Han Qiang and Feng Ziyan: An Analysis of the Origins of Overseas Research on the Communist Party of China
Academic circles abroad have maintained an interest in and conducted research on the Communist Party of China (CPC) for a long time, manifesting a diverse array of subjects and perspectives. These subjects and perspectives intertwine, collectively facilitating the flourishing development of the field of overseas CPC studies. At the same time, there remains a degree of controversy regarding the origins of overseas CPC research. On one hand, we need to comb through and examine these early interpretations and evaluations to trace their roots; on the other hand, we must conduct a deep analysis of the underlying reasons for different types of explanations and evaluations, as well as the methodologies, stances, ideological concepts, and value orientations adopted by various historical subjects during the research process. Through such a synthesis and review, we can not only witness the entire progression of overseas CPC studies from its embryonic stage to maturity and then toward professionalization and deepening, but also gain insight into the CPC's own developmental trajectory and the evolution of its status on the international stage.
I. The Three Major Theories on the Origins of Overseas CPC Studies
Domestic academic circles have yet to reach a consensus on the origins of overseas CPC studies, and various viewpoints exist. However, viewed from a macro perspective, these understandings can be broadly categorized into three major viewpoints, which this article integrates and summarizes as the "Japanese Inception Theory," the "Soviet and Comintern Promotion Theory," and the "American Origin Theory."
(1) The Japanese Inception Theory Scholars who advocate that overseas CPC studies originated in Japan argue that Japan conducted relatively deep observation and research on the CPC before and after World War II. Due to geographical proximity as well as historical and cultural ties, Japanese society possessed unique advantages for understanding and researching the CPC. Since the beginning of the modern era, in order to realize its ambitions of controlling and seizing China, Japan placed extreme importance on intelligence work and the collection of materials regarding China, producing a large number of investigation reports based on this work. Japanese scholars and intelligence agencies conducted a certain amount of research on the CPC around the time of its founding, and these studies laid the foundation for subsequent overseas CPC research.
On June 29, 1921, the Japanese publication Foreign Affairs Police Journal (Gaishi Keisatsu Pō [1], an internal publication) carried a short article titled "The Activities of the Chinese Communist Party in Shanghai." Immediately following this, the journal successively published lists and information regarding Communists active in Shanghai and key figures who followed Bolshevism. Synthesizing the original materials from the Foreign Affairs Police Journal and comparing them with the textual research of relevant scholars, it is found that since its founding in 1921, the journal established a dedicated section to introduce the current situation in China, focusing particularly on the development and rise of the communist movement in China. For instance, Issue No. 1 (May 1921) and Issue No. 2 (June 1921) introduced "extremist" and "Bolshevized" [2] activities in places like Beijing and Shanghai; Issue No. 10 (February 1922) mentioned the "Shanghai Communist Meeting" when introducing the situation of "extremists." As an intelligence newspaper intended for internal official circles, the primary function of the Foreign Affairs Police Journal was reporting and introduction; its expressions were relatively brief and lacked deep analysis and research. Consequently, some scholars have added from a research perspective that CPC periodicals were also important materials for Japanese researchers to analyze China's political, economic, and military situation, noting that "the earliest CPC periodical to appear in the Japanese field of vision seen so far is New Youth (Xin Qingnian)." In 1921, Ujita Naoyoshi published a monograph on the study of China's New Culture Movement titled After the Republic: A Study of China (Kyōwa go: Shina kenkyū), which introduced New Youth, pointing out that it was founded in Shanghai to promote new ideas and later became the "institutional magazine of the Faculty of Letters" at Peking University.
Furthermore, there were some research outputs specifically focused on the CPC. For example, Norisugi Yoshihisa's "Trends and Critique of the Chinese Communist Party" was completed on July 25, 1923, and subsequently published in September in Issue No. 9 of the magazine The Orient (Tōyō). This article is considered by domestic scholars as "the earliest specialized research paper on CPC history collected from Japan to date, and the earliest research output themed on the Chinese Communist Party both domestically and abroad." In April 1926, Sasaki Tōichi published History and Analysis of the Chinese Kuomintang, in which the fourth part was titled "The Communist Kuomintang" and the fifth part was titled "The Rise of the Rejection of Communism." In July of the same year, Nagano Akira’s book Social Movements in China was published, containing five chapters researching the CPC from 1920 to 1926 and its relations with the Kuomintang; some domestic scholars also consider this "the earliest achievement of Japanese research on the CPC and its history." Prior to the disclosure of the aforementioned historical materials, domestic scholars generally traced Japanese research on CPC history back to Itō Takeo's "The Chinese Revolution and Proletarian Parties," published in December 1926, which was considered "the earliest Japanese monograph on the study of CPC history."
