Global Challenges to Intellectual History： Regional Focus of Intellectual History in the West

The first part of the paper shows that in American and European academia, the field of intellectual history has continued to neglect the world outside of the West. The reasons for this Eurocentric bias are related to lasting hierarchies in the global landscape of historiography. To put it bluntly, Western scholars can afford to ignore historical approaches from other parts of the world, while the opposite is not the case. Whereas fields like subaltern studies have pointed at such problems, these hierarchies （and their historical roots ） have thus far hardly been considered in the debate about the future of intellectual history. In the second part, the paper outlines some important research agendas for the field of global intellectual history. For example, it argues that the transnational spread（ and local adaptation） of Eurocentric ideas since the 19th century remains insufficiently understood. The same is true for the changing facets of international hierarchies of knowledge, which have continued to influence historical scholarship around the world up until the present day.

From ＂tianxia＂ （all under heaven） to ＂the world＂： changes in late Qing intellectuals＇ conceptions of human society

The concept of tianxia （all under heaven） had both a broad and a narrow meaning in traditional China, corresponding respectively to ＂the world＂ and ＂China.＂ It was generally believed that China＇s recent history saw a process in which tianxia contracted into a ＂state.＂ However, if we put the emphasis on what the Chinese literati had in mind, the process was more of a transformation from tianxia to ＂the world.＂ Kang Youwei creatively transformed Gongyang＇s idea of the ＂Three Worlds＂ from a diachronic to a synchronic concept, facilitating a smooth transformation from tianxia to ＂the world.＂ However, China was excluded fi-om the Western-dominated ＂world＂ system. The Chinese literati＇s yearning to become a part of＂the world,＂ and their endeavor to earn China a better position in the world, involved a hesitant process of exploration.

Lu Xun in the Rhetoric of the Sino-Soviet Split： A View from Contemporary Russia

The historical role of the prominent Chinese writer, social activist and thinker Lu Xun （1881-1936）, is difficult to overestimate. His works influenced social change within China and became recognized internationally. For these and other reasons, he was of particular interest in the Soviet Union. Since 1932, his works have been published in numerous editions in Russian and have received a great deal of scholarly attention in the Soviet Union. Such unprecedented attention was initially based on the idea that he held similar revolutionary sentiments to those prevailing in the Soviet Union. Later, from the second half of the 1960s to the early 1970s, the ideological disagreements between the Soviet Union and China influenced the direction of Lu Xun studies in the Soviet Union. Soviet leader Khrushchev called for peaceful coexistence with the capitalist West, while Mao Zedong stressed the universal character of the proletarian revolution. Lu Xun was highly respected in both the USSR and China, and thus became an influential tool in this polemic. But, for Soviet scholars, this renewed focus on Lu Xun offered an opportunity to provide a new perspective on the writer＇s works. This paper analyzes how the Sino-Soviet split influenced Russian academics＇ positions on Lu Xun. The focus is on the three main points of contention in the ideological disagreements between the PRC and the USSR. First, Soviet critics focused on the psychological aspects and individualism in the Lu Xun＇s works. Second, a special focus on humanistic elements in the writer＇s ideas can be seen as a result of the Soviet disagreement with the Cultural Revolution＇s period. Third, by pointing to the internationalist aspects of Lu Xun＇s writings, Soviet scholars attempted to expose the Sinocentric political attitudes of the ruling circles in China.