Source: Global Times
Since China implemented its reform and opening-up policy, some American scholars who have long been dedicated to the study of China have been able to enter mainland China, access gradually opening archival materials within the country, and directly conduct oral history interviews and field investigations in Chinese villages and areas inhabited by ethnic minorities. This has had a profound impact on the "China studies" field in the United States, which includes specific disciplines such as history, political science, and anthropology, prompting theoretical reflection among American historians of China regarding the "China-centered historical perspective." It has also promoted dialogue and cooperation between Western "Sinological Anthropology," based mainly in South China, and China's own "South China School" (based on specific regions and methodologies). However, these "discoveries" have long been largely one-sided, meaning the U.S. rediscovery of China, while China's understanding of the U.S. has focused more on the field of Sino-American relations. In recent years, this unequal cognitive structure is gradually being reversed.
In the history of modern American Sinology, Harvard University historian John Fairbank played a significant role. He transformed American Sinology, primarily based on writings by missionaries since the late 19th century, into rigorous social scientific research within academic institutions and emphasized the application of relevant social science theories. He also shifted European Sinology, which primarily studied classical Chinese philosophical texts, into contemporary American Sinology with strong practical concerns, emphasizing China's modernization transition, and even serving directly the U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War era, making it part of America's post-war comprehensive and interdisciplinary regional studies of other parts of the world. Additionally, due to Fairbank's initial research path focusing on Qing Dynasty trade relations with Britain, extending to "China's response to Western impact," many of his disciples (such as Paul Cohen, Philip Kuhn, Joseph Esherick, and Wakeman John) initially focused on Qing Dynasty foreign relations and interactions between China and the West. However, in the mid-1980s, Paul Cohen rebelled against Fairbank's "Western Impact-Chinese Response" paradigm with the "China-Centered Historical Perspective."
Due to his irreplaceable pioneering contributions in paradigm shifts, academic organizations, series publications, and talent cultivation, Fairbank's contributions are beyond doubt, but his limitations are also evident. Due to his focus on Qing Dynasty foreign relations and his agreement with America's modernization theory in the 1950s, Fairbank consistently emphasized the positive role of missionaries in modern China, implying that China must follow an American-style "modernization" path through its "response" to the West. This mindset was questioned by Professor Esherick in the 1970s. The younger generation of sinologists at that time, including Esherick, held a strongly critical attitude towards America's foreign policies under the backdrop of the Vietnam War, believing that China should be viewed more positively and understood from within.
In today’s 2020s, the generation of American sinologists who once challenged Fairbank and actively sought to understand China from within have mostly passed away or retired. The peak of "Sinological Anthropology" has also passed, and the "New Qing History" controversy involving Fairbank's third-generation successors has been ongoing for over twenty years. On the other hand, mainstream commercial media in the U.S. still influence the public's perception of China through fixed "hot topics," and even among the educated public outside of media, knowledge about China remains often framed within narratives like Pearl Buck's novels. Therefore, America's understanding of China remains partial, subjective, and lagging. As exchanges between China and the U.S. wane in both intensity and frequency, it seems that the theoretical development and paradigm construction of China studies in American academia have entered a stagnant period.
Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to reduce funding for Asian languages, cultures, and histories, including those related to China. During conversations with some Chinese-American scholars, I often lament the condescending, indifferent, and dispensable attitude of American universities toward "Asian culture," which is geographically distant. Consequently, scholars engaged in Asian studies constantly need to advocate for the preservation of relevant teaching programs. I believe this is closely related to America's increasingly inward-looking, conservative, and insular tendencies in recent years.
However, with visits to the U.S. and access to information about the U.S. becoming more convenient, Chinese scholars' research on the U.S. is beginning to exhibit a similar positive shift, moving from a focus on U.S. China policy to studying internal issues in contemporary America. Based on my reading, some young and middle-aged domestic scholars are researching the impact of local factors on U.S. foreign policy. Others are tracing the origins and development of populist trends in the U.S., while others are revealing subtle and covert forms of racism concealed by American neoliberalism. In my view, the insights in these papers, which conduct solid research on the U.S., often surpass those of Chinese-American scholars who have lived and worked in the U.S. for a long time but seem to have lost their sensitivity to the U.S. These research results and their dissemination on social media help domestic academia move away from past preferences for American government policies toward China and historical events, encouraging more people to focus on contemporary American grassroots society and mindsets, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the U.S.
In summary, American Sinology research appears to be gradually stagnating in terms of theory and methodology, while China's American studies are continuously advancing in depth. Of course, there is still room for further improvement in terms of theory and the weight of scholarly works. With more Chinese scholars, students, and journalists continuously observing and studying American politics and society either academically or non-academically, China's understanding of the U.S. will gain greater initiative. The relationship between mutual cognition and interpretation between China and the U.S. will eventually reverse. (The author is an associate professor in the History Department of Allegheny College.)
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7511494243597320758/
Disclaimer: The article represents the views of the author. Feel free to express your opinions by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.