You would have enough time and reward, if you can finish it as required.

EMSP 2390/CTMP 2102/HSTC 2811/CHIN 2082 Asia and the West: Centuries of Dialogue

Reading response guidelines

General Requirements

Your reading response should be 750-1000 words, double-spaced, 12-point font, and follow

Chicago or MLA citation styles: see citation guides on the Brightspace page for this course (but

where citation information is missing, e.g., in some of the assigned readings, please list as much

information as is provided: e.g., author, title, page number). A hard copy is to be submitted by

the deadline (see syllabus), and a digital copy to the assignment dropbox corresponding to the

reading response on Brightspace (see the ‘Assignments’ module on the ‘Contents’ page). Please

submit your digital copy in pdf, Word, or other standard format (but not ‘Pages’, which

Brightspace cannot process properly). Assignments will receive a deduction if they are only

submitted online; they will not be graded if only the hard copy is submitted.

I will be checking assignments for plagiarism using Urkund, an anti-plagiarism tool. You can

choose an alternative method if you wish: please see ‘Academic Integrity’ in the syllabus for

more details.

Content

Each response should discuss a reading(s) of your choice assigned for each section (please let me

know if you are unsure about your selected reading to discuss). Please ensure that your reading

responses cover readings from the correct section. You may wish to discuss more than one

short reading (e.g., the two short pieces by Zhu Xi), or select only a portion of a longer reading

(e.g., certain selections from the Buddhist readings or from Sources of East Asian Tradition), if

you find that you are interested in a particular theme discussed in the selected sources.

The reading response will consist of two main sections: a summary of the major points or

highlights of the selected reading; and your critical reaction to the reading. Thus, you are advised

not to summarise all aspects of a reading, but rather to address key points/highlights which you

wish to discuss: again, please see me if you’re unsure about what aspects you want to address.

Also, you should state at the outset of your reading response what text(s) you are discussing, and

what you are focusing upon. A concise statement of this nature will serve as an introduction, as

the reading responses are short. A concluding statement will also serve as a conclusion.

Topics: The lectures should give you ideas for possible topics for your reading responses, such

as rituals in one of the Confucian texts, Mencius on compassion, suffering in Buddhist thought,

Jesuit accommodation, Montesquieu on Chinese despotism, the Gandhi-Tagore debate, etc. You

can draw in a general fashion on ideas discussed in lectures, but your response should discuss the

readings in your own words—so your response should not need to cite class lectures (except in

cases, e.g., where you disagree with a lecturer’s interpretation!). If you’re not sure, just ask me.

The summary section should discuss the key points related to your topic as they are explicated

in the reading. How does the reading discuss the concepts in question? Are they defined, or

exemplified, or illustrated in certain unique ways? How is the treatment of the key points

different from a rival school of thought, or from a different interpretation? The summary section

should show that you have thought through a reading from the author’s perspective.

Critical reactions should discuss how compelling and/or successful the reading is in its

argument. Is the reading clear and/or persuasive in its explication of the topic? Are there inner

tensions and/or contradictions in its arguments? And in the case of western or Asian conceptions

of Asian/western ideas, are these conceptions useful interpretations, problematic distortions, or

both and in what ways? Your critical reactions should show that you have carefully analysed and

assessed the reading in relation to your focus.

Use of secondary sources: You are permitted to use and refer to external secondary sources, but

do keep in mind that the summary and critical reactions must be your own. Thus, I would advise

using secondary sources sparingly, e.g., only if there is a particularly difficult interpretative point

with which you need help, or if there is an alternative interpretation you are interested in

rebutting. The syllabus lists some useful secondary sources for reference.

Evaluation

Evaluation of your reading response will be primarily based on content. Thus, a paper in the A

range will show clarity and depth of analysis in both summary and critical reaction; a B paper

will show that you have a decent grasp of the material, but the summary and critical reaction will

be lacking in precision and probity; a C paper will show general familiarity, but with a lack of

clarity and analysis—especially a hastily written and carelessly argued reading response. A D

paper will be only minimally acceptable, with content only tangentially connected to course

material or almost completely off-track. An F paper will fail to meet any of the requirements for

the reading response.

Please note, however, that your mark can be negatively affected by poor and sloppy writing, as

well as improper citations. Please avoid overly-long or –short paragraphs, spelling and

grammatical errors, including sentence fragments, comma splices, run-on sentences, sloppy use

of pronouns, etc. A poorly written reading response impedes clarity of expression, and thus

affects quality of content. A lack of citations for direct quotations and paraphrases, moreover,

constitutes plagiarism and is subject to the academic integrity process at King’s and Dalhousie.

Finally, an overly brief or irrelevant reading response will receive a lower mark.

If you have any questions about these guidelines, please let me know in person or by email!

Citations not indicated in the posted readings:

1. Confucius. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. Eds. Roger Ames &

Henry Rosemont Jr. New York: Random House, 2010.

2. Dao de Jing & Zhuangzi:

Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy. Eds. Philip J. Ivanhoe & Bryan W. Van Norden.

Indianapolis: Hackett, 2003.

3. Xu Ai. 'A Record for Practice'. In Readings from the Lu-Wang School of Neo-Confucianism.

Translated by Philip J. Ivanhoe. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2009. 131-159.

4. Tokugawa Neo-Confucianism, Chinese responses to Jesuits, Dutch learning, modern Chinese

thought, modern Japanese thought:

Sources of East Asian Tradition Volume 2: The Modern Period. Ed. Wm. Theodore de Bary.

New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

5. Montesquieu. The Spirit of the Laws. Eds A.M. Cohler, B.C. Miller, & H.S. Stone.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

6. Titsingh, Isaac. ‘Philosophical Discourse.’ In Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns: Isaac Titsingh

and Japan, 1779-1822. London: Routledge, 2006. 207-216.

7. Haldane, J.B.S. ‘An Indian Perspective of Darwin.’ The Centennial Review 3:4 (1959): 357-

363.

8. AfroAsian Encounters. Edited by Heike Raphael-Hernandez and Shannon Steen. New York:

NYU Press, 2006.