomalous experiences, death and immortality, ecology, funeral practices, gender issues, hermeneutics, medical therapies, monasticism, ritual, spiritual technologies, views of self, and so forth. While the comparative religious studies model recognizes the necessity of linguistic training, especially in classical and modern Chinese, it also emphasizes theoretical and methodological sophistication. It is also possible that this model will result in actual comparative studies of Daoism and other religious traditions. However, such research requires deep interpretative familiarity with each and every religion under consideration. This proves especially challenging in the case of Daoism, as historically inaccurate interpretations, misconceptions, and popular constructions are ubiquitous.
For the field of Daoist Studies to continue to expand and develop, and to more fully accomplish its stated aim of deepening knowledge and understanding of Daoism in all of its diversity and complexity, space must be made for new possibilities. Mutual respect and appreciation among scholars will help to ensure both a fuller appreciation of the Daoist tradition (Daoist practitioners and communities and their religious expressions) and a more comprehensive orientation in Daoist Studies.
Further Reading: “Chinese Religions: The State of the Field: Taoism”/Franciscus Verellen; “Chronicle of Taoist Studies in the West”/Anna Seidel; Daoism Handbook/Livia Kohn (ed.); I and Tao/Jonathan Herman; Original Tao/Harold Roth; Taoism: The Enduring Tradition/Russell Kirkland; “The Dao of America”/Elijah Siegler; The Encyclopedia of Taoism/Fabrizio Pregadio (ed.); The Tao of the West/J.J. Clarke; “The Taoism of the Western Imagination and the Taoism of China”/Russell Kirkland; The Victorian Translation of China/Norman Girardot; “Tracing the Contours of Daoism in North America”/Louis Komjathy.
See also American Daoism, Daoism, Orientalism, Philosophical Daoism, and Sinology.