(2) The Soviet and Comintern Promotion Theory Scholars who advocate that overseas CPC studies originated in the Soviet Union and the Comintern believe that the Comintern spread Marxism to China and guided the founding and early construction of the CPC. Therefore, this viewpoint is usually closely associated with early Soviet support and theoretical guidance for the Chinese Revolution. In this process, as the coordinating body of the international communist movement, the Comintern also played an important role.
The Soviet Union's attention and interest in the Chinese communist movement gradually emerged alongside the advancement of its in-depth research into the Chinese labor movement. Initially, staff from the Red International of Labour Unions (Profintern) and the Comintern took notice of the rise of the Chinese labor movement and the founding of the CPC. Subsequently, representatives of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Comintern channeled the ardent aspirations of Chinese socialist proponents for Marxist research and propaganda into the practical action of establishing the CPC, providing valuable support during this process. In September 1920, Vilensky-Sibiryakov, in a "Brief Report on the Work Among the Peoples of East Asian Countries," indicated the work plan for the China branch, including "establishing Communist groups in Chinese student organizations, and likewise establishing Communist groups in worker organizations in China’s coastal industrial zones, thereby promoting Party building and conducting communist propaganda within the Chinese military." Relevant personnel exchanged views on issues such as "the upcoming congress of Chinese communist organizations and the founding of the CPC." On May 20, 1922, Lyukin pointed out in a report to the Far Eastern Department of the Executive Committee of the Comintern concerning work in China that the principled position for the Comintern’s work in China was "to rely on the most conscious workers to establish Communist groups; then they will unite to form the Chinese Communist Party." During the early period of the CPC's founding, the Comintern also assisted the CPC in clarifying its core tasks: "to struggle both against imperialist exploitation and against the domestic ruling class... to bring the vast laboring masses out of their original 'prehistoric' [3] condition." After the CPC implemented cooperation with the Kuomintang, some leaders and relevant scholars of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) and the Comintern paid even closer attention to the situation of the Chinese revolution, researching the CPC’s revolutionary strategy and tactics. Thereafter, systematic research on the CPC gradually increased. For instance, in the autumn of 1926, the Soviet advisor in China, Naumov, compiled a long article specifically discussing CPC history titled "An Outline of the History of the Chinese Communist Party," introducing China's socio-political conditions prior to the First National Congress of the CPC, the process of the CPC’s founding, and the evolution of the Chinese labor and communist movements from the First to the Fourth National Congresses. Some domestic scholars have called Naumov "the first person in the Soviet Union to attempt to write a history of the CPC."
(3) The American Origin Theory Scholars advocating the "American Origin Theory" believe that the formal formation of overseas CPC studies as a discipline benefited from the contributions of American scholars. As a stronghold of China studies, the United States has conducted research on the CPC since the mid-20th century, subsequently pushing "overseas CPC studies" onto a formal path of academicization. These studies not only promoted the understanding and recognition of the CPC within overseas academic circles but also provided an important theoretical foundation and methodological guidance for subsequent related research.
U.S. attention toward the CPC began in the 1920s, primarily through a series of reports on the Chinese revolution published by American journalists. For example, Peter Rand, in his work, recounted the journeys of American journalists such as Anna Louise Strong, Harold Isaacs, and Agnes Smedley as they observed and reported on CPC-related activities at close range. In the 1930s and 1940s, non-academic figures such as journalists and diplomats stationed in China who witnessed the Chinese revolution also contributed many research reports and works concerning the CPC. For instance, in 1932, American diplomat O. Edmund Clubb submitted a report to the U.S. State Department titled Communism in China—1932 Report from Hankow. This report was based on Chinese and English newspapers, a small amount of available Communist publication materials, and direct testimony provided by missionaries and others; it introduced the internal organizational structure of the Chinese revolutionary movement and assessed its significance. Despite some factual errors, it was a pioneering work for its time. In 1937, American journalist Edgar Snow’s book Red Star Over China (also known as Xixing Manji [4]) was published in London, enabling Western society to gain a deep understanding of the true face of the CPC and the Red Army for the first time. In addition, the outstanding contributions of Harvard University in the field of overseas CPC studies have attracted widespread attention from domestic scholars. Harvard scholar John King Fairbank is known as the primary founder of 20th-century American China studies (Sinology). Fairbank and the Harvard school of China studies he represented focused on the Chinese communist movement (the Chinese revolution) and CPC research. The East Asian Research Center founded by Fairbank is the most prominent modern China research institution in the United States and indeed the world; the center has maintained consistency in its research projects and policies, holding a leading position in the field of China studies. Some domestic scholars also believe that "the formation of overseas CPC studies was marked by the establishment of the East Asian Research Center at Harvard University." Driven by a professionalized cohort, overseas CPC studies gradually grew into an independent field. To this day, after a century of heritage and development, the United States has become the primary arena for overseas CPC studies, possessing the greatest number of research institutions and scholars, and its research results have become an important perspective and means for the world to understand and interpret China and the CPC.
