Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Democracy’s Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan (review)

Democracy’s Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan (review) 214 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.2,2011 RichardMadsen.Democracy's Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2007. xxvi,191pp.Hardcover$60.00,isbn978-0-520-25227-1.Paperback$26.95, isbn978-0-520-25228-8. Aftermorethanfortyyearsofsingle-partyruleundertheKuomintang(KMT), headedfirstbyChiangKai-shek(1887­1975),thenbyhissonChiangChing-kuo (1910­1988),theliftingofthestateofmartiallawin1987setoffadynamicdemocraticdevelopmentthatledin2000tothefirstelectionofanoppositioncandidate tothepresidencyoftheRepublicofChinaonTaiwan.Therapidtransformationof theTaiwanesepoliticalsystemhasattractedtheattentionofmanysocialscientists interestedinthedemocratizationofanon-Communistauthoritarianregime roughlycontemporarywiththebreakdownoftheCommunistparty-statesin EasternEurope,especiallybecauseofitspotentialasamodelforpoliticalchange inmainlandChina.Theroleofreligiousinstitutionswasoneofthekeyresearch areasinthestudyofEuropeandemocratization.Whilethechurches(especially ProtestantandCatholic)playedimportantcivilsocietyrolesandwerecrucial agentsofpoliticalchangeinsomeSovietbloccountries(suchasEastGermany andPoland),theirpositiveinfluenceinothercountrieswaslessnoticeable(e.g.,in theUSSRorundertheclerico-fascistFrancoregimeinSpain).What,then,wasthe roleofreligiousinstitutionsinthedevelopmentofliberaldemocracyinTaiwan? ThisisRichardMadsen'scentralquestion,forwhichheprovidesanumberof thought-provokinganswers. Asacoauthor(withRobertN.Bellahandothers)ofHabits of the Heart,1 Madsenbelongstoaschoolofsociologylongconcernedwiththeroleofreligion inthepubliclifeofliberaldemocracies.WhilenotrejectingtheEnlightenment critiqueofthedivisivepublicroleofreligionsandtheresultantviewofmodernizationasineluctablylinkedtosecularization(inthesenseoftheprivatizationof religionanditsexclusionfromthepublicsphere),thesescholarsseektobalance thepicturewithanemphasisonthecontinuingneed,evenofseculardemocracies, toestablishamoralconsensusandanultimatesourceoflegitimation.Among othercontributions,thisschoolofthoughtgaveusthecontroversialcivilreligion concept.ItissignificantthatbothBellahandMadsenhavearesearchbackground inEastAsiansocieties,JapaninthecaseofBellah,ChinainthatofMadsen-- significantbecausetheEastAsianhistoryofreligionsprovidestestcasesand possiblyalternativesforlargelyWestern-focusedsecularizationtheories.Herein liesoneoftheattractionsthatpost­martiallawTaiwanhasforRichardMadsen andothersocialscientists. Giventheminorroleofreligiousgroupsinthepre-1987oppositionmovement (largelylimitedtoaliberalfactioninthePresbyterianChurch),Madsenfocuses hisattentiononthecontributionsoffourmajorreligiousinstitutionsinthe democratizationprocessafter1987.ThefourgroupsaretheBuddhistTzuChi © 2012 by University of Hawai`i Press Reviews 215 Foundation,Buddha'sLightMountain,DharmaDrumMountain,andtheDaoist EnactingHeavenTemple(moreontheproblematicnatureofthisDaoistlabel below).Madsensummarizeshistwomainthemesasfollows:"Bystudyingseveral prominentreligiousgroupsinTaiwan,Iwanttoshowmoregenerallyhowreligion affectsmovementstowardsdemocracy.Ialsowanttodemonstratehowprogressiveformsofreligiongrow"(p.xxiii).Forthefirsttheme,Madsenseekstocombat thegeneralskepticismamongmainstreamscholarsaboutthecapacityofreligion toplayapositivepublicroleinthebuildingofmodern,liberaldemocratic institutions.Thiscase[i.e.,thatofTaiwan,reviewer'snote],however,isanother pieceofevidenceforwhatmyco-authorsandIarguedinHabits of the Heartand The Good Society:Apurelysecularliberalism--aliberalismfoundedsimplyon