World China Studies: Viewing the World from China, Viewing China from the World

The Rise of World China Studies

世界中国学的兴起

Before the large-scale introduction of modern Western scholarship (i.e., “Western learning”) in the latter half of the 19th century, the Chinese study of China itself had no overarching name; broadly speaking, it was the “learning of the four categories” [1]1 The “learning of the four categories” (sibu zhi xue) refers to the traditional Chinese classification of knowledge into the four divisions of classics (jing), histories (shi), masters (zi), and literary collections (ji), which formed the basis of imperial Chinese scholarship., encompassing the classics, histories, masters, and literary collections. By the late Qing and early Republican period, under the impact of “Western learning,” a counterpart called “national learning” (guoxue) emerged. “National learning” took the “learning of the four categories” as its main body, while also incorporating newly emerging fields such as oracle bones and bamboo slips from the late Qing, emphasizing the integrity and national character of China’s inherent scholarship. In the West, the study of China was called “Sinology.” Sinology originated in 16th-century Europe and was an academic system focused on traditional Chinese civilization. Whether “national learning” or “Sinology,” the core research materials were traditional Chinese classics and cultural heritage, covering the four-category system of classics, histories, masters, and literary collections, as well as language, writing, history, institutions, thought, philosophy, literature, and art. In terms of research methods, textual criticism was the common methodological foundation for both. Early Sinology relied on the tradition of philology, emphasizing textual collation, language translation, and edition verification; the Qianlong-Jiaqing school [2]2 The Qianlong-Jiaqing school (Qian-Jia xuepai) was a scholarly movement during the Qianlong (1735–1796) and Jiaqing (1796–1820) reigns of the Qing dynasty, known for its rigorous philological and textual-critical methods, often called “evidential scholarship” (kaozheng xue). of “national learning” also took “exegesis and textual criticism” as its core, stressing “no evidence, no belief”; the two paths were highly similar at the level of document collation. Whether it was Sinology’s overseas dissemination of Chinese culture or “national learning’s” sorting out and promotion of local traditions, both bore the function of preserving and interpreting traditional Chinese culture, making significant contributions to the study of China. However, because their research focus was placed on China’s traditional culture, “Sinology” and “national learning” rarely touched upon various aspects of China in reality. And since the “changes unseen in three millennia” [3]3 “Changes unseen in three millennia” (sanqian nian wei you zhi da bianju) is a phrase attributed to the Qing statesman Li Hongzhang, referring to the unprecedented upheaval China faced in the mid-19th century due to Western imperialist incursions, internal rebellions, and the collapse of the traditional order. that began in the mid-19th century, China has been in unprecedented and drastic transformation. Both Chinese and foreigners urgently needed a deep understanding of all aspects of China in reality—politics, economy, society, culture, etc.—and this task could hardly be accomplished by “Sinology” and “national learning” alone.

19世纪后半期西方近代学术（即“西学”）大规模引进前，中国人研究中国自身的学问并无一个总名，大体而言，就是包含经史子集的“四部之学”。到了清末民初，在“西学”的冲击下，出现了与“西学”对应的“国学”。“国学”以“四部之学”为主体，兼收晚清新出的甲骨、简牍等学问，强调中国固有学术的整体性、民族性。在西方，研究中国的学问被称为“汉学”（Sinology）。“汉学”发源于16世纪的欧洲，是以中国传统文明为研究对象的学术体系。无论是“国学”还是“汉学”，核心研究素材都是中国传统典籍与文化遗产，涵盖经史子集四部体系、语言、文字、历史、制度、思想、哲学、文学、艺术等领域。在研究手段方面，考据学是二者的共同方法论基石。“汉学”早期依赖语文学（Philology）传统，注重文本校勘、语言翻译与版本考证；“国学”的乾嘉学派也以“训诂考据”为核心，强调“无征不信”；二者在文献整理层面的路径高度相似。无论是“汉学”对中国文化的海外传播，还是“国学”对本土传统的梳理发扬，都承担着保存、阐释中国传统文化的功能，为研究中国作出了重大贡献。但是，由于将研究重点放在中国的传统文化上，“汉学”和“国学”对现实中中国的各个方面很少涉及。而自19世纪中期的“三千年未有之大变局”开始以来，中国都处在前所未有的剧烈变化之中。无论是中国人还是外国人，都亟须对现实中中国的政治、经济、社会、文化等各方面有深入了解，而这项工作仅靠“汉学”和“国学”自身难以胜任。

After modern Western scholarship was introduced to China, some Chinese scholars actively studied and used the methods of modern humanities and social sciences to conduct multifaceted research on both historical and contemporary China, opening a new phase in Chinese studies. At the same time, some scholars also absorbed and broke through the methods of Western “Sinology,” improving and enriching “national learning” research, forming an academic system called “New Sinology.” In the first half of the 20th century, the introduction of Marxism to China also had a tremendous impact on Chinese scholarship.