In addition, early attention to the CPC existed to varying degrees in other countries and regions. For example, Rudolf Bosshardt, a Swiss-born British missionary, marched with the Red Army during the Long March and published The Guiding Hand: Captivity and Answered Prayer in China in 1936, which became one of the earliest Western monographs to introduce the Red Army's Long March. James Bertram was the first British journalist to visit Yan'an; after the Xi’an Incident occurred, he quickly compiled his materials and published First Act in China: The Story of the Sian Mutiny in 1937. With an objective and fair perspective, the book provided a detailed account of the true course of the Xi’an Incident and the CPC's policy for its peaceful resolution, becoming the only monograph on the Xi’an Incident written by a foreigner. Meanwhile, reports on the Chinese revolution and references to Mao Zedong’s works began to appear in Latin America in the 1930s. However, these early observations and studies from other countries and regions were often scattered within broader regional studies of Asia, especially East Asia. Most were limited to brief introductions and reports on the Chinese revolution and CPC leaders, or served as auxiliary materials for studies on specific CPC leaders; relatively speaking, the scale and influence of research in these countries and regions were quite limited.
II. Comparison and Analysis of the Three Origins of Overseas CPC Studies
There is still room for discussion regarding when, where, and by whom the earliest overseas CPC research began. However, if the focus is limited solely to tracing the time and place of the research's birth, one can only rely on historical materials yet to be discovered. This article attempts to analyze the three origins, not only by combing through the basis for each viewpoint but more importantly by exploring the different characteristics of the relevant historical materials, aiming to demonstrate the diverse face of this research field.
(1) Comparison of Research Motivation and Historical Background The attention and research on the CPC by various countries, due to their unique and complex historical backgrounds, cultural traditions, and political systems, displayed significant differences from the very beginning. For example, Japan and the Soviet Union had close historical links with the Chinese revolution, which led to their research on the CPC starting earlier. In contrast, research in the United States and other Western countries was nurtured within the general development of Western social sciences, especially regional studies (Area Studies), and started relatively later. Overall, the development of the three origins was also closely related to their differing political needs.
On the Japanese side, proximity to China and a shared cultural heritage naturally provided advantageous conditions for studying the Communist Party of China (CPC). Early Japanese research motivations were direct, clear, and carried a distinct political color, originating primarily from the political demands of anti-communism and containment, as well as practical considerations for carrying out atmospheric aggression against China. Consequently, early Japanese attention to the CPC stemmed mainly from various intelligence agencies serving the War of Aggression against China. Within the Japanese diplomatic intelligence system, the Intelligence Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the primary body for intelligence collection. According to incomplete statistics by domestic scholars, from 1920 to 1948, the Intelligence Bureau produced over 30 types of specialized intelligence research books targeting the CPC, including six professional works on Party history. Of course, beyond specialized intelligence agencies, Japanese scholars during this period also turned their attention to the CPC, but the more direct and practical driving force remained serving Japan's war efforts. As the Japanese scholar Kuwabara Jitsuzō [5] noted when discussing the tasks of Japanese Sinology, the study of China was intended to adapt to the situation where "the Great Powers are about to set foot on Chinese soil." Furthermore, some Japanese scholars at the time were commissioned by the Home Ministry to conduct investigations in China. For instance, Naitō Konan [6] was commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to conduct research in Northeast China, with the purpose of gathering evidence to prove that the Yanbian Korean ethnic region in Jilin Province, bordering Korea, was not Chinese territory. After his investigation report was submitted to the Home Ministry, it effectively provided an important prelude to acts of aggression against China.