therationalself-interestofindividualcitizens--isnotabasisforaviable,robust polity.Itisevidenceforthenotionthatallcoherentstatesrestonholyground. (p. xxiii) Madsen'ssecondthemeisencapsulatedinwhathecalls"a search for hope that the progressive promises of religion will overcome the regressive perils of religion in the modern world"(p.xxiii,emphasisintheoriginal).Theseregressiveperilsare thebasisoftheaforementionedskepticismofmainstreamscholars:theroleof religiousinstitutionsinreligiouswars,tribalism,andthelegitimationofoppressive regimes.Inourday,Madsenseestheseregressivetendenciesrepresentedby IslamicandChristianfundamentalism.Termssuchas"progressive"and"regressive,"ofcourse,implyateleologicalviewofhistory--and,infact,suchaviewis notjustimplicitinMadsen'sapproach.HesubscribestoBellah'sschemeofreligiousevolution,leadinghimtoexpectasecondaxialbreakthrough: Unliketheoriginalaxialage,whichsawtheparalleldevelopmentofseparate culturaltraditions,anewaxialagewouldhavetoarisethroughtheinteractionof manydifferenttraditions.Thereligiousuniversalismofanewaxialagewould havetobeanecumenicalone,whichfreelyelicitedcommonunderstandingsfrom diversefaiths,ratherthananimperialisticuniversalismthattriedtodominateall partsoftheworldunderasinglefaith.(p.149) Thefirstaxialbreakthroughoccurred"onthemarginsofpowerfulempires,in smallstatesthathadexperiencedsomeprosperitybutwhichwerelockedin incessantcompetitionwithotherstatesandwereinsecureandvulnerable"(p.149). ThisdescriptioncouldwellbeappliedtomodernTaiwan,and,thus,Madsen surmisesthatitisherethatwemightfindthebeginningsofanewaxialage.While hecautiouslyqualifiesthereligiousgroupsanalyzedinthepresentvolumeas potential"precursors"ofsuchadevelopment,heinsiststhat"bystudyingthemwe mightgetamorefine-grainedunderstandingofthesocialandculturalmatrixout ofwhichaxialbreakthroughscanarise"(p.150).SinceMadsenisnotatheologian orphilosopherofreligion,butasociologist,heapproachestheseissuesfroma socialscienceangle,thatis,notwithafocusondoctrineanddogma,butinstead ontheinstitutionalstructuresandsocialembeddednessofthesefourgroups. 216 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.2,2011 Hestartsoutfromthecommonperceptionofeachofthefourorganizations ascateringprincipallytospecificsocialgroupsintheburgeoningTaiwanese middleclass:TzuChito"peopleinmodernmanagerialandserviceprofessions," Buddha'sLightMountainto"fairlyaffluentbusinessownersaswellasgovernment officialsandpoliticians,"DharmaDrumMountaintointellectuals,andEnacting HeavenTempleto"shopkeepers,clericalworkers,andretailclerks"(p.7).Using MaryDouglas'sconceptofgridandgroupconsciousness,hecorrelatesthetypical experienceandoutlookofthesesocioeconomicgroupswiththemodesofoperationandreligiousstylesofthefourorganizations.Beyondthissocialdifferentiation,however,thefourgroups'overalleffectonthepoliticaltransformationhas beensimilar.Firstofall,theyrepresentacivilsocietythatseesitselfinacomplementary,notseparatedorevenadversarial,relationshipwiththegovernment. OrganizationssuchasTzuChiseethemselvesasworkingwiththegovernment to providepublicservicesinaBuddhistethos.Madsenpointsoutasignificant differencewiththefaith-basedinitiativespopularintheUnitedStatesunderthe Bushadministration: Unlikefaith-basedorganizationsintheUnitedStates,whichcurrentlywant publicmoneytodotheirprivatework,TzuChiraisesprivatemoneytodopublic work.