Zhu Jiamu: Further Defining the Disciplinary Positioning of New China History Research
On December 8, 2022, in a congratulatory letter [1] marking the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Association for Chinese National History (hereafter "ACNH"), Xi Jinping expressed warm congratulations and sincere greetings to all comrades of the ACNH and the vast number of National History researchers across the country. He affirmed the active contributions that the ACNH has made over the past 30 years to the research, promotion, and education regarding the history of New China, and expressed his earnest hope that the ACNH would further unite the nation's National History researchers to better consolidate the spiritual strength for unity and struggle. This congratulatory letter pointed out the correct direction for the continued advancement of the cause of New China History research and set higher requirements for the National History academic community to further improve its capabilities and fulfill its social role.
For researchers of National History, deeply studying and implementing the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s congratulatory letter must be reflected in both political orientation and academic work. In 2016, Xi Jinping proposed to accelerate the construction of a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system [2] for philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, particularly emphasizing the need to speed up the improvement of foundational disciplines that support the philosophy and social sciences, as well as emerging disciplines with incomplete disciplinary systems. As both a foundational and an emerging discipline, New China History research must accelerate the construction of these "three major systems." A vital prerequisite for this is the establishment of the disciplinary positioning of New China History research. Simultaneously, this should be considered an inherent part of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s requirement in his letter for the National History academic community to "improve research standards." If this issue is not correctly resolved, there will be no basis for the construction of the "three major systems" for New China History, and it will be difficult to improve the quality of research.
In fact, the compilation and research of New China History have progressed almost in parallel with the historical development of New China itself. As early as 1951, Thirty Years of the Communist Party of China, authored by Hu Qiaomu [3], included a section titled "The Third Revolutionary Civil War and the Achievements of the People’s Republic of China," which discussed the history from the founding of New China to 1951. Subsequently, central propaganda departments and institutions of higher learning compiled and published historical works related to New China during different periods. However, New China History research in the strict sense should be said to have emerged following the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee, and particularly after the release of the Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China [4]. Prior to this, when Hu Qiaomu took office as President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in 1977, he suggested establishing an "Institute of Modern Chinese History" or an "Institute of the History of the People’s Republic of China," but these plans did not materialize for various reasons. It was not until 1990, by decision of the CPC Central Committee, that the "Institute of Contemporary China" (hereafter "ICCS")—guided by the Central Party History Liaison Group, administratively managed by CASS, and dedicated to the compilation and research of New China History—was finally established. The ICCS successively founded Today’s China Publishing House, which primarily publishes National History monographs; the academic journal Contemporary China History Studies for publishing research results; the ACNH, a social organization connecting scholars across the country; and the Department of National History at the CASS Graduate School to train professionals. This marked the entry of New China History onto the academic stage as a foundational and emerging historical discipline.
In the New Era, New China History research has received unprecedented attention from the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core. Whenever Xi Jinping discusses Party history, he almost always mentions it alongside National History: "We must earnestly study Party history and National History, knowing history to love the Party, and knowing history to love the country"; "Studying Party history and National History is a required course for us to uphold and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics and to keep pushing forward the various undertakings of the Party and the state." Xi Jinping has emphasized that "the history of a nation is the foundation of its survival." In the historical perspective of teachers of ideological and political courses, "there must be the 70-year developmental history of the People's Republic of China, the 40-plus years of practice of reform and opening up, and the historical achievements and transformations achieved by socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era." During the "Stay True to Our Original Aspiration and Founding Mission" [5] theme education campaign across the whole Party, Xi Jinping specifically instructed relevant central departments to issue a notice adding the study of Party history and National History to the curriculum. Later, he combined New China History with Party history, the history of reform and opening up, and the history of socialist development, requiring strengthened education in these "Four Histories" [6]. At the Party History Learning and Education Mobilization Meeting, Xi Jinping called for the promotion of the "Four Histories" throughout society. In the report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC, he further emphasized the need to "continue the education on the history of the Party, New China, reform and opening up, and the development of socialism, guiding the people to know history to love the Party and the country, and constantly strengthening the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics." All of this demonstrates that the status of New China History has been elevated to a level equal to that of Party history.