Regarding the Soviet Union and the Comintern, early attention to the CPC was influenced both by practical factors of geographical location and strategic calculation, and by the idealistic pursuit of ideology and revolutionary mission. On one hand, from a geopolitical perspective, the Soviet Union shared a similarity with Japan in being adjacent to China. On the other hand, as an international communist movement organization under Soviet leadership, the development of the CPC was directly related to the progress of the international communist movement. The Comintern's attention and assistance to the CPC were based partly on the vision of promoting global communist revolution and partly on the need to call upon various countries to establish and develop a world anti-fascist united front. Among these efforts, many Party cadres engaged in Far Eastern diplomacy, reporters for Party newspapers, political workers on the Eastern Front, and personnel stationed at the Comintern actively researched the national liberation movements of Eastern nations and the problems of the Chinese Revolution. This produced the first batch of research results on the CPC written using Marxist methodology. After the CPC joined the Comintern in 1922, both the Chinese and Soviet parties were positioned under Comintern leadership. Many scholars, upholding the spirit of revolutionary internationalism and integrating the basic principles of the Chinese revolutionary movement, offered many suggestions of guiding significance to the CPC.
On the American side, research on China has been closely linked to foreign policy formulation and the implementation of strategies toward China. Therefore, since the beginning of the 20th century, American attention toward the CPC has always carried a clear utilitarian color. During World War I, although Sinology remained the academic mainstream, the United States took advantage of the European powers' lack of capacity to look eastward to vigorously expand its influence in China; American monopoly capital also began establishing various foundations to fund overseas research, including research on China. During World War II, to meet the needs of wartime international struggle and American national interests, American Sinology underwent a differentiation, which eventually led to China Studies (including CPC studies) becoming fully independent from the framework of traditional Sinology and being incorporated into the category of "Area Studies." Compared to the esoteric "Sinology," American research on the CPC not only carried the mission of academic exploration but also tilted toward pragmatism, focusing on the analysis of practical issues in US-China relations. In reality, it was "research born out of imperialist needs," [7] assuming the role of providing intellectual support for the US government's China policy. However, American scholars at the time could not fully answer the many questions arising from Chinese reality; thus, left-wing progressive journalists, represented by Edgar Snow, became the practitioners and pioneers of wartime American research on the CPC. Thereafter, with the continuous growth of practical political demands, American CPC studies gradually shifted from "journalistic reporting" to "academic argumentative research," and the field began to move onto a track of standardization and systematization.
In a comparative analysis of these three different origins of research, one can clearly observe differences in both research motivations and historical backgrounds. Early Japanese attention and motivation were closely linked to its expansionist and militarist policies, while the Soviet Union's were based more on ideological and strategic interest considerations. In contrast, American motivations were more complex, involving not only assessments of the communist threat but also predictions and preparations for future trends in US-China relations. These differing motivations and backgrounds had a profound impact on the subsequent research on the CPC in each country.
(2) Comparison of Research Methods and Academic Characteristics
As representatives of different social systems and academic traditions, these three origins of CPC research each possess unique characteristics. Throughout their long development, they have not only maintained their own features but also influenced research in other countries and regions.
Regarding Japan, first, it underwent a shift from the needs of militarism to academic research, and the large amount of early intelligence material provided primary documents for Japan to understand and recognize the CPC. These materials are rich in content, encompassing not only early Japanese perceptions of the CPC but also continuing to provide new research raw materials for contemporary Japanese CPC studies, possessing significant reference value for Party history documentation. Second, Japan has always emphasized the collection and editing of central CPC documents. Examples include the 1961 publication Collected Materials: History of the Communist Party of China (7 volumes) edited by Hatano Ken'ichi, and the Collection of Historical Materials on the Communist Party of China (12 volumes) compiled by the Japan Institute of International Affairs between 1970 and 1975. Between 1985 and 1986, Keiso Shobo published the Latest Collection of Materials on the Communist Party of China co-edited by Ōta Katsuhiro and others. Meanwhile, Japan made significant efforts in publishing Japanese translations of Mao Zedong's works. According to domestic scholars' statistics, the publication and distribution of Japanese translations of Mao's works can be traced back to 1929 and continued to accumulate over the following decades. Furthermore, Japan has traditionally valued field investigations and oral interviews; for instance, the investigations conducted during WWII by institutions like the Research Department of the South Manchuria Railway [8] and the East Asia Institute preserved a vast amount of oral materials, documents, and statistical data. Since the normalization of Sino-Japanese relations and China's implementation of reform and opening up, many scholars have also collected large amounts of data and conducted field investigations in China. After the 1990s, the Japanese academic community became increasingly aware of the necessity of conducting oral interviews with Chinese researchers, and many works with an oral history character were published.