西方近代学术传入中国后，一些中国学者积极学习和使用近代人文社会科学的方法对历史和现实的中国进行多方面研究，开创了中国研究的新阶段。同时，一些学者也突破吸收了西方“汉学”的方法，改进和丰富了“国学”研究，形成了被称为“新汉学”的学术体系。20世纪前半期马克思主义传入中国，也对中国学术产生了巨大影响。

As China’s interactions with other parts of the world grew increasingly close, international academic research on China underwent enormous changes in both breadth and depth compared to the past. China’s actual conditions in society, economy, politics, military, and even population, resources, environment, science, and technology all became important research subjects. These research fields did not fall within the scope of “Sinology,” and the methods and means used also differed greatly from those of “Sinology.” Against this background, Western “Chinese Studies” emerged, rising in the United States in the mid-to-late 20th century, then spreading to Europe and Japan, gradually becoming the mainstream of Western research on China.

随着中国与世界其他地区交往日益密切，国际学界对中国的研究，在广度和深度方面，和过去相比都发生了巨大变化。现实中中国的社会、经济、政治、军事乃至人口、资源、环境、科学、技术等情况，都成为重要的研究对象。这些研究领域并不属于“汉学”研究的范围，所使用的方法和手段也与“汉学”有巨大差异。在此背景之下，西方的“中国研究”（Chinese Studies）应运而生，其兴起于20世纪中后期的美国，随后传播到欧洲和日本，逐渐成为西方对中国研究的主流。

Compared with “Sinology,” “Chinese Studies” underwent significant and profound changes in both connotation and extension. These were mainly reflected in the expansion from classical research to contemporary research, and from humanities research to social science research. “Sinology” mainly focused on the humanities of ancient China—language, history, philosophy, literature, religion—and its research object was primarily “China in the texts.” In contrast, the research focus of “Chinese Studies” is the various conditions of contemporary China, and its research object is “China in reality.” In terms of social need, “China in reality” is clearly more important than “China in the texts,” so “Chinese Studies” has come to rank above “Sinology” and become the main body of China studies today. At the same time, Chinese scholars’ research on “China in reality” has also been progressing, thus forming China’s own “Chinese Studies.” More recently, as China’s international influence has grown, more and more countries have developed China studies, gradually moving China studies from the periphery of international academia toward the center. A representative marker is the international debate triggered by the “Great Divergence” theory.

较之“汉学”，“中国研究”在内涵与外延上都发生了显著而深刻的变化。主要体现在从古典研究拓展到当代研究，从人文学研究拓展到社会科学研究。“汉学”主要聚焦于古代中国的语言、历史、哲学、文学、宗教等人文学科，研究对象主要是“文献中的中国”。而“中国研究”的研究重心是当代中国各方面的情况，研究对象是“现实中的中国”。就社会需要而言，“现实中的中国”显然比“文献中的中国”更为重要，因此“中国研究”遂位居“汉学”研究之上，成为今日中国研究的主体。与此同时，中国学者对于“现实中的中国”研究也在进展中，于是形成了中国的“中国研究”。到了晚近，随着中国的国际影响日益扩大，越来越多的国家兴起了中国研究，使得中国研究逐渐从国际学界的边缘走向中心。一个具有代表性的标志是“大分流”理论引发的国际大讨论。

