Abstract

Editors’ AbstractThis articles expresses a strong discontent with Sinologism and argues that its rise is the result of an uncritical application of Said’s Orientalism and postcolonial theory to Sinology, and that its proponents have committed a grave error in treating Sinology as a discourse of ideology full of subjective imaginations, to the neglect of the fact that Sinology is a branch of objective scholarship. After reviewing the evolution of the concept of Sinology in history, it critically analyzes some major ideas of Sinologism in relation to Orientalism and draws the conclusion that the proponents of Sinologism are unaware of the inherent problems in Said’s theory and postmodern theory, have inadequate knowledge of Sinological history, and oversimplified the complex issues in Sinological studies.