Regarding the Soviet Union, first, during the period of China's New Democratic Revolution and the "Golden Age" of Sino-Soviet friendly exchanges, Soviet scholars and research institutions were able to obtain a large amount of precious original historical data from China. These provided indispensable raw materials for the Soviet academic community to deeply study the history, theory, and practice of the CPC. Moreover, Soviet scholars enjoyed the unique advantage of direct access to the Comintern archives preserved in Moscow, the archives of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, and the archives of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Second was the application of Marxist methodology to CPC research. This characteristic actually originated with the Soviet Union and the Comintern; for example, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences held several large-scale seminars on topics such as the nature of Chinese society and the Asiatic mode of production. These activities pushed the Soviet academic community to build an independent academic system based on the Marxist theory of socio-economic formations. However, early Soviet research on the CPC was overly colored by politics; additionally, the later deterioration of relations between the two parties and countries from disagreements into a split and conflict led many research results to bear the mark of the politico-ideological polemics between the leaderships of the Chinese and Soviet parties. It was not until the 1980s that the Soviet historiographical community began to advocate for a deep and comprehensive mastery of materialist dialectics as the methodological foundation for studying Chinese issues, further strengthening this characteristic. In the early 1990s, with the declassification of some Soviet archives, the subsequent Russian academic community conducted reflections and revisions of Soviet-era CPC research.
The United States took the lead in adopting interdisciplinary methods in studying the CPC. During WWII, the US government established the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), where the integrated application of various social science research methods was fully practiced in the field of intelligence analysis. This had a profound and lasting impact on John King Fairbank's Sinology; after the war, Fairbank applied these methods in his first monograph, The United States and China. Consequently, some scholars believe that the Sinology pioneered by Fairbank marked the first paradigm shift in Western China studies since traditional Sinology. This shift also profoundly influenced subsequent overseas research on the CPC, as numerous disciplines began to engage in the field of CPC studies. This interdisciplinary approach also deeply affected other countries. For instance, the Japanese scholar Ando Hikotaro pointed out that "because new questions must be raised, new fields must be opened, and therefore interdisciplinary research must be conducted across various fields and then synthesized." Furthermore, in the 1970s, the United States began to emphasize comparative studies of China. For example, Mark Selden compared Chinese and Western developmental perspectives, arguing that "the record of the Chinese Revolution challenges universal assumptions in the West, some Third World countries, and socialist societies regarding human development issues and prospects." Notably, the United States placed high importance on talent cultivation and academic lineage, providing a more comprehensive analytical framework and a more professional academic team for CPC studies. Through this master-disciple mechanism of talent cultivation, overseas CPC research in the US was able to transmit a deep accumulation of scholarship, ensuring continuity and developmental momentum, and further promoting theoretical progress in the field.
The characteristics of Japanese research lie in the collection, organization, and compilation of documentary materials and the emphasis on oral history. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, as an ally in the socialist camp at the time, possessed clear advantages in the utilization of original data and the application of Marxist methodology. In contrast, American research was largely based on practical needs and utilized interdisciplinary methods, which greatly broadened the scope of overseas CPC studies. These research methods and academic characteristics have had a far-reaching influence on the research focus and academic trajectory of each country.
(3) Comparison of Research Focus and Academic Trends
When studying the CPC, the work of overseas scholars is often influenced by their own national interests and strategic considerations, resulting in different research directions and emphases. Research on the relationship with China and on key historical figures has been continuous, but specific research hotspots and peaks are usually closely linked to major historical events.