(p.136) Madsenpointsoutthatreligiousorganizationsdidnotengenderacivilsociety priortotheliftingofmartiallaw,buttheyassumedsucharoleveryquicklyand activelyafterwards,albeitinacontinuingcloserelationshipwiththestate,somethingthatmanyWesterntheoristswouldregardwithsuspicion.Thegroups studiedbyhimare"likebeltbucklesjoiningprivateandpublicsectorsinatighter embracethanenvisionedbyliberalpoliticaltheorists"(p.135).Madsenargues, however,thatthis"relativelackofindependencehasinfactplayedapositiverole inthedevelopmentofTaiwanesedemocracybymitigatingthecentrifugalforces thatdemocracycanengender"(p.135).Theyevensupplywhathecallsa"civil religionofanecumenicalnationalism"(p.137)thatengendersprideinTaiwanand awillingnesstoinvesttime,money,andeffortinlocalvoluntaryservices,whileat thesametimecultivatinganethosthattranscendsnationalbordersandmakes organizationssuchasTzuChiorBuddha'sLightMountainengageininternational relief,charity,missionary,andeducationalventures. Thus,intheirteachingsandpractice,thereligiousmovementswehavestudied expand(tovaryingdegrees)themoralhorizonsofparticipantsbeyondthe boundariesoffamily,locality,ethnicgroup,ornation.Theyarticulateamoral visionforaglobalizedworld.Atthesametimetheyreaffirmfamiliarbonds.... Itisakindofreligiousrevivalthatholdsoutmuchmorepositivehopesforthe buildingofafreeworldorderthandothevariousformsofzealoustribalism associatedwithreligiousrevivalsintheMiddleEastandAmerica.(p.151) AgainstthewidespreadidentificationofAsianvalueswithauthoritarianism, Madsenbelievesthathiscasestudyshows Reviews 217 thatAsianvaluescanbeinterpretedinsuchawayastosupportdemocracyrather thandictatorship.ItshowsthatConfucianism,Buddhism,andDaoismhavethe capacitybothtoadapttomodernityandtohumanizethemodernworld.Itshows thatglobalizationcanhelpleadtoareligiousrenaissancethatsupportsdialogue amongcivilizationsratherthanclashesbetweenthem.(p.144) Ihavequotedatlengthfromthebookunderreviewtogivemyreaderasenseof thepalpableexcitementofitsauthor.Wehavehadearlierstudiesofthegroupsat thecenterofthisbook,butnonehasdrawnevenremotelyaswide-rangingconclusionsasMadsenhas.Whilehetakescaretoqualifyhisenthusiasmeverynowand then,itisclearthathebelievestohavediscoveredempiricalevidencetoprove long-standingtheoreticalconcernsconcerningcivilandprogressivereligion. M adsen'svervepullsthereaderalongandmayperhapscausehimorhertooverlookthefactthattheempiricalbasisforhisargumentisratherthin.Madsenonly undertookfieldresearchfromSeptember1999untilJanuary2000,withatwoweekfollow-upvisitin2001(p.159).Heconductedinterviewsandutilizedthe ratherfewEnglish-languagepublicationsofthegroupsconcerned.Heapparently didnotreadtheirnumerousChinese-languagepublications.Healsolargely(with acoupleofexceptions)neglectedtheimportantstudiesofthesegroupspublished inChinesebyTaiwanesescholars--someofwhompresentmorecriticalperspectivestocounterbalanceMadsen'srosyoutlook.Furthermore,whatthisworkoffers insociologicalbreadth,itlacksinsinologicaldepth.Madsen'sgraspofChinese religioushistoryisespeciallytenuouswhenitcomestoDaoism,which,afterthe massivedevelopmentofthefieldofDaoiststudiesoverthelastthirtyyears,hestill practicallyequateswithTaiwanesepopularreligion--hence,thedenominationof EnactingHeavenTempleasDaoist.Iamnotsayingthatsuchalabelcouldnotbe appliedtothistemple,buttodosoonewouldhavetoarguethatitreferstomore thantheresidualcategoryapparentlyenvisionedbyMadsen. Thus,whatwehavehereisatheory-drivenworkintheserviceofalarger vision.Iampersonallyinsympathywiththisvision,butIamalsouneasyabout thepossibledangersofselectiveperceptionwhenworkingwithsucharelatively thinsetofprimaryandsecondarydata.Itisawell-arguedbookbyaseniorscholar-- itsimportanceliesinlayingoutclearlyformulatedhypothesesforfutureresearcherstoconsider,prove,ordisprove.Howthistheoreticalframeworkwillholdupto morerigorousempiricalworkremainstobeseen. PhilipClart http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png China Review International University of Hawai'I Press

Democracy’s Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan (review)

