Abstract:The objective duality of the world, man and mankind should correspond to the pairing of Oriental studies and Western studies, however, science and pedagogy know only the first, or orientalistics. This monopoly was the result of the formation of the modern system of sciences in the field of the global domination of the West, representing the East as its opposite — the Non-West and / or interpreting interaction with it in value-asymmetric categories of culture and barbarism. The publication in 2006 of the Russian translation of E. Said's famous anti-Eastern book “Orientalism” and the scientific and educational reform of 2010-2013, provoked a discussion of Russian orientalists in the sense of the concepts of the East and the scientific status of Oriental studies as a complex and supra-branch discipline, which is either a syncretic underscience, or a synthetic superscience. Similar problems have been discussed in Russian Sinology since the 19th, since of all the highly developed cultures of the East, Chinese is the most syncretic, and the science about it is the most synthetic. In traditional China, there were no divisions customary for the West into philosophy and religion / theologians, philosophy and science, humanitarian and natural disciplines, fine and applied arts, etc. Russian Sinology, created at the beginning of the 18th century, corresponded to this specificity, simultaneously with “cutting a window to Europe” to address similar government requests. In the USSR, it was divided into classical Sinology, which was concentrated in Leningrad, with an emphasis on philology and wen-yan, and Soviet Sinology, which was concentrated in Moscow, with an emphasis on history, social studies, and bai-hua. As a result, it was possible to find the most complete reflection in accordance with the standards of classical sinology of the 6-volume encyclopedia “Spiritual Culture of China” (2006-2010). The results of this convergence were also recorded by the 10-volume “History of China from Ancient Times to the Beginning of the 21st Century”, which largely inherited Soviet Sinology (2013-2017). After analyzing these historical phenomena, the article describes the main achievements and problems of Russian Sinology over the past decade and the challenges it faces in the light of the modern rethinking of the scientific status of all oriental studies.

China and Chinism: reassessment of China in Russian sinology of the late 19th century

Soviet Sinology and Two Approaches to an Understanding of Chinese History

Sinology in Russia during the Soviet and Post-Soviet Periods: Research and Politics

The Scientific Status of Oriental Studies and the Fate of Russian Sinology

China and the World: Perception and Analysis

The Formation of a New Confucianism in the 40s of the XX Century in the Framework of the Discussion of "Westernizers" and Post-Confucians

With What Voice Does China Speak? Sinology, Orientalism and the Debate on Sinologism

The Modern Literary Process in China in the Works of Russian Literary Scholars-Sinologists: Features of the Research Perspective

Liang Qichao at the Fin-de-siècle:The Antinomy of Asian-African Consciousness and National Impe-rialism

Western Sinology and the Internationalization of China's Humanities Studies

Developments in Russian Historical Studies in China since Reform and Opening-up

The Problems Of Sinologism And Strategies To Cope With Them

On Wang Guowei’s Academic Turn and RefIections on Chinese and Western CuIture in His Late Years

A Chinese academic tradition examined in the context of international academic communication: exploratory research into Shang Que articles

The theory of Chinese narrative prose in the early twentieth century.

The New Vision and Interpretation of Sinology

The image of China in modern Russian media (based on materials from the National Corpus of the Russian Language)

How to write Chinese history in the twenty-first century: The impact of the “New Qing History” studies and Chinese responses

Sinophile and the Perception of Western Modernity

Manchu Sinicization: Doubts on the Ethnic Perspective of New Qing History