Li Bozhong: Global China Studies: Seeing the World from China, Seeing China from the World
The Rise of World China Studies Before the large-scale introduction of modern Western scholarship (i.e., "Western learning") in the second half of the 19th century, there was no collective name for the studies conducted by Chinese people regarding China itself. Generally speaking, it was the "Learning of the Four Sections" [1], comprising the Classics, History, Philosophy, and Belles-Lettres. At the turn of the 20th century, under the impact of "Western learning," the term "National Learning" (Guoxue) emerged as a counterpart. Using the "Four Sections" as its body, and incorporating new late-Qing discoveries such as oracle bone inscriptions and bamboo and wooden slips [2], National Learning emphasized the integrity and national character of China's inherent scholarship. In the West, the study of China was known as "Sinology." Originating in 16th-century Europe, Sinology is a scholarly system that takes traditional Chinese civilization as its object of study. Whether it is National Learning or Sinology, the core research materials are traditional Chinese texts and cultural heritage, covering the "Four Sections" system, language, script, history, institutions, thought, philosophy, literature, and art. Regarding research techniques, evidential learning (kaojuxue) served as the shared methodological foundation for both. Early Sinology relied on the tradition of philology, focusing on textual collation, translation, and version authentication; the Qian-Jia School [3] of National Learning also took "exegetical and evidential study" as its core, emphasizing that "nothing is to be believed without evidence." Their paths at the level of documentary compilation were highly similar. Be it the overseas transmission of Chinese culture via Sinology or the systematization and promotion of indigenous traditions via National Learning, both functioned to preserve and interpret traditional Chinese culture, making major contributions to the study of China. However, due to their emphasis on traditional culture, Sinology and National Learning seldom touched upon various aspects of contemporary China. Yet, since the "greatest change in three thousand years" [4] began in the mid-19th century, China has been in the midst of unprecedented and violent transformation. Both Chinese and foreigners urgently required a deep understanding of China's actual politics, economy, society, and culture—tasks that Sinology and National Learning alone were ill-equipped to handle.
After modern Western scholarship entered China, some Chinese scholars actively learned and applied the methods of modern humanities and social sciences to conduct multifaceted research on both historical and contemporary China, initiating a new stage of China studies. Meanwhile, some scholars broke through by absorbing the methods of Western Sinology, improving and enriching National Learning and forming a scholarly system known as "New Sinology." The introduction of Marxism to China in the first half of the 20th century also exerted a tremendous influence on Chinese scholarship.
As interactions between China and the rest of the world became increasingly close, international scholarly research on China underwent a sea change in both breadth and depth compared to the past. The actual state of China’s society, economy, politics, and military—and even its population, resources, environment, science, and technology—became important objects of study. These fields did not fall within the scope of Sinology, and the methods and means employed differed greatly from it. Against this backdrop, "Chinese Studies" emerged in the West. It rose in the mid-to-late 20th century in the United States and subsequently spread to Europe and Japan, gradually becoming the mainstream of Western research on China.
Compared to Sinology, Chinese Studies underwent significant and profound changes in its connotation and extension. This is primarily reflected in the expansion from classical studies to contemporary studies, and from the humanities to the social sciences. Sinology focused mainly on the humanities of ancient China—language, history, philosophy, literature, and religion—its object being "China in the texts." Conversely, the center of gravity for Chinese Studies is the various conditions of contemporary China; its object is "China in reality." In terms of social necessity, "China in reality" is clearly more important than "China in the texts"; thus, Chinese Studies came to sit atop Sinology as the mainstay of China research today. Simultaneously, research by Chinese scholars into "China in reality" was also progressing, leading to the formation of China’s own "Chinese Studies." Recently, as China’s international influence has expanded, more and more countries have seen the rise of China studies, causing the field to move from the periphery of international academia toward the center. A representative marker of this is the major international discussion sparked by the "Great Divergence" theory.