China Review International , Volume 18 (2) – Sep 19, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/democracy-s-dharma-religious-renaissance-and-political-development-in-gY6uMGtyv0
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9367
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

214 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.2,2011 RichardMadsen.Democracy's Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan. Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2007. xxvi,191pp.Hardcover$60.00,isbn978-0-520-25227-1.Paperback$26.95, isbn978-0-520-25228-8. Aftermorethanfortyyearsofsingle-partyruleundertheKuomintang(KMT), headedfirstbyChiangKai-shek(1887­1975),thenbyhissonChiangChing-kuo (1910­1988),theliftingofthestateofmartiallawin1987setoffadynamicdemocraticdevelopmentthatledin2000tothefirstelectionofanoppositioncandidate tothepresidencyoftheRepublicofChinaonTaiwan.Therapidtransformationof theTaiwanesepoliticalsystemhasattractedtheattentionofmanysocialscientists interestedinthedemocratizationofanon-Communistauthoritarianregime roughlycontemporarywiththebreakdownoftheCommunistparty-statesin EasternEurope,especiallybecauseofitspotentialasamodelforpoliticalchange inmainlandChina.Theroleofreligiousinstitutionswasoneofthekeyresearch areasinthestudyofEuropeandemocratization.Whilethechurches(especially ProtestantandCatholic)playedimportantcivilsocietyrolesandwerecrucial agentsofpoliticalchangeinsomeSovietbloccountries(suchasEastGermany andPoland),theirpositiveinfluenceinothercountrieswaslessnoticeable(e.g.,in theUSSRorundertheclerico-fascistFrancoregimeinSpain).What,then,wasthe roleofreligiousinstitutionsinthedevelopmentofliberaldemocracyinTaiwan? ThisisRichardMadsen'scentralquestion,forwhichheprovidesanumberof thought-provokinganswers. Asacoauthor(withRobertN.Bellahandothers)ofHabits of the Heart,1 Madsenbelongstoaschoolofsociologylongconcernedwiththeroleofreligion inthepubliclifeofliberaldemocracies.WhilenotrejectingtheEnlightenment critiqueofthedivisivepublicroleofreligionsandtheresultantviewofmodernizationasineluctablylinkedtosecularization(inthesenseoftheprivatizationof religionanditsexclusionfromthepublicsphere),thesescholarsseektobalance thepicturewithanemphasisonthecontinuingneed,evenofseculardemocracies, toestablishamoralconsensusandanultimatesourceoflegitimation.Among othercontributions,thisschoolofthoughtgaveusthecontroversialcivilreligion concept.ItissignificantthatbothBellahandMadsenhavearesearchbackground inEastAsiansocieties,JapaninthecaseofBellah,ChinainthatofMadsen-- significantbecausetheEastAsianhistoryofreligionsprovidestestcasesand possiblyalternativesforlargelyWestern-focusedsecularizationtheories.Herein liesoneoftheattractionsthatpost­martiallawTaiwanhasforRichardMadsen andothersocialscientists. Giventheminorroleofreligiousgroupsinthepre-1987oppositionmovement (largelylimitedtoaliberalfactioninthePresbyterianChurch),Madsenfocuses hisattentiononthecontributionsoffourmajorreligiousinstitutionsinthe democratizationprocessafter1987.ThefourgroupsaretheBuddhistTzuChi © 2012 by University of Hawai`i Press Reviews 215 Foundation,Buddha'sLightMountain,DharmaDrumMountain,andtheDaoist EnactingHeavenTemple(moreontheproblematicnatureofthisDaoistlabel below).Madsensummarizeshistwomainthemesasfollows:"Bystudyingseveral prominentreligiousgroupsinTaiwan,Iwanttoshowmoregenerallyhowreligion affectsmovementstowardsdemocracy.Ialsowanttodemonstratehowprogressiveformsofreligiongrow"(p.xxiii).Forthefirsttheme,Madsenseekstocombat thegeneralskepticismamongmainstreamscholarsaboutthecapacityofreligion toplayapositivepublicroleinthebuildingofmodern,liberaldemocratic institutions.Thiscase[i.e.,thatofTaiwan,reviewer'snote],however,isanother pieceofevidenceforwhatmyco-authorsandIarguedinHabits