Barbara Mittler
Kontakt
Zentrum für Ostasienwissenschaften, Institut für Sinologie
am CATS (Centrum für Asienwissenschaften und Transkulturelle Studien)
Voßstraße 2, Gebäude 4120
Raum 120.03.01
69115 Heidelberg
Tel. (06221) - 54 15322
E-Mail: barbara.mittler@zo.uni-heidelberg.de

Lebenslauf
BARBARA MITTLER (chin. 梅嘉樂) hat in Oxford, Taipei und Heidelberg Sinologie, Musikwissenschaft und Japanisch studiert. Seit 2004 ist sie Professorin für Sinologie in Heidelberg, wo sie das Exzellenzcluster “Asia and Europe in a Global Context” (ab 2007) und darauf aufbauend das Centrum für Asienwissenschaften und Transkulturelle Studien (CATS, eröffnet 2019) mitbegründete. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte liegen im Bereich der chinesischen Kulturpolitik, mit Arbeiten u.a. zur zur chinesischen Kunstmusik, zur frühen Presse, der Kulturrevolution und Bild und Text in der Formation von kulturellem Gedächtnis.
2000 wurde sie mit dem Heinz-Maier-Leibnitz-Preis ausgezeichnet, 2002-2004 war sie Heisenberg-Stipendiatin, 2009 erhielt sie Henry Allen Moe Prize in the Humanities, 2012 den Fairbank Prize für ihr Buch zur chinesischen Kulturrevolution. Seit 2008 ist sie Mitglied der Leopoldina – Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften, seit 2013 der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Als Fellow und Gastprofessorin weilte sie an der Academia Sinica in Taiwan, am Humanities Center der Stanford University und an der EHESS in Paris.
Forschungsinteressen
- Chinesische Kulturpolitik in transkultureller Perspektive: Kunst, Musik & Literatur
- Presse und Medien
- Propaganda- und Protestkulturen
- Epochenformationen
- Kulturelles Gedächtnis
Ongoing Projects
My interest in privileging visual sources in the writing of history has been sparked in a number of joint projects on Visual Cultures in East Asia originally conceived by Christian Henriot. It is our contention that images are constitutive rather than merely reflective or illustrative of the histories that produce them. In these projects, therefore, we attempt to use images in order to interrupt the flow of text-based historical narratives, to ask new questions, and thus to produce new theoretical and conceptual arguments and narratives. Along these lines, I am currently engaged in writing a visual history of Mao (Reading Mao: The Making of a Global Icon) which continues my earlier work on MaoArt in A Continuous Revolution (chapter 5).
My interest in Mao as a Global Icon has been sparked and invigorated by a transregional dialogue with a historian of India from Duke University, Sumathi Ramaswamy. In our collaborative project No Parallel? The Fatherly Bodies of Gandhi and Mao, we interrogate how these two paradigmatic “peasant” nationalists have been transformed into hyper-visible “bio-icons.” Consciously adopting a dialogic and somewhat counterintuitive approach (something I have called Transcultural Comparison) that draws together within a single frame two “Asian” life trajectories that have more often than not been kept apart (No Parallel!), the project considers how critical images and signature image-events have contributed to a complex interplay between the iconization and the demonization of these two men in their own countries and on a global scale.
Our joint project builds on a number of forays in this field dedicated to understanding the transcultural travels and reach of images and art practices across Asia and Europe ("Archiving Mothers and Fathers of the Nation in Europe and Asia: Developing a Digitized Prototype of Braided Pictorial Histories", and a debating group on Transcultural Visuality with colleagues from different fields, all engaged in visual histories and culminating in a summer school "Seeing Matters"). We have over the years also co-organized a number of workshops (e.g. Spectacle & Sovereignty: Stately Bodies on Display, Stanford Humanities Center and Artful Bodies: Charisma and the Aesthetics of Power, Heidelberg Center for Transcultural Studies) and an Association of Asian Studies Double Panel in March 2017 “Death Becomes Them: The Posthumous Lives of Fatherly Bodies”. At all of these occasions, we have broadened our comparative scope even further and discussed Gandhi and Mao in the context of many other “Fathers of the Nation”—from George Washington to Chiang Kaishek, from Charlemagne to Jinnah and Nelson Mandela. Finally, in 2019, for the opening of the Center of Asian and Transcultural Studies CATS, we organized an exhibition featuring the Swiss photojournalist Walter Bosshard and his work on Gandhi and Mao in the 1930s: Envisioning Asia: Gandhi and Mao in the photographs of Walter Bosshard..
Inspired by the inter- and transdisciplinary dialogues at the Heidelberg Center for Transcultural Studies, Transcultural Comparison and the development of alternative modes of writing histories, has become one of my primary occupations recently. Already now, many new and relativizing narratives (provincializing not just Europe, but men, the elites, the “West” etc.) have been written. My own attempts at writing history not just from text, but from image, music, matter, as well, goes in the same direction. One crucial task is, however, to establish these new narratives not as “alternative” narratives that, by implication, prescribe new orthodox norms, but instead, as “narratives-in-common.” Such narratives are radically more than alternative narratives. They are able to discard apologetic (catching-up) or triumphant (we have had it all along) modes of writing in alternative histories that have been criticized frequently for these reasons. Narratives-in-common no longer lead to “deficient” histories. Yet, to write them is not an easy task (see my discussion with the Forum Transregionale Studien: All Things Transregional?).