In the 1980s and 1990s, several prominent Western historians, economists, and political scientists who were not previously engaged in China studies—such as Paul Bairoch, Paul Kennedy, William H. McNeill, Angus Maddison, and Andre Gunder Frank—joined the field. From a global history perspective, they proposed new views on the economic performance of early modern China and its importance in world history, attracting widespread attention. At the turn of the millennium, several mid-career scholars from the U.S. and China specializing in the socio-economic history of early modern China proposed new insights that differed from previous mainstream views, using different methods and focal points. As these scholars were teaching at universities in California at the time, they were dubbed the "California School." Among them, Professor Kenneth Pomeranz synthesized and elevated the main arguments of the school in his 2000 book The Great Divergence: Europe, China, and the Making of the Modern World Economy. The "Great Divergence" became an important representative of the California School's views. Following its publication, the book quickly sparked intense reactions in international academic circles, leading to fierce debates between those who agreed and those who opposed these views. This debate has continued for over twenty years without losing momentum; not only historians, but also many political scientists, economists, sociologists, and cultural scholars—and even prominent figures in politics, business, and the media—have joined the discussion. Furthermore, this "Great Divergence" discussion, based on early modern Chinese history, has catalyzed a series of related studies, such as the "Great Divergence" between China and Britain, Japan and Europe, India and Europe, East Asia and Europe, and even the "Little Divergence" within Europe itself. Subsequently, discussions emerged around major issues like "Great Divergence and Great Convergence." For a long time, the study of Chinese history occupied a relatively peripheral position in international academia; the proposal of the "Great Divergence" theory and the strong reaction it elicited pushed Chinese historical research to the center of international attention. Chinese history is a vital component of China studies, and the global impact of the "Great Divergence" is an important sign that China studies is moving into the international academic mainstream. This change profoundly reflects the achievements of China studies globally and demonstrates that World China Studies has today become an integral part of international scholarship. Thus, it can be seen that the study of China has today become a worldwide discipline: "World China Studies." World China Studies is an upgraded form of Sinology and Chinese Studies; it is also closely related to National Learning, New Sinology, and Marxist China research. It can be called the great synthesizer of China studies across time and geography.
Viewing the World from China, Viewing China from the World The reason World China Studies can become a discipline is not only because scholars from many countries are studying China, but also because there has been a major shift in the perspective used to study China. For various reasons, Chinese and foreign scholars in the past basically "operated in isolation." Overseas scholars primarily viewed China from a Western perspective, while Chinese scholars viewed China from a Chinese perspective. However, any objective reality is multifaceted. Studying it requires replacing a single perspective with multi-dimensional ones—much like using a prism to decompose white light—to reveal its composition, associations, and laws from different angles and avoid biased cognition. Regarding China studies, whether in the past or the present, China has been an important member of the "global village" with inseparable ties to the outside world. Therefore, China needs to understand the outside world, and the outside world needs to understand China. Historically, the outside world's understanding of China and China's understanding of the outside world appeared very early and have deepened over time.
To conduct serious research on a subject, one must use the method of internal and external mutual verification (also known as the "two-way perspective method"). This is a classic research path used in both the humanities and social sciences as well as the natural sciences. Its core is to form a complete cognition through a two-way analysis of "from the outside in" and "from the inside out." "From the outside in" refers to starting from the external characteristics, external associations, and external environment of a thing to gradually penetrate its internal structure, essential attributes, and core laws. For example, when studying a mechanical device, one first observes its shape, function, and compatibility with other equipment, then disassembles its internal parts to analyze the principles of transmission. Conversely, "from the inside out" refers to starting from the internal structure and essential laws of a thing to derive its external manifestations, scope of influence, and development trends. For instance, in studying a cell, one first analyzes its internal gene sequences and organelle functions, then derives its role in tissues and organs and its overall impact on the organism. The key value of this mutual verification method is that it avoids the partiality of a single perspective, because relying solely on "from the outside in" leaves one stuck at surface phenomena, while relying solely on "from the inside out" risks detaching the subject from its actual environment. Only by combining both can one achieve a comprehensive cognition of "phenomenon–essence–influence." Therefore, regarding the study of China, only by conducting two-way research—"from the outside in" and "from the inside out"—can we truly know China. Simply put, we must view the world from China, and view China from the world.
The importance of this two-way research was noted by Chinese sages of old. Take two famous figures as examples: Marquis Wen of Wei (Wei Si, r. 446–396 BCE), the first ruler to establish hegemony during the Warring States period; and Su Shi (1037–1101), the famous man of letters of the Song Dynasty. Marquis Wen said, "Hearing it with ears is not as good as seeing it with eyes; seeing it with eyes is not as good as treading it with feet," meaning that what is heard is less reliable than what is seen, and what is seen is less reliable than what is personally investigated on the ground. Su Shi, in a well-known poem, wrote: "I do not know the true face of Mount Lu, only because I am in the midst of the mountain," [5] meaning that when one is deep inside a thing, one often sees only parts or fragments; one must step outside to recognize the whole. Their penetrating insights can be summarized by the words of the famous modern scholar Wang Guowei: "Regarding the universe and life, one must enter within them and also step outside them. By entering within, one can depict them. By stepping outside, one can observe them. By entering within, there is vitality. By stepping outside, there is transcendence." This can be simplified as: "Without entering within, how can one obtain the details; without stepping outside, how can one recognize the form?" This is the universal law of academic research: one must start from both internal and external aspects and combine the results of both to attain a clearer understanding of the subject.