of the Heartand The Good Society:Apurelysecularliberalism--aliberalismfoundedsimplyon therationalself-interestofindividualcitizens--isnotabasisforaviable,robust polity.Itisevidenceforthenotionthatallcoherentstatesrestonholyground. (p. xxiii) Madsen'ssecondthemeisencapsulatedinwhathecalls"a search for hope that the progressive promises of religion will overcome the regressive perils of religion in the modern world"(p.xxiii,emphasisintheoriginal).Theseregressiveperilsare thebasisoftheaforementionedskepticismofmainstreamscholars:theroleof religiousinstitutionsinreligiouswars,tribalism,andthelegitimationofoppressive regimes.Inourday,Madsenseestheseregressivetendenciesrepresentedby IslamicandChristianfundamentalism.Termssuchas"progressive"and"regressive,"ofcourse,implyateleologicalviewofhistory--and,infact,suchaviewis notjustimplicitinMadsen'sapproach.HesubscribestoBellah'sschemeofreligiousevolution,leadinghimtoexpectasecondaxialbreakthrough: Unliketheoriginalaxialage,whichsawtheparalleldevelopmentofseparate culturaltraditions,anewaxialagewouldhavetoarisethroughtheinteractionof manydifferenttraditions.Thereligiousuniversalismofanewaxialagewould havetobeanecumenicalone,whichfreelyelicitedcommonunderstandingsfrom diversefaiths,ratherthananimperialisticuniversalismthattriedtodominateall partsoftheworldunderasinglefaith.(p.149) Thefirstaxialbreakthroughoccurred"onthemarginsofpowerfulempires,in smallstatesthathadexperiencedsomeprosperitybutwhichwerelockedin incessantcompetitionwithotherstatesandwereinsecureandvulnerable"(p.149). ThisdescriptioncouldwellbeappliedtomodernTaiwan,and,thus,Madsen surmisesthatitisherethatwemightfindthebeginningsofanewaxialage.While hecautiouslyqualifiesthereligiousgroupsanalyzedinthepresentvolumeas potential"precursors"ofsuchadevelopment,heinsiststhat"bystudyingthemwe mightgetamorefine-grainedunderstandingofthesocialandculturalmatrixout ofwhichaxialbreakthroughscanarise"(p.150).SinceMadsenisnotatheologian orphilosopherofreligion,butasociologist,heapproachestheseissuesfroma socialscienceangle,thatis,notwithafocusondoctrineanddogma,butinstead ontheinstitutionalstructuresandsocialembeddednessofthesefourgroups. 216 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.2,2011 Hestartsoutfromthecommonperceptionofeachofthefourorganizations ascateringprincipallytospecificsocialgroupsintheburgeoningTaiwanese middleclass:TzuChito"peopleinmodernmanagerialandserviceprofessions," Buddha'sLightMountainto"fairlyaffluentbusinessownersaswellasgovernment officialsandpoliticians,"DharmaDrumMountaintointellectuals,andEnacting HeavenTempleto"shopkeepers,clericalworkers,andretailclerks"(p.7).Using MaryDouglas'sconceptofgridandgroupconsciousness,hecorrelatesthetypical experienceandoutlookofthesesocioeconomicgroupswiththemodesofoperationandreligiousstylesofthefourorganizations.Beyondthissocialdifferentiation,however,thefourgroups'overalleffectonthepoliticaltransformationhas beensimilar.Firstofall,theyrepresentacivilsocietythatseesitselfinacomplementary,notseparatedorevenadversarial,relationshipwiththegovernment. OrganizationssuchasTzuChiseethemselvesasworkingwiththegovernment to providepublicservicesinaBuddhistethos.Madsenpointsoutasignificant differencewiththefaith-basedinitiativespopularintheUnitedStatesunderthe Bushadministration: Unlikefaith-basedorganizationsintheUnitedStates,whichcurrentlywant publicmoneytodotheirprivatework,TzuChiraisesprivatemoneytodopublic work.