On the Japanese side, research on the CPC was heavily influenced by the Japanese War of Aggression against China. Until the mid-1940s to mid-1950s—ranging from Japan's announcement of unconditional surrender to the early post-war period—Japanese research on the CPC was mainly related, directly or indirectly, to the "Continental Policy" [9] of Japanese militarism. As the war ended, Japanese society began to reflect on past acts of aggression and transformed this reflection into a motivation for introducing and studying the Chinese Revolution. Many scholars witnessed the rise of the socialist camp represented by the Soviet Union and China; in this context, they were eager to discover commonalities between the Comintern and Mao Zedong's theory of the Chinese Revolution. In the 1960s, the Japanese economy began to grow rapidly, while China entered a complex historical period including the "Cultural Revolution." During this time, Japanese research on the modern CPC relied mainly on news released by Chinese newspapers and periodicals, and there were many divergences in ideological understanding and political positions. However, with the promotion of the reform and opening up policy, mutual visits between Chinese and Japanese scholars and student exchanges became increasingly frequent, and the research environment underwent a fundamental change. During this period, the number of comparative studies increased, with more attention paid to China's influence on neighboring countries. However, we must also note that contemporary Japanese Sinology is in decline, a trend that likewise brings challenges to Japanese scholars studying the CPC. Because post-war Japanese diplomacy and basic policies have been tied to the United States, Americans hold all the important information, and Japan can only passively receive intelligence from them. Specifically regarding CPC research, Japanese scholars only grasp fragmented primary facts presented in the form of news reports, making it difficult for researchers to form a systematic understanding of the CPC.
Regarding the Soviet Union, research on the Communist Party of China (CPC) was directly related to the development of the domestic revolutionary situation in China, the evolution of relations between the two parties and two countries, and emerging developmental trends. Around the time of the CPC’s founding, numerous scholars, upholding the spirit of revolutionary internationalism, studied the relationship between the CPC and the Comintern [10], Sino-Soviet relations, and key leadership figures, offering many suggestions of guiding significance. Later, due to the expansion of the Great Purge and the Great Patriotic War, related research stagnated. It was not until the late 1940s that research on Chinese issues resumed. The decade or so from the founding of the People’s Republic of China until the rupture in bilateral relations can be called the "golden age" of Soviet research on the CPC. Friendly mutual assistance and cooperation between the two countries led to a rapid expansion of the research contingent, which gained unprecedentedly broad venues for activity and rich sources of data. However, during the subsequent Sino-Soviet Split [11], Soviet research on the CPC was clearly influenced by the politico-ideological polemics between the leaderships of the two parties. It was not until the late 1980s that Soviet scholars gradually broke free from political ideological constraints and traditional mental rifts to re-examine and reassess past CPC research. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russian academic research on the CPC has become more active and diverse. The relationship between the Comintern and the Chinese revolution remains a hot topic; meanwhile, research on Sino-Soviet and Sino-Russian relations has further deepened, and studies on contemporary Chinese politics and economic reforms under the leadership of the CPC have steadily increased.
Regarding the United States, the research focus of each historical stage has reflected the characteristics of its respective era. During World War II, research work primarily focused on China’s military situation. Both left-wing journalists and early "China Hands" [12] conducted research on China’s revolutionary dynamics and political developments. Following the victory of the Chinese Revolution, the focus of American scholars shifted further toward the revolution and its communist movement. Since then, American investment in CPC research has undoubtedly been massive; whether government agencies, corporations, or foundations, there has been a preference for funding research projects related to contemporary China. As many institutions of higher learning placed increasing importance on Chinese studies, they cultivated a large cohort of talented individuals possessing both the capability and the passion for researching the CPC. Since the 1960s, due to the deepening rift between the two parties, the international communist movement underwent a schism. Building on a deep foundation of area studies, the United States began to increase investment in "comparative communism" and integrated communist studies with interdisciplinary area studies. With the improvement of Sino-U.S. relations, research outputs on Chinese political and economic development under the leadership of the CPC have continuously increased, and research on China's military power has also begun to heat up. It is noteworthy that the United States currently possesses the largest number of think tanks in the world, which play an important role in CPC research. Taking the Brookings Institution as an example, it established an independent China research center—the John L. Thornton China Center—in 2006 to carry out research on China. Many renowned China scholars, such as Kenneth Lieberthal and Cheng Li, have served as center directors. Furthermore, the Brookings Institution is famous for its close ties with the government; many scholars transition into political officials through the "revolving door" after working at the Institute, which provides solid support for U.S. policy toward China.
As the aforementioned introduction shows, the research priorities of different countries at various historical stages are influenced by their own national interests and strategic considerations, bearing the characteristics of their times. There are also significant differences in their respective research statuses and future academic trends: Japanese research on the CPC faces challenges, while Russian research has seen great development with the gradual opening of Comintern archives and other Russian historical records. In contrast, American research focuses more on the contemporary CPC, and its research results provide an important reference basis for U.S. government decision-making.