In the 1980s and 1990s, some prominent Western historians, economists, and political scientists who had not previously worked on China studies—such as Paul Bairoch, Paul Kennedy, William H. McNeill, Angus Maddison, and Andre Gunder Frank—joined China studies. From the perspective of global history, they put forward new views on China’s economic performance in the early modern period and its importance in world history, attracting widespread attention in international academia. At the turn of the century, several middle-aged scholars from the United States and China who specialized in early modern Chinese socioeconomic history, from different angles, using different methods, and selecting different emphases, proposed new views that differed from past mainstream opinions. These scholars were then teaching at several universities in California, USA, so they were also called the “California School.” Among them, Professor Kenneth Pomeranz summarized and elevated the main views proposed by the “California School” scholars, publishing in 2000 the book *The Great Divergence: Europe, China, and the Making of the Modern World Economy*, and the “Great Divergence” became an important representative of the “California School’s” views. This book quickly sparked heated responses in international academic circles, with intense debates between scholars who agreed and disagreed with these views. The debate has continued for more than twenty years without abating; not only historians, but also many political scientists, economists, sociologists, cultural scholars, and even well-known figures in politics, business, and media have joined these discussions. Moreover, this “Great Divergence” debate, based on early modern Chinese history, also spawned a series of related studies, such as the “Great Divergence” between China and Britain, between Japan and Europe, between India and Europe, between East Asia and Europe, and even the “Little Divergence” within Europe itself. Subsequently, discussions also emerged around a series of major issues such as “Great Divergence and Great Convergence.” For a long period, the study of Chinese history occupied a relatively marginal position in international academia. The proposal of the “Great Divergence” theory and the strong reactions it provoked pushed the study of Chinese history to the center of international academic attention. The study of Chinese history is an important component of China studies, and the worldwide response to the “Great Divergence” is a significant sign that China studies is moving toward the mainstream of international scholarship. This change profoundly reflects the achievements made in China studies worldwide, and also shows that world China studies today has become an important part of international scholarship. Thus, it can be seen that research on China has now become a worldwide discipline, namely “World China Studies.” “World China Studies” is an upgraded form of “Sinology” and “Chinese Studies,” and is also closely related to “national learning,” “New Sinology,” and Marxist China studies; it can be said to be the comprehensive culmination of all research on China, ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign.

在20世纪八九十年代，一些先前并不从事中国研究的西方著名历史学者、经济学者、政治学者如保罗·贝洛赫（Paul Bairoch）、保罗·肯尼迪（Paul Kennedy）、威廉·H·麦克尼尔（William H. McNeill）、安格斯·麦迪森（Angus Maddison）、安德鲁·贡德·弗兰克（Andre Gunder Frank）加入了中国研究，他们从全球史视野出发，对近代早期中国经济表现及其在世界史上的重要性提出了新的看法，引起国际学界广泛关注。到了新旧世纪之交，美、中两国几位从事近代早期中国社会经济史研究的中年学者，从不同的方面，使用不同的方法，选取不同的重点，提出了一些有异于过去主流见解的新见。这几位学者当时都在美国加州的几所大学任教，因此他们也被称为“加州学派”。其中彭慕兰教授将“加州学派”学者提出的主要观点加以总结和提升，于2000年出版了《大分流：欧洲、中国及现代世界经济的发展》一书，“大分流”也成为“加州学派”观点的重要代表。这本书出版后迅速引起国际学坛的热烈反响，赞同和反对这些看法的学者之间出现了激烈的争论。争论迄今已二十多年，一直热度不减，不仅历史学者，而且不少政治学者、经济学者、社会学者、文化学者等，乃至政界、商界、传媒界等领域的知名人物，都加入了这些讨论。不仅如此，这个基于近代早期中国历史的“大分流”讨论，也催生了一系列相关研究，例如中国和英国的“大分流”、日本和欧洲的“大分流”、印度和欧洲的“大分流”、东亚和欧洲的“大分流”，乃至欧洲内部的“小分流”，等等。随后还出现了围绕“大分流与大合流”等一系列重大问题的讨论。在很长一段时期内，中国史研究在国际学界处于一种相对边缘的地位，“大分流”理论的提出和由此引起的强烈反响，把中国史研究推到了国际学界关注的中心。中国史研究是中国研究的重要组成部分，“大分流”引起的世界反响是中国研究正在走向国际学术主流的重要标志。这个变化深刻地反映了中国研究在世界上所取得的成就，也表现了世界中国学今天已经成为国际学术的一个重要组成部分。由此可见，时至今日，关于中国的研究已成为一门世界性的学问，即“世界中国学”。“世界中国学”是“汉学”和“中国研究”的升级形态，也和“国学”“新汉学”以及马克思主义中国研究有密切关系，可以说是古今中外关于中国研究的集大成者。