In a recently published book co-written with Historian Thomas Maissen Why China did not have a Renaissance – and why that matters: An interdisciplinary Dialogue (Critical Readings in Global Intellectual History, Band 1, hrsg. von Susan Richter, Sebastian Meurer, De Gruyter: Oldenbourg, 2018 ) I argue that while China may not have had “The Renaissance” it had something else, a “Chinese” Renaissance which happened according to its own rules. Thus moving toward greater differentiation, however, one realizes that Europe did not have a “The Renaissance”, either: it had but a “European” Renaissance. Read in a global context—and in interdisciplinary dialogue—all History thus becomes regional history and accordingly, there are many histories of Renaissance to tell, in this global context. On the other hand, if we are able to accept that actors all over the world may have been engaged equally in the writing of Renaissance, and if we make this the basis of our writing of a new and global history, which no longer takes the European case as unique and all other historical experiences as derivative, but instead, shows an interest in these other, as well as the European experiences, as regionally specific and thus “authentic” histories, yet part of one global experience, we can move from these specific histories back to writing History (with a capital H) again: History-in-common.
This approach of viewing Chinese history in a global context has become crucial in envisaging a new project that is designed to introduce the teaching of History-in-common in secondary schools. The China-Schul-Akademie—Mehr vom A/anderen w/Wissen: (Lehr- und Lern-)Dialoge mit China argues that since the rise of the global south can no longer be denied, it is visible everywhere—in commerce, finance, politics and education—and China undeniably plays a leading role, at least some knowledge about and understanding of China is crucial for anyone engaged in politics, economics or the media. China knowledge needs to be built, from the base, not just in our universities but, more importantly, in our schools where encounters with China still remain extremely rare. This is due to the fact that currently, German schools have only very few qualified personnel available able to teach China, or Asia more broadly, the country‘s history, politics, culture, or even its many languages. The project has created a program which allows us to integrate the history, the politics, and the (im-material) cultural heritage (language, literature, religion, music, philosophy) of this important world region into the curricula of German schools at all levels.
To study China, as well as other regions of the global South, is to foster a curiosity and an openness toward the Other. We would argue that this is crucially important both for teachers (and for students) today as well as of the future, facing increasingly internationalized student generations. In intensive dialogue and exchange, we will try to begin to understand the respective Other „in-parallel“ and „on-a-par“ and to use the perspective of others in order to test ourselves and our own epistemic encrustations: we hope to raise an understanding that by knowing more about the other, we are acquring another perspective on what we know ourselves...
The project can build on many years of experience and funding: in 2006 already, we started with our Schulteam and just a few AGs, in 2007 the team won the prize Geist begeistert (BMBF). We then moved on to creating a Beifach Chinesisch Lehramt, the earliest such offer in Baden-Württemberg. Ever since we have been lobbying also to offer a Hauptfach and have been able to do so since 2015, through the polyvalent BA Ostasienwissenschaften/Sinologie and the MEd Chinesisch/Sinologie (which started in 2018. Including a Beifach Studiengang Chinesisch/Sinologie). Alongside these activities, we have also been regularly engaged in the Kinderuniversität/Junge Uni and cooperated with the CATS Schülerlabor
Publikationen (10 representative publications)
- 2004. A Newspaper for China? Power, Identity, and Change in Shanghai’s News Media, 1872-1912. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.
- 2007. “Gendered Advertising in China: What History Do Images Tell?” European Journal of East Asian Studies 6 (1): 13–41.
- 2012. A Continuous Revolution: Making Sense of Cultural Revolution Culture, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Accompanied by a Multimedia-Repositorium:
- 2013 Hrsg. Mit Hans Harder. Asian Punches: A Transcultural Affair. Heidelberg: Springer.
- 2013. “China’s ‘New’ Encyclopaedia and Their Readers”. In Chinese Encyclopaedias of New Global Knowledge, (1870-1930): Changing Ways of Thought, Hrsg. von Milena Doleželová-Velingerová und Rudolf G. Wagner, 399–424. Heidelberg: Springer.
- 2018. Why China Did Not Have a Renaissance and Why That Matters - An interdisciplinary Dialogue mit Thomas Maissen. Berlin: de Gruyter.
- 2018. Hrsg. mit Michel Hockx und Joan Judge. 2018. Women and the Periodical Press in China’s Long Twentieth Century: A Space of Their Own? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (“Introduction: Women’s Journals as Multigeneric Artefacts” 1-18). Accompanied by two digital Edition of these early News Media:
- 2019. “Press Powers - China, Gender and the Media in a Global Context”. In Engaging Transculturality: Concepts, Key Terms, Case Studies, Hrsg. von Laila Abu-Er-Rub, Christiane Brosius, et. al., 330–50. London: Routledge.
- 2021 „Vokabularien für eine globale Bibliothek – Von Transfer, Transformation und Transkulturalität“ Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis, vol. 45, no. 2, 239-248.
- 2024 “Exotic Soundscapes-China’s Cultural Revolution resonating in Films of a Global 68“ in: The Sinosphere and beyond Hrsg. Joachim Kurtz et al. 347-369. Berlin: de Gruyter.