III. Inspirations and Reflections on the Origins of Overseas CPC Research
The international community's perception of the CPC depends heavily on the perspective of overseas research. For a long time, Japan, the United States, and the Soviet Union/Russia have been the strongholds of overseas CPC research. Their studies have not only influenced their own countries' policies toward China but have also had a wide international impact. With the deepening of globalization, tracking overseas CPC research domestically also faces new challenges and opportunities. How to better serve the international community's need to understand the CPC while maintaining academic independence requires in-depth exploration. At the same time, the experiences and lessons of overseas scholars in this field provide us with valuable opportunities for reference and reflection. On this basis, transforming these experiences into important inspirations and practical guidance for domestic research fields, in combination with the context of the current era, should be our historical responsibility.
(1) Valuing, Utilizing, and Drawing Lessons from Overseas Historical Documents and Research Methods
Domestically tracking overseas research on the CPC is conducive to supplementing the traditional fields of CPC history and Party building—the so-called "stones from other hills" [13]. Therefore, research materials and methods from different countries and regions should be valued, and we should especially take the initiative to apply those elements that can serve as a reference; only in this way can the practical utility of overseas CPC research be fully realized.
From the perspective of historical documents, a more accurate understanding and recognition of the role played by the CPC in different historical stages can be formed through the systematic organization of archival materials. This relies not only on domestic archival resources but also on the active expansion of the excavation and study of archives related to the Chinese revolution found in overseas documents. For example, historical documents related to the CPC held by the National Archives of Japan, the Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the National Institute for Defense Studies of the Ministry of Defense can now mostly be queried and obtained through the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records (JACAR) website. However, domestic academia still lacks sufficient development and utilization of these overseas materials. Worthy of our study and reference is the fact that Japan has done a great deal of work in collecting and editing CPC Central Committee documents, the Soviet Union and Russia have achieved significant results in organizing documents related to the Comintern, and the United States and Japan have made considerable efforts in publishing collected works of leaders. Regarding research methods, as research continues to deepen, the interdisciplinary integration brought by American academia has also become a new trend in the whole of overseas CPC research. A sociological perspective can reveal the trajectory of social change and the evolution of people's living conditions under the leadership of the CPC; political science theory provides a powerful analytical tool for parsing the modernization process of the system and capacity for governance; and the application of economic models helps evaluate the impact of economic policies on domestic and international economic environments. This not only greatly broadens the horizons of researchers and enriches research content but also makes the analysis of the CPC more comprehensive and accurate. For Chinese scholars who are still in the stage of exploring and developing interdisciplinary research, this is undoubtedly an important inspiration.
(2) Taking a Dialectical View of the Research Results of Overseas Scholars
Significant differences in historical evidence, research methods, and historical perspectives have given rise to academic results with distinct characteristics, with the diversity of early overseas CPC research results being particularly typical. Therefore, combing through and studying the academic achievements of overseas scholars in the field of CPC research can expand new research perspectives for us. Of course, when domestic scholars draw on these achievements, they must maintain a cautious attitude and a critical spirit, examining them from a dialectical perspective.
First, many historical documents have clear ideological tendencies. For instance, Japanese historical documents before and after the war were based on the political need to oppose and prevent communism, as well as practical considerations for implementing aggression against China; they view issues from a specific stance and viewpoint. Second, the research results of overseas scholars often focus on a specific problem or historical event, which may lead to a biased comprehensive understanding of the CPC. When utilizing these results, one must be alert to distortions caused by erroneous historical views, values, and political positions, while also emphasizing comparative investigation and mutual verification with domestic and other foreign-language documents to cautiously distinguish truth from falsehood and prejudice. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the dual identities of many current overseas scholars. On the one hand, as academic researchers, they should maintain the objectivity and neutrality of academic research; on the other hand, as policy advisors or think tank experts, their views often need to reflect the will of the government and align with national interests, inevitably possessing a utilitarian character. Balancing the objectivity of academic research with the utility of policy consultation is a complex and subtle challenge. These two identities should be considered comprehensively: we must not only clarify their personal problem-awareness and research fields but also deeply understand their positions and the political interests represented by their views. On this basis, we can better understand the diversity and complexity of overseas scholars' research results. Regarding the academic value of relevant overseas documents and results, a dialectical attitude must also be upheld; we must clearly identify where their value lies without excessively inflating their academic status.