Viewing the World from China, Viewing China from the World

从中国看世界，从世界看中国

The reason “Global China Studies” can become a field of scholarship is not only because scholars from many countries study China, but also because the perspective from which China is studied has undergone a major change. For various reasons, in the past, Chinese and foreign scholars studying China basically “each went their own way”: overseas scholars mainly viewed China from a Western perspective, while Chinese scholars viewed China from a Chinese perspective. However, any objective thing has many facets; to study it, one needs to replace a single perspective with multi-dimensional perspectives, just as a prism decomposes white light, revealing its composition, connections, and laws from different sides, thereby avoiding one-sided cognition. As far as the study of China is concerned, both in the past and the present, China has been an important member of the “global village,” and there is an inseparable relationship between China and the external world. Therefore, China needs to understand the external world, and the external world also needs to understand China. Historically, the external world’s understanding of China and China’s understanding of the external world both emerged very early and have deepened over time.

“世界中国学”之所以能够成为一门学问，并不只是因为有诸多国家的学者在研究中国，而且也因为研究中国的视野发生了重大变化。由于各方面原因，以往中外学者在研究中国时，基本上都是“各自为政”，海外学者主要是从西方的视角看中国，而中国学者则以中国的视角看中国。然而，任何客观事物都是多方面的，对它进行研究都需要像用棱镜分解白光那样，用多维度视角替代单一视角，从不同侧面揭示其构成、关联与规律，避免认知片面化。就中国研究而言，无论是在过去还是现在，中国都是“地球村”的重要成员，中国和外部世界之间有着密不可分的关系，因此中国需要了解外部世界，外部世界也需要了解中国。在历史上，外部世界对中国和中国对外部世界的认识，都很早就已出现，并且随着时间的推移而不断加深。

To seriously study an object, one must use the method of mutual verification of internal and external evidence (also called the bidirectional perspective method). This method is a classic research approach used by both the humanities and social sciences and the natural sciences. Its core is to form a complete cognition through the bidirectional analysis of “from the outside to the inside” and “from the inside to the outside.” “From the outside to the inside” means starting from the external characteristics, external connections, and external environment of a thing, gradually penetrating into its internal structure, essential attributes, and core laws. For example, to study a mechanical device, one first observes its shape, function, and compatibility with other equipment, then disassembles its internal parts and analyzes the transmission principle. “From the inside to the outside” means starting from the internal structure and essential laws of a thing, deducing outward its external manifestations, scope of influence, and development trends. For example, to study a cell, one first analyzes its internal gene sequence and organelle functions, then deduces its role in tissues and organs and its impact on the entire organism. The key value of this method of mutual verification of internal and external evidence is to avoid the one-sidedness of a single perspective, because relying solely on “from the outside to the inside” easily stops at surface phenomena, while relying solely on “from the inside to the outside” easily detaches from the actual environment in which the thing exists. Only by combining both directions can a comprehensive understanding of “phenomenon—essence—influence” be achieved. Therefore, for studying China, only by conducting bidirectional research of “from the outside to the inside” and “from the inside to the outside” can one truly understand China. Simply put, this means viewing China from the world and viewing the world from China.

要认真研究一个对象，需要使用内外互证法（也称为双向透视法）。这种方法是人文社会科学与自然科学都使用的经典研究路径，其核心是通过“由外及内”与“由内及外”的双向分析，形成完整的认知。“由外及内”指从事物的外部特征、外部关联、外部环境入手，逐步深入到事物的内部结构、本质属性、核心规律。例如研究一个机械装置，先要观察其外形、功能、与其他设备的适配性，再拆解内部零件、分析传动原理。而“由内及外”则指从事物的内部结构、本质规律出发，向外推导其外部表现、影响范围、发展趋势。例如研究一种细胞，要先分析其内部的基因序列、细胞器功能，再推导其在组织器官中的作用、对生物体整体的影响。这种内外互证方法的关键价值是避免单一视角的片面性，因为仅“由外及内”易停留在表面现象，而仅“由内及外”易脱离事物存在的实际环境。双向结合，才可实现“现象—本质—影响”的全面认知。因此，对于研究中国来说，只有进行“由外及内”与“由内及外”的双向研究，才能真正认识中国。简单地说，就是要从中国看世界，从世界看中国。

