Mind and Body in Early China

Beyond Orientalism and the Myth of Holism

Oxford University Press, December 2018

Mind and Body in Early China critiques Orientalist accounts of early China as the radical, "holistic" other. The idea that the early Chinese held the "strong" holist view, seeing no qualitative difference between mind and body, has long been contradicted by traditional archeological and qualitative textual evidence. New digital humanities methods, along with basic knowledge about human cognition, now make this position untenable. A large body of empirical evidence suggests that "weak" mind-body dualism is a psychological universal, and that human sociality would be fundamentally impossible without it.

Edward Slingerland argues that the humanities need to move beyond social constructivist views of culture, and embrace instead a view of human cognition and culture that integrates the sciences and the humanities. Our interpretation of texts and artifacts from the past and from other cultures should be constrained by what we know about the species-specific, embodied commonalities shared by all humans. This book also attempts to broaden the scope of humanistic methodologies by employing team-based qualitative coding and computer-aided "distant reading" of texts, while also drawing upon our current best understanding of human cognition to transform our basic starting point. It has implications for anyone interested in comparative religion, early China, cultural studies, digital humanities, or science-humanities integration.

 
All in all, Mind and Body in Early China is a powerful work of original thought and scholarly prowess, and will undoubtedly take its place among the (modern) classics in the field.
— Jason Morgan, Reitaku University, Kirk Center
Over the last two decades, Slingerland has established himself as one of the leading voices calling for a greater integration between the sciences and the humanities, and Mind and Body in Early China is an excellent example of an effective implementation of this aspiration.
— Ori Tavor, Journal of the American Academy of Religion

Full list of Reviews

  • “Is Chinese Culture Dualist? An Answer to Edward Slingerland from a Medical Philosophical Viewpoint” (article discussion of Slingerland 2013 version), Journal of the American Academy of Religion 85.4 (December 2017), 1017-1031 (Pan Dawei)

  • Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 18.2 (June 2019), 305-312, with author reply and reviewer response, (J. Behuniak) 

  • Journal of the American Academy of Religion 87.4 (December 2019): 1246-1249 (O. Tavor)

  • Journal of World Religions 4 (Winter 2019): 166-172 (J. Sellman)

  • Philosophy East & West 70.3 (July 2020): 1-6 (B. Seok)

  • “A Mind-Body Problem in Chinese Philosophy?”, The University Bookman, Russell Kirk Center, June 21, 2020 (J. Morgan)

  • Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 83.3 (October 2020) (T.H. Barrett)

  • Journal of the American Oriental Society 141.2 (April-June 2021) (H. A. Smith)

 
Next
Next

Creating Consilience (2011)