QUOTE
how about Rafe De Crespigny?
He was trained by members of the last generation of great sinologists, but I would consider him more of a historian since his interests have been more narrowly focused on Han and Three Kingdoms history. He has no strong research interests in literature, philosophy, or language, unlike most earlier sinologists.
Since the 1950s, academic specialization has been increasingly emphasized in both the US and China, leading to more functional separation between historians, art historians, philosophers, linguists, and literature experts. It is now relatively rare to find either an interdisciplinary Sinologist or a 国学大师, except in Europe where the field of sinology remains small but basically unchanged. Whereas European and Japanese sinology once played leading roles in deepening the world's understanding of Chinese history and culture, they have since been overtaken by History departments and East Asian Languages/Studies departments in the US and, to a lesser extent, Canada. Funding has something to do with this change, but it is also very much a result of the dominance of the English language internationally.
The term 'sinology' has apparently gone out of fashion outside Europe for various reasons, probably including the perception that the body of past scholarship on Chinese history and culture that is available to non-Chinese scholars is now too large to be encompassed within a single term (unlike, say, Egyptology or Tibetology). However 'Chinese studies', which is essentially a de-latinized version of 'sinology', is still widely used. Geremie Barmé of ANU has also recently made an effort to put Australia back on the world map of Chinese studies by proposing the rather fluid and all-embracing concept New Sinology, a major characteristic of which is the study of contemporary Chinese culture in the light of Chinese history and traditional culture:
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pah/chinaheritageproject/newsinologyOne passage from Barmé's essay that may be of particular interest goes as follows:
QUOTE
It is sobering to note that it is nearly a quarter of a century since Pierre Ryckmans (writing as Simon Leys) observed in his rather pointed comments on Edward Said's book Orientalism that he had recently heard the word 'Sinology' used as a term of abuse when visiting the John K. Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University.[1] Naturally, I am aware of the unsettling history and much-discussed limitations of area studies in post-WWII Anglophone academic institutions, and in particular the history of 'Oriental Studies' at The Australian National University.[2] 'New Sinology' supports an approach that is alert to the complex—and often disturbing (as well as disturbatory)—issues at the heart of much of what is understood today by the term 'Sinology'. By this I mean that I am fully cognizant of and, more importantly, many scholars like myself have become critically engaged with the historical circumstances that led to the rise of various kinds of Sinology in the past, as well as 'Chinese Studies' in more recent decades.[3]