(3) Strengthening Support for "Re-research" Domestically
While viewing the research results of overseas scholars dialectically, we also need to strengthen support for "re-research" [14] within China. Only in this way can we promote the continuous innovation and development of domestic CPC research on the basis of fully absorbing overseas research results, better serving the developmental needs of the country and society. This means not only cautiously filtering and drawing on overseas research results but also increasing investment in related domestic research and creating a more relaxed academic environment for it. By establishing special research funds, strengthening cooperation and exchange between academic institutions, and encouraging interdisciplinary research, we can enhance the level and quality of domestic research and maintain long-term, dynamic attention to overseas academic trends. At the same time, emphasis should be placed on cultivating a group of researchers with an international vision and solid academic foundations, attracting more scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds to join this field, and supporting the growth of young scholars. In this regard, the "engagement style" and "first-hand experience characteristics" shown by the older generation of overseas scholars are also worthy of our study. When training a new generation of researchers, we should guide them to broaden their international horizons and encourage them to go abroad to participate in international exchanges and cooperation. A solid academic foundation should be emphasized to ensure they possess critical thinking and independent analytical skills during the research process, providing solid human resource support for the exchange and dialogue between domestic and overseas CPC research.
(4) Facing Up to the Asymmetry in Party Research at Home and Abroad
Through the detailed introduction and in-depth analysis of the origins mentioned above, we can see that the attention and research of overseas scholars on the CPC actually started quite early. Due to complex historical factors, our research on political parties in other countries and regions started relatively late. This asymmetry is reflected not only in research resources, methods, and levels but also in research perspectives, topics, and the degree of internationalization of research results.
By virtue of early intervention and continuous attention, overseas scholars have accumulated rich research materials and formed diversified research perspectives, providing a relatively comprehensive and in-depth analysis of the CPC's history, theory, and institutions. In contrast, domestic academia only began to gradually strengthen its research on world party politics after the Reform and Opening-up. Although domestic scholars have made significant progress in recent years in fields such as comparative studies between the CPC and other political parties and the construction of political party systems, asymmetry still persists. Taking the United States as an example, this asymmetry is manifested in the fact that there are many "China Hands" in the U.S. while there are few "America Hands" in China; American scholars demonstrate a significant advantage in the quantity and quality of research on the CPC. Although Sino-U.S. relations have long attracted much attention, there is a dearth of academic research in domestic circles with the same depth and breadth regarding a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of American political parties. Specifically, Chinese research on the U.S. mostly focuses on the macro level of Sino-U.S. relations, while micro-level research on various American political parties is relatively weak. Facing this asymmetry, we must not only strengthen international academic exchange and cooperation but also increase investment in external research—particularly in-depth research on the party politics of Western countries like the U.S.—to narrow the gap with overseas scholars. Furthermore, domestic academia should emphasize constructing an independent knowledge system for Chinese party studies, developing political party theories with Chinese characteristics, and increasing China's discourse power and influence in international political party research.
After a century of accumulation, the field of overseas studies of the Communist Party of China has gathered a wealth of research findings. Looking back at these early studies through the lens of historical hindsight, it is not difficult to see that many of the debates therein have already reached definitive conclusions. This article has mapped the origins of these studies from various perspectives and re-examined these early research results. This was done not merely to extract information to support current research, nor to emphasize the "advanced" nature or importance of overseas research at that time. Rather, the goal is to enhance our understanding of the inherent characteristics of early overseas research activities concerning the CPC, providing reflections to further the study of CPC history and academic exchange abroad. In fact, the rise and development of overseas CPC studies are closely intertwined with the changing influence of the CPC on the international political stage; one could say it sits at the intersection of CPC history, international relations, and area studies [15]. An in-depth exploration of this field helps the academic community better understand the research processes and mechanisms of overseas scholars, deepens the understanding of the internal characteristics of early overseas research on the CPC, and provides a beneficial reference for further promoting research on CPC history and Party building.
(Author profiles: Han Qiang is a professor at the School of Marxism, Beijing Foreign Studies University; Feng Ziyan is a doctoral student at the School of International Journalism and Communication, Beijing Foreign Studies University.)
Online Editor: Tongxin Source: Issues of Contemporary World Socialism, No. 4, 2024.