(p.136) Madsenpointsoutthatreligiousorganizationsdidnotengenderacivilsociety priortotheliftingofmartiallaw,buttheyassumedsucharoleveryquicklyand activelyafterwards,albeitinacontinuingcloserelationshipwiththestate,somethingthatmanyWesterntheoristswouldregardwithsuspicion.Thegroups studiedbyhimare"likebeltbucklesjoiningprivateandpublicsectorsinatighter embracethanenvisionedbyliberalpoliticaltheorists"(p.135).Madsenargues, however,thatthis"relativelackofindependencehasinfactplayedapositiverole inthedevelopmentofTaiwanesedemocracybymitigatingthecentrifugalforces thatdemocracycanengender"(p.135).Theyevensupplywhathecallsa"civil religionofanecumenicalnationalism"(p.137)thatengendersprideinTaiwanand awillingnesstoinvesttime,money,andeffortinlocalvoluntaryservices,whileat thesametimecultivatinganethosthattranscendsnationalbordersandmakes organizationssuchasTzuChiorBuddha'sLightMountainengageininternational relief,charity,missionary,andeducationalventures. Thus,intheirteachingsandpractice,thereligiousmovementswehavestudied expand(tovaryingdegrees)themoralhorizonsofparticipantsbeyondthe boundariesoffamily,locality,ethnicgroup,ornation.Theyarticulateamoral visionforaglobalizedworld.Atthesametimetheyreaffirmfamiliarbonds.... Itisakindofreligiousrevivalthatholdsoutmuchmorepositivehopesforthe buildingofafreeworldorderthandothevariousformsofzealoustribalism associatedwithreligiousrevivalsintheMiddleEastandAmerica.(p.151) AgainstthewidespreadidentificationofAsianvalueswithauthoritarianism, Madsenbelievesthathiscasestudyshows Reviews 217 thatAsianvaluescanbeinterpretedinsuchawayastosupportdemocracyrather thandictatorship.ItshowsthatConfucianism,Buddhism,andDaoismhavethe capacitybothtoadapttomodernityandtohumanizethemodernworld.Itshows thatglobalizationcanhelpleadtoareligiousrenaissancethatsupportsdialogue amongcivilizationsratherthanclashesbetweenthem.(p.144) Ihavequotedatlengthfromthebookunderreviewtogivemyreaderasenseof thepalpableexcitementofitsauthor.Wehavehadearlierstudiesofthegroupsat thecenterofthisbook,butnonehasdrawnevenremotelyaswide-rangingconclusionsasMadsenhas.Whilehetakescaretoqualifyhisenthusiasmeverynowand then,itisclearthathebelievestohavediscoveredempiricalevidencetoprove long-standingtheoreticalconcernsconcerningcivilandprogressivereligion. M adsen'svervepullsthereaderalongandmayperhapscausehimorhertooverlookthefactthattheempiricalbasisforhisargumentisratherthin.Madsenonly undertookfieldresearchfromSeptember1999untilJanuary2000,withatwoweekfollow-upvisitin2001(p.159).Heconductedinterviewsandutilizedthe ratherfewEnglish-languagepublicationsofthegroupsconcerned.Heapparently didnotreadtheirnumerousChinese-languagepublications.Healsolargely(with acoupleofexceptions)neglectedtheimportantstudiesofthesegroupspublished inChinesebyTaiwanesescholars--someofwhompresentmorecriticalperspectivestocounterbalanceMadsen'srosyoutlook.Furthermore,whatthisworkoffers insociologicalbreadth,itlacksinsinologicaldepth.Madsen'sgraspofChinese religioushistoryisespeciallytenuouswhenitcomestoDaoism,which,afterthe massivedevelopmentofthefieldofDaoiststudiesoverthelastthirtyyears,hestill practicallyequateswithTaiwanesepopularreligion--hence,thedenominationof EnactingHeavenTempleasDaoist.Iamnotsayingthatsuchalabelcouldnotbe appliedtothistemple,buttodosoonewouldhavetoarguethatitreferstomore thantheresidualcategoryapparentlyenvisionedbyMadsen. Thus,whatwehavehereisatheory-drivenworkintheserviceofalarger vision.Iampersonallyinsympathywiththisvision,butIamalsouneasyabout thepossibledangersofselectiveperceptionwhenworkingwithsucharelatively thinsetofprimaryandsecondarydata.Itisawell-arguedbookbyaseniorscholar-- itsimportanceliesinlayingoutclearlyformulatedhypothesesforfutureresearcherstoconsider,prove,ordisprove.Howthistheoreticalframeworkwillholdupto morerigorousempiricalworkremainstobeseen. PhilipClart

Journal

China Review InternationalUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Sep 19, 2011

There are no references for this article.