The importance of this bidirectional research was also noted by ancient Chinese sages. Let us take two famous figures from ancient China as examples. One is Marquis Wen of Wei, Wei Si (r. 446–396 BCE), the first feudal lord to establish hegemony during the Warring States period; the other is the famous Song dynasty literatus Su Shi (1037–1101 CE). Marquis Wen of Wei said: “Hearing something is not as reliable as seeing it with one’s own eyes; seeing it with one’s own eyes is not as reliable as personally investigating it on the ground.” [4]4 Attributed to Marquis Wen of Wei (魏文侯), a Warring States period ruler (r. 446–396 BCE), this saying emphasizes the superiority of direct investigation over hearsay or observation. Su Shi, in a widely loved poem, wrote: “I cannot recognize the true face of Mount Lu, because I am myself inside this mountain.” [5]5 From Su Shi’s (苏轼, 1037–1101) poem “Written on the Wall of West Forest Temple” (题西林壁), a classic expression of the limits of an insider’s perspective. This means that when a person is deeply immersed within a thing, they often see only a part or a fragment; therefore, they must step outside to recognize the whole picture. Their incisive insights can be summarized in the words of the modern renowned scholar Wang Guowei: “For the universe and human life, one must enter into them, and also step out of them. Enter into them, therefore one can describe them. Step out of them, therefore one can observe them. Enter into them, therefore there is vitality. Step out of them, therefore there is refined taste.” [6]6 Wang Guowei (王国维, 1877–1927), a pioneering Chinese scholar of literature and philosophy, known for integrating Chinese and Western thought. This passage can be simplified to: “If you do not enter into it, how can you grasp its details? If you do not step out of it, how can you recognize its form?” The above is the universal law of academic research: one must proceed from both the internal and external aspects, and combine the results of research in these two aspects, in order to understand the object of study more clearly.

这种双向研究的重要性，中国先贤也注意到了。这里就以两位中国古代名人为例。其中一位是战国时期第一个建立霸业的诸侯魏文侯魏斯（前446—前396年在位），另一位是宋代著名文人苏轼（1037—1101年）。魏文侯说：“耳闻之不如目见之，目见之不如足践之”，意思是亲耳听到的不如亲眼看到的可靠，亲眼看到的不如自己亲临其地调查到的可靠。苏轼则在一首脍炙人口的诗中写道：“不识庐山真面目，只缘身在此山中”，意思是当人深陷某一事物内部时，往往只能看到局部或片段，因此必须跳出来，才能认清全貌。他们的精辟之见，可以用近代著名学者王国维的话来总结：“对宇宙人生，须入乎其内，又须出乎其外。入乎其内，故能写之。出乎其外，故能观之。入乎其内，故有生气。出乎其外，故有高致。”这段话可以简化为：“不入乎其内，焉得其细节；不出乎其外，焉识其形态。”以上就是进行学术研究的普遍规律，即必须从内部和外部两个方面入手，把这两方面研究的成果结合起来，才能更清楚地认识所研究的对象。

As stated earlier, studying China is not only the task of Chinese scholars but also a common task of scholars from all over the world. Therefore, China studies are not only Chinese but also global. Since it is a Chinese and global field of learning, one must view China from the world and view the world from China. For Chinese scholars, “opening one’s eyes to see the world” is indispensable. Chinese scholar Zhou Youguang said: “A fish in the water cannot see the whole earth; when humans leave the atmosphere and enter interstellar space, they will greatly broaden their horizons. Today, any problem in China must be viewed from the broad perspective of the world. Viewing it solely from a Chinese perspective, nothing can be seen clearly.” [7]7 Zhou Youguang (周有光, 1906–2017), a Chinese linguist and economist, often called the “father of Hanyu Pinyin.” American scholar Seymour Martin Lipset also said: “One who knows only one country knows no country.” [8]8 Seymour Martin Lipset (1922–2006), an American political sociologist, known for his work on comparative politics and the conditions of democracy. For overseas scholars, they must “personally investigate on the ground,” that is, come to China in person and conduct in-depth investigations of Chinese society, in order to better understand China’s past and present. British scholar Kerry Brown believes that many Western views of China are biased and emphasizes that there is no more effective way to understand another country’s history, culture, and way of thinking than through personal experience: “If someone keeps saying they love China but has never set foot on Chinese soil, what difference is there between them and someone who says they love a dish but has never tasted its flavor?” [9]9 Kerry Brown (b. 1967), a British scholar of Chinese politics and director of the Lau China Institute at King’s College London. British scholar Martin Jacques also says: “To better understand China, going to see China is the most direct way.” [10]10 Martin Jacques (b. 1945), a British journalist and author of *When China Rules the World*. Therefore, by viewing China from the world and viewing the world from China, the China seen through this bidirectional perspective is a China with distinctive characteristics within the human family.