However, since its debut on the academic stage, various incorrect understandings and practices regarding the disciplinary positioning of New China History have persisted. As early as the founding of the ICCS, some argued that the content of National History was nearly identical to Party history, and since Party history research institutions already existed, there was no need to establish National History institutions. Others cited the "ancient maxim" that "contemporaries do not write contemporary history" as a reason to oppose New China History as a discipline, viewing it not as scholarship but as ideology and propaganda. Later, although the Department of National History was established to train graduate students, the "Modern Chinese History" (中国现代史) major starting from the 1949 founding of New China remained absent from the national catalog of academic degrees and disciplines for a long time; only "Modern and Contemporary Chinese History" (中国近现代史), which takes the 1919 May Fourth Movement as its starting point, was listed. After repeated negotiations, the degree catalog finally placed "History of the People's Republic of China" and "Contemporary Chinese History" in parentheses under "Modern and Contemporary Chinese History." This approach of tucking National History and Contemporary History into "Modern and Contemporary Chinese History" without changing the original definition of "Modern History" was not only academically inappropriate but also politically unsuitable. Subsequently, following persistent requests from the National History community, two parallel secondary disciplines—"Modern Chinese History" (pre-1949) and "Contemporary Chinese History" (post-1949)—were finally established under the primary discipline of "Chinese History," and the "Modern and Contemporary Chinese History" major was abolished. Thus, New China History research finally gained independent disciplinary status. However, in practical work, there have been instances where National History research was either placed within the discipline of Marxism or categorized as a policy-oriented applied discipline. Recently, during the study and implementation of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s congratulatory letter to the ACNH, some people proposed incorporating National History into "Party History and Party Building Studies," treating it as a secondary discipline or research direction under that primary discipline. It is evident that although New China History is highly valued by the Party Central Committee, has its own research institutions, is included in the national degree catalog with master's and doctoral programs, and has a growing research force producing high-quality results, various unscientific and frivolous understandings regarding its disciplinary attributes and positioning remain.
A major reason why these blurred understandings of the disciplinary attributes and positioning of New China History persist is that some comrades have never correctly resolved the question of whether National History research and Party history research belong to the same discipline. We must see from the perspective of seeking truth from facts that after the founding of New China, Party history and National History do indeed overlap and intertwine significantly in content; moreover, this portion of Party history already accounts for more than two-thirds of all Party history to date—a proportion that will only grow over time. However, we must also see, based on seeking truth from facts, that this situation cannot serve as a reason for National History and Party history to be the same discipline, or for National History to be a sub-discipline of Party history.
The Communist Party of China is the core leadership force of the People's Republic of China. The Party's theories, lines, principles, policies, and major decisions inevitably play a decisive role in the construction and development of the country. In this sense, Party history is the core of National History; the trajectory of Party history after the founding of New China determines the trajectory of National History. Furthermore, both National History and Party history are closely related to practical politics, making them difficult to distinguish clearly in that realm. Nevertheless, Party history research ultimately belongs to the category of law (political science/jurisprudence) [7], while National History research belongs to the category of history. Even from a historical perspective, Party history research falls under the category of specialized history (专史), whereas National History research covers the history of the entire nation and falls under the category of general history (通史), serving as a continuation of the General History of China. Therefore, whether in terms of research perspective, scope, focus, or disciplinary theory and methodology, Party history research and National History research differ significantly.
First, regarding the research perspective, Party history research views history from the perspective of a political party. It aims to research and elucidate how our Party, as the governing party of New China, formulates its line, principles, and policies and transforms them into the national will to lead construction in various fields; how it carries out mass work, handles relations with other participating political parties, and engages with foreign political parties; how it conducts its own Party building; and how it summarizes its governing experience. National History, on the other hand, views history from the perspective of national and social development. It focuses on researching and elucidating how state organs implement the Party’s line, principles, and policies; how they organize construction in various undertakings, conduct diplomatic activities, and carry out their own institutional building; and how the masses and various participating political parties engage in construction and the deliberation of state affairs under the leadership of the CPC.
