The slogan “the personal is political” captures the distinctive challenge to the public-private divide posed by contemporary feminists. As such, feminist activism is not necessarily congruent with civic engagement, which is predicated on the paradoxical need to both bridge and sustain the public-private divide. Lee argues that rather than subverting the divide, the politics of the personal offers an alternative understanding of civic engagement that aims to reinstate individuals’ dignity and agency.

The article is a study of Liang Qichao (1873-1929) by focusing on his theory of citizenship as laid out in the work Xinmin shuo (Discourse on the New Citizen). As a treatise on citizenship and nation-building, Xinmin shuo was the first of its kind in the history of Chinese political thought. Chinese studies specialists have typically treated the work as an illustration of a Confucian literati faced with the challenge from the West. Through a close reading of the text, the (...) article argues that Liang had in fact made an original contribution to citizenship theory by addressing the inherent tension between citizenship and nation-building. The article therefore sheds new light on Liang's theory of citizenship by engaging it as an attempt to tackle the universalism- particularism dichotomy rather than the typical Confucianism-liberalism dichotomy. (shrink)

Mahatma Gandhi and Sun Yat-sen are regarded as the respective founding fathers of modern India and China. Given this shared significance, their writings ought to be duly considered as the basis for comparative thought on postcolonial nation-building. Yet a survey of the literature points to the paucity of such study. The article is therefore an attempt to fill in this gap by juxtaposing Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and Sun’s San Min Chu I as treatises on postcolonial nation-building. Such juxtaposition yields important (...) contrasts between the two regarding postcolonial nationhood at the crossroad of non-western civilization and modernity. Beyond identifying these differences, the author uses the lack of comparative study on the subject as an occasion for pondering over the contrasting contemporary global legacy of the two figures. At stake are two visions of postcolonial nationhood that are lost to the ubiquity of global development. (shrink)