如前所言，研究中国不仅是中国学者的任务，而且也是世界各国学者的共同任务。因此中国研究不仅是中国的，而且也是世界的。既然是中国的和世界的学问，就必须从中国看世界，从世界看中国。对于中国学者来说，“开眼看世界”是必不可少的。中国学者周有光说：“鱼在水中看不清整个地球，人类走出大气层进入星际空间会大开眼界。今天看中国的任何问题都要从世界这个大视野的角度。光从中国角度是什么也看不清的。”美国学者西摩·马丁·李普塞特（Seymour Martin Lipset）也说：“只懂一个国家的人，实际上什么国家都不懂。”对于海外学者来说，必须“足践之”，即亲自来到中国，深入中国社会进行考察，才能更好地了解中国的过去和现在。英国学者凯瑞·布朗（Kerry Brown）认为西方社会对中国的许多看法失之偏颇，强调要想了解另一个国家的历史文化和思维方式，没有什么比亲身经历更有效的方式：“如果有人口口声声说他爱中国，却根本没踏上过中国的土地，这和那些说自己爱吃一盘菜却从未尝过其味道的人有什么区别呢？”英国学者马丁·雅克（Martin Jacques）也说：“要更好了解中国，去看看中国是最直接的方式。”因此，从中国看世界，从世界看中国，通过这种双向视角所看到的中国，才是一个在人类大家庭中具有鲜明特色的中国。

Moreover, the China seen through this bidirectional perspective is not a “solitary” civilization but a civilization with global influence. The renowned sociologist Charles Tilly, speaking of Europe, said: “Suppose we imagine ourselves in 1750, ignoring what actually happened later, and imagine how the situation at that time would develop in the future.” [11]11 Charles Tilly (1929–2008), an American sociologist and historian, known for his work on state formation, social movements, and historical sociology. The specific source of this imagined scenario is not provided in the original text. The result of his imagination was that Europe would also develop like China at that time. That is to say, before modern times, China’s development path also had a certain 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 a standard to explore the laws of Chinese historical development. But Charles Tilly’s view offers us another perspective: we can also use China’s experience as a standard to examine the historical development of Europe and even other regions of the world, thereby showing that world development indeed has many different models, and China’s historical development model is an important one among them. The heated international academic discussion of the “Great Divergence” mentioned earlier also emphasizes viewing Chinese history from the perspective of global history, thereby establishing a new view of historical development.

不仅如此，通过这种双向视角所看到的中国，不是一个“孤独”的文明，而是一个具有世界影响的文明。著名社会学家查尔斯·蒂里（Charles Tilly）在谈到欧洲时说：“假若我们设想身处于1750年，不要理会后来真正发生的事，而去想象当时的情况将来会变得如何”，他想象的结果是欧洲也将会像当时的中国那样发展。这就是说，近代以前中国的发展道路，对世界其他地方来说也具有一定的普遍意义。过去许多中外学者往往以西欧的历史经历为标准来探寻中国历史发展的规律，但是查尔斯·蒂里的观点为我们提出了另一种视角，即我们也可以用中国的经历作为标准，来看欧洲乃至世界其他地区的历史发展，从而表明世界的发展确实具有多种不同的模式，而中国的历史发展模式是其中重要的一种。前面谈到的国际学界对于“大分流”的热烈讨论，也强调要从全球史的视野出发看中国历史，从而建立了一种新的历史发展观。

Wang Guowei once said: “The pursuit of learning knows no distinction between China and the West.” [12]12 Wang Guowei (1877–1927) was a prominent Chinese scholar of literature, history, and philosophy, known for his work bridging Chinese and Western thought. Global China Studies is a worldwide and open field of learning, welcoming the active participation of scholars from all countries. However, for Chinese people, the identity of “we” versus “the other” is unavoidable. China is the object of study in Global China Studies, and Chinese scholars should naturally play a major role in China studies. Moreover, for Global China Studies, China not only possesses the richest resources needed for research but also has the largest research community, so Chinese scholars also enjoy special advantages. Before reform and opening