Second, regarding the scope of research, Party history research mainly explains the historical development and laws of the Party since the founding of New China, and its scope does not exceed the Party itself and the affairs influenced by it as the governing party. Marx and Engels said that history is "divided into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist." This means that the history of a country includes its natural history. Certain elements of the natural world—such as changes in celestial phenomena (eclipses, comets, etc.), climate, geology, and ocean currents—have no relation to Party history and do not fall within the scope of Party history compilation. However, National History research cannot fail to record these elements or study their relationship with human society. As for ecological changes caused by human activity—such as forest coverage, desertification, soil salinization, or air pollution levels—these are more or less related to Party history and may be touched upon, but it is impossible to establish sub-disciplines for these fields within Party history. Conversely, National History research can and should establish sub-disciplines for these areas, such as the history of contemporary forestry, the history of contemporary sand control, or the history of contemporary air quality management. Additionally, changes in the social sphere regarding territory, administrative divisions, marriage, family, folk customs, clothing, diet, language, entertainment, and interpersonal relationships are also more or less related to Party history and may be touched upon, but again, it is impossible to establish sub-disciplines or research directions for them in Party history. For example, it is impossible to have "CPC History of Territory," "CPC History of Marriage," or "CPC History of Clothing," as such histories do not exist. While the Party has its own history of economic thought, history of legal thought, history of ethnic policy, and history of environmental policy—for which sub-disciplines should be established in Party history—it does not have its own legal history, ethnic history, religious history, environmental history, or demographic history; nor, after the founding of New China, does it have an independent economic history. However, all of these are contents of National History, and sub-disciplines can and should be established for them within National History. In short, the scope of National History research is much broader than that of Party history. If Party history and National History were compared to a pagoda, Party history could be called the body of the pagoda, while National History is its base.
Third, regarding the research focus, the focus of Party history research should be the process of formulating and introducing the Party’s line, principles, policies, and major decisions; the construction of the Party’s systems, ideology, organization, and conduct; Party meetings and documents; leading figures and heroic models; and the summary of governing experience. While National History research also touches on these, its focus should be more on recording and explaining the decision-making processes of the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee and the State Council; the process of formulating and changing laws; the major activities and measures of state power organs, administrative organs, judicial organs, procuratorial organs, and supervisory organs at all levels; the progress of national construction undertakings and individuals who have made outstanding contributions; and the self-improvement and summarized experience of state organs.
Fourth, regarding disciplinary theory and research methodology: the compilation and research of both Party history and national history must be guided by historical materialism. Both must comprehensively collect, prudently select, and rigorously verify various historical materials; analyze issues through the lenses of class analysis, historical analysis, systemic analysis, and dialectical analysis; and absorb beneficial elements from both traditional Chinese historiography and foreign historiography, while drawing upon the scientific methods of other social science disciplines. However, the compilation and research of national history primarily utilizes the theories and methods of historiography, whereas the study of Party history requires a greater application of theories and methods from political science. In terms of historical compilation, beyond the "chapter-and-section" style (章节体) [8], national history must draw upon the genres and systems of ancient Chinese historical writing—such as the "annals-biography" style (纪传体), the "chronological" style (编年体), the "narrative from beginning to end" style (纪事本末体), the "institutional history" style (典制体), the "local gazetteer" style (方志体), and the "historiographical-geographical" style (史地体)—to creatively inherit and carry forward the excellent traditions of Chinese historical compilation.
In short, the research of national history and Party history each possess their own disciplinary attributes and their own disciplinary systems, academic systems, and discourse systems (三大体系) [9]; neither can replace the other. The current phenomenon where some national history books look identical or similar to Party history books does not indicate that the two are the same thing or the same discipline. Rather, it is because national history books have written too much content that ought to be written by Party history, while Party history books have written too much content that ought to be written by national history. This problem is precisely what should be resolved gradually by strengthening the construction of both disciplines; it should not become a reason to blur the disciplinary distinctions between the two. Otherwise, it will only hinder the development of each.
Furthermore, compared to other branches of historiography, although the study of New China history possesses a stronger ideological character and propaganda function, a more prominent interdisciplinarity and comprehensiveness, and is closer to contemporary society, this does not mean it is merely propaganda work, nor that it can be conflated with other disciplines or categorized under "applied policy research." In the social sciences, all existing disciplines possess ideological attributes to some degree. Whether a discipline constitutes scientific research does not depend on whether it has an ideological character, but on whether it pursues objective truth, reflects objective laws, possesses a complete and systematic knowledge base, and adheres to academic norms recognized as scientific. As long as it respects historical authenticity, continuity, and inheritance, focuses on revealing the causes of historical events, summarizes the experience of historical successes and failures, and explores the laws of historical development while committing to building a disciplinary system that meets academic norms, the study of New China history is bona fide academic work. It is a science and must be treated as a science, a discipline, a field of academic study, and a branch of scholarship.
The struggle in the ideological field, like warfare in the political field, requires weapons and has its positions and battlefields. However, the weapon used by national history researchers in the ideological struggle is scholarship; the position they must defend is the academic position led by the Party; and the battlefield where they contend with hostile forces is the academic battlefield. As for the propaganda and education regarding New China history, these are themselves the transformation of the fruits of national history research. Therefore, to do a good job in the propaganda and education of New China history, one must first do a good job in academic research, ensuring that combativeness and persuasiveness are built upon the foundation of academic achievements characterized by more substantial historical data, deeper analysis, and more innovative discourse.
Historiography is a comprehensive discipline. Objectively, it shares strong intersections with many other fields, and subjectively, historians very much need to draw upon the research results and methods of other disciplines. This characteristic of historiography is particularly prominent in the study of New China history. However, having an intersectional relationship with different disciplines is not the same as conflating them. For example, New China history is the history of the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with the practice of New China’s revolution, construction, and reform. Consequently, in the study of the history of Marxist development, it is impossible not to study contemporary Chinese issues; and in the study of New China history, it is impossible not to study the history of the Sinicization of Marxism. Yet, Marxist studies is a theoretical discipline, while New China history is a historical discipline. One cannot place the discipline of New China history into the discipline of Marxism simply because Marxist studies includes research on basic issues of contemporary China, or because New China history includes research on the process of the Sinicization of Marxism.
Since New China history is modern and contemporary history, it naturally maintains a closer distance to reality than other sub-disciplines of historiography. Events that have just occurred in reality quickly become the content of New China history research. Simultaneously, many problems in New China history research are also problems in contemporary Chinese policy research. But this likewise does not mean that New China history research is policy research, or that it belongs to the category of applied policy disciplines. Like other branches of historiography, the study of New China history is a foundational discipline within the social sciences. Regardless of how close the contemporary issues it studies are to reality, it can only study them from a historical perspective rather than a policy perspective. New China history research must, of course, serve reality, but this service can only be manifested through the exposition of the process of a historical problem's emergence and development, the analysis of its causes, the summary of experiences, and the prediction of trends—it cannot be expected to provide specific policy measures. That is to say, when facing contemporary issues, it is only responsible for clarifying the content of the issues, their causes, their lessons, and their potential future development; it is not responsible for answering "what should be done" or "what specific policies should be adopted." The reason lies in the historiographical nature of the discipline; it does not assume responsibility for policy-making, nor does it possess the research conditions necessary for policy research. If it is forced to produce policy measures, the result will only be a "chaotic battle" (打乱仗) [10]; it would be "planting someone else’s field while leaving one’s own land fallow," and even then, someone else’s field would certainly not be planted well.
As for the argument that New China history research should be incorporated into the discipline of Party history and Party building simply because the former is currently weak, lacks resources, or results in difficulty in academic exchange with the circles of ancient and modern Chinese history—such reasons are even more untenable. Any emerging discipline undergoes a process from foundational weakness to gradual maturity. Originally, Party history research was also very weak, but the Party history academic community did not advocate for its merger into other disciplines. Furthermore, "different professions are like separate mountains" (隔行如隔山) [11]. Situations where academic exchange is difficult between several sub-branches of the same broad discipline are ubiquitous. For example, issues in modern history research are difficult to bring to the ancient history academic community for exchange. As for the fact that "Party History and Party Building" has now been established as a first-level discipline (一级学科) [12], and some universities have set up independent colleges for it, some feel that including the teaching of New China history within these frameworks would help its development. Such considerations are not without merit. However, it must be clarified that this is only an administrative measure and does not involve disciplinary affiliation. Of course, if the relevant departments could elevate New China history (modern and contemporary Chinese history) to a first-level discipline within the category of historiography based on reality, that would be even better.
Mao Zedong pointed out in On Contradiction: "The distinction between sciences is based precisely on the particular contradictions inherent in their respective objects of study. Thus, the study of a contradiction particular to a certain field of phenomena constitutes the object of a science... Unless we study the particularity of contradiction, we have no way of determining the particular essence of a thing which differentiates it from other things, no way of discovering the particular cause or particular basis for the movement or development of a thing, and the other way of distinguishing things or of delimiting the fields of investigation." This means that every branch of science has its own qualitative determinacy. If we only pay attention to the connections between disciplines while ignoring or erasing the qualitative differences between them, no scientific research can be undertaken, let alone performed well. If, even today, we cannot even clarify "what the surname" of "New China history" is—that is, what kind of discipline it is—but must repeatedly discuss it, how can we concentrate our energy on accelerating the construction of the "Three Systems" [9] for New China history research as a foundational and emerging discipline? How can we deepen the work of compiling and researching New China history and raise the level of its research?
On the day Xi Jinping sent his congratulatory letter to the Association for National History, Li Shulei, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Head of the Propaganda Department, attended the meeting celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Association's founding. He read General Secretary Xi Jinping’s letter and delivered a speech, calling for a full understanding of the significance of New China history research, a firm grasp of its correct direction, and the continuous creation of a new situation for the prosperity and development of New China history research. Gao Xiang, President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), stated in his speech that the CASS Party Group, with a high sense of political responsibility and mission, will mobilize the strength of the entire Academy to strengthen New China history research, striving to build the Institute of Contemporary China Studies and the Association for National History into top-tier research strongholds and academic exchange platforms with broad international influence. Their speeches indicate that, in order to implement the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s congratulatory letter, relevant Party and state departments are already taking steps to create better conditions and environments for the great development of national history research. Under these circumstances, we have every reason to believe that the problem of the relative lack of resources for national history research will surely be resolved step by step.
Currently, the national history academic community and relevant departments are deeply studying and implementing the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s letter on the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Association for National History. National history workers should cherish, protect, and make full use of this rare opportunity. With the help of this "east wind" [13], they should focus on adhering to the guidance of the latest achievements in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, firmly grasping the theme, main line, mainstream, and essence of national history. They should work hard to improve research levels, innovate propaganda methods, and strengthen educational guidance. They should devote thought to accelerating the construction of the "Three Systems" for New China history and to resisting and criticizing the trend of historical nihilism [14]. We must stand our ground on the historiographical attributes of New China history. Before New China history is officially recognized by the national degree and discipline management departments as a first-level discipline under the category of historiography, we should be content with its status as a branch of Chinese history. We must "clinch the green mountain and never let go, regardless of which way the wind blows" (咬定青山不放松，任尔东西南北风) [15], focusing wholeheartedly on promoting the prosperity and development of New China history research, propaganda, and education. We must proactively play the role of national history research in providing political consultation (资政), educating people (育人), and protecting the state (护国), contributing the wisdom and strength of national history workers to the comprehensive construction of a great modern socialist country and the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
(Author Profile: Zhu Jiamu, former Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and President of the Association for National History of the People's Republic of China)