As stated before, studying China is not only the task of Chinese scholars but a shared task for scholars worldwide. Therefore, China studies belongs both to China and the world. Since it is a discipline of both, it must view the world from China and view China from the world. For Chinese scholars...
"Opening one's eyes to look at the world" [6] is indispensable. The Chinese scholar Zhou Youguang said: "A fish in water cannot see the whole Earth clearly; humanity's entry into interstellar space beyond the atmosphere will be a great eye-opener. Today, looking at any issue regarding China must be done from the broad perspective of the world. One can see nothing clearly from a purely Chinese perspective." The American scholar Seymour Martin Lipset also observed: "Those who only know one country, in fact, know no country." For overseas scholars, it is necessary to "tread upon the ground" (足践之), meaning to personally come to China and conduct in-depth investigations into Chinese society to better understand China's past and present. The British scholar Kerry Brown argues that many views of China in Western society are biased, emphasizing that to understand another country's history, culture, and way of thinking, nothing is more effective than personal experience: "If someone keeps saying they love China but has never set foot on Chinese soil, what is the difference between them and someone who says they love a dish but has never tasted it?" British scholar Martin Jacques also stated: "To better understand China, going to see China is the most direct way." Therefore, by looking at the world from China and looking at China from the world, the China perceived through this dual perspective is a China with distinct characteristics within the human family.
Furthermore, the China seen through this dual perspective is not a "lonely" civilization, but a civilization with global influence. When discussing Europe, the famous sociologist Charles Tilly said: "If we imagine being in 1750, ignoring what actually happened later, and imagining how the situation would become in the future," the result of his imagination was that Europe would have developed just as China did at that time. This implies that before the modern era, China's development path held a certain degree of universal significance for other parts of the world. In the past, many Chinese and foreign scholars often used the historical experience of Western Europe as the standard to seek the laws of China's historical development. However, Charles Tilly's viewpoint provides us with an alternative perspective: we can also use China's experience as a standard to examine the historical development of Europe and the rest of the world, thereby demonstrating that world development indeed possesses multiple different models, and China's historical development model is one of the important ones among them. The heated discussion in international academic circles regarding the "Great Divergence" mentioned earlier also emphasizes looking at Chinese history from the perspective of global history, thus establishing a new view of historical development.
Wang Guowei [7] once remarked: "In matters of scholarship, there is fundamentally no East or West." World China Studies is a global and open discipline; scholars from all countries are welcomed to participate actively. However, for Chinese people, the identities of "self" and "other" are unavoidable. China is the object of research in World China Studies, and Chinese scholars should naturally play a primary role in China studies. Moreover, for World China Studies research, China not only possesses the most abundant resources required for study but also has the largest research community; thus, Chinese scholars possess a unique advantage. Before the Reform and Opening-up, although Chinese scholars achieved many successes in their research on China, they failed to stand at the international academic frontier in certain fields due to various reasons. For example, the saying "Dunhuang is in China, but Dunhuang Studies are in Japan" [8] once stung the hearts of many Chinese scholars. After the Reform and Opening-up, with the continuous expansion and deepening of foreign academic exchanges, Chinese scholars' research in Dunhuang Studies has yielded fruitful results, enabling them to lead the progress of international Dunhuang research and push the research level of this important component of "World China Studies" to a higher stage. This example illustrates that as long as we continue to enhance exchanges with scholars from other countries and integrate the research of Chinese scholars into the world's academic mainstream, Chinese scholars will certainly be able to issue a louder and more powerful voice in the international academic community.
At a time when a major shift is occurring in China studies worldwide, it is the opportune moment to give full play to our own advantages and build a center for "World China Studies" in China. In 2004, the "World Forum on China Studies" systematically explained the connotation of "World China Studies" for the first time and used "Global China Studies" (GCS) as the English translation. In 2012, relying on the World Forum on China Studies, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences established the Institute of World China Studies to vigorously promote the development of the field. From 2023 onward, the "World Conference on China Studies" has united China researchers from all over the world to participate in the great cause of World China Studies, achieving fruitful results. Since the concept of "World China Studies" was proposed, the international academic community has responded positively. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology took the lead in 2013 by opening a Master's program in "Global China Studies," which has trained nearly a thousand students to date. Subsequently, the National University of Singapore, the London School of Economics and Political Science, Harvard University, and Cambridge University have also successively opened related courses. The annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in the United States is one of the world's most important academic conferences for Asian studies, and research on the interaction between China and the globe has become a permanent core topic, among others. All of the above reflect the increasing influence of "World China Studies" in the international academic community. Facts fully prove that with the joint efforts of Chinese and foreign scholars, the discipline of "World China Studies" has already become an important part of mainstream world scholarship and has issued a powerful voice.