Li Kaisheng: Deciphering China and Understanding the World: The Mutual Alignment of World China Studies and Area Studies
In recent years, Area and Country Studies has emerged as a prominent field of study (xianxue) [1]. For those researching international issues, International Relations (IR) was relatively more popular in previous years. In the Chinese context, both Area and Country Studies and IR fall under the broad category of international issues research, yet they possess distinct differences. IR is the study of relations; it primarily explores the logic of interactions between states, with some theories even suggesting that the structural relations between states are the primary variable determining state behavior. In contrast, Area and Country Studies is the study of national conditions (guoqing) [2] and distinctive characteristics (tese). That is, it focuses on why a specific region or country differs from others, requiring an inquiry that encompasses both international and domestic dimensions.
The rise of Area and Country Studies is the result of a joint push by the academic community and the government, representing a major shift in China's paradigm for understanding the world. During the era when IR held a dominant position, we often viewed the interactions between countries worldwide as a game of billiards. Regardless of the colors of the balls, if they collided at the same angle, they would basically change their subsequent trajectories according to the same angle or path; the interaction between them was more like the application of mechanical laws. However, from the perspective of Area and Country Studies, interactions between states are more akin to a game of basketball or football. Although external cooperation and coordination are very important, the skills, physical strength, and even the determination and will of the athletes themselves can play a critical role, and the qualities of each athlete in these respects are clearly different. This is a vital reason why Area and Country Studies emphasizes subdividing research fields and conducting in-depth fieldwork: because the history, culture, political systems, social lives, and economic strengths of every region and country are different, they are likely to produce different reactions when faced with the same international situation.
From this, we can see that Area and Country Studies and World China Studies [3] share common characteristics, goals, and even research paths. World China Studies is essentially the "Area and Country Studies" practiced by other countries regarding China. Both share a common mission: to research the particularity of other nations. Both are the study of national conditions and distinctive characteristics. However, we must rationally recognize that it is not easy to properly understand a "different other." Human nature tends to gravitate toward homogeneity while distancing itself from, or even feeling aversion toward, heterogeneity. Particularly in some Western countries, for a long time, they have used their own political systems as a template to engage in the "export of democracy" to other nations. From a cultural perspective, this is an attempt to make a different "other" identical to oneself, manifesting a fundamental disregard for the national conditions and characteristics of other countries. Therefore, it is unsurprising that this model has failed extensively in developing countries. Consequently, human society and all nations must place greater emphasis on understanding the other and accepting their heterogeneity and particularity, using this as a foundation to conduct more accurate analytical judgments of that country's policies and diplomatic behavior.
From a methodological perspective, emphasizing the following three dimensions is conducive to better understanding the other:
First is the temporal dimension of history. Every nation undergoes a process of historical development, with ups and downs in its rise and fall. In each stage, state behavior differs. For example, to understand the behavioral logic of the current U.S. government, one must understand the historical stage the United States is currently in. As a global hegemon, the United States has already passed the ascending phase in which it obtained revenues through hegemony while providing public goods. Now, the United States believes it can no longer benefit from the world order; on the contrary, it feels the world has "taken advantage of America." The essence of the current U.S. government's tariff policy is to "harvest leeks" (ge jiucai) [4] globally through hegemony—namely, the forced redistribution of interests among nations in a manner favorable to the U.S. The reason the U.S. can no longer benefit from the international order is related to its own failure to successfully conduct industrial adjustment and domestic income redistribution alongside the massive loss of its manufacturing industry. The fundamental cause is that the United States has entered the downward phase of hegemony. This historical stage is the key factor in understanding the policies of the current U.S. government.
Second is the spatial dimension of the environment. Every nation exists within a certain international environment. This environment consists not only of power relations with other states but also the global flow of factors such as industry, technology, and personnel. We sometimes compare two seemingly similar countries to analyze their future trajectories, but if the spatial dimension of the environment is ignored during comparison, erroneous conclusions will be drawn. For instance, for some time, there has been a claim that India is the "next China." This claim ignores the differences between the two in terms of the international environment. When China achieved its economic takeoff following Reform and Opening-up [5], it coincided with a massive outflow of Western industrial capital. Manufacturing was shifting toward emerging economies for the purposes of lowering costs, being closer to markets, and avoiding regulation; China happened to seize this opportunity. Currently, however, India faces a completely different environment: Western countries, particularly the United States, are vigorously promoting the return of industrial capital and even using various means to force other countries to invest in the U.S. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for India to replicate China's development trajectory of that era.
Third is the internal systemic dimension. Every nation is a composite based on its own history, culture, economy, and society; its policy behaviors are often the result of the integrated action of these factors within a systemic framework. While a one-off or accidental behavior might be the result of a single factor acting alone, phenomena that occur frequently must be analyzed based on the systemic dimension rather than a single factor. For example, a cluster of innovations in industry, technology, and even culture has currently emerged in China. Some in the West claim this is the result of state "subsidies." In fact, this is the result of the integrated action of factors such as talent, technology, industrial chains, production capacity, management experience, and entrepreneurial spirit built up since Reform and Opening-up. The internal systemic dimension means we should not only open the "black box" of the state but also recognize that the interior of this "black box" is a systemic structure. Moreover, the constituent elements and the logic of interaction within each country's internal system are different. Understanding these differences is an important mission of contemporary Area and Country Studies.
Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, Area and Country Studies and World China Studies should learn from each other, as both need to solve the same theoretical problem: how to understand a heterogeneous "other." More importantly, from a practical perspective, the two should and must collaborate to help the world better understand China and help China better understand the world. On one hand, China's developmental momentum continues to be released, and China's internal complexity and developmental power mechanisms are far from being fully understood by the world. On the other hand, essential changes are occurring in the international environment and within many countries. If China does not understand these changes, it will be unable to promote the actual landing, rooting, and sprouting of its various policy initiatives. In summary, in an era where the world is undergoing profound changes, and as China advances national rejuvenation domestically while its international role and influence expand daily, this mutual understanding has become key to maintaining and promoting world peace and development. The "bilateral rush" (shuangxiang benfu) [6] between Area and Country Studies and World China Studies is driven by theoretical commonalities and has become a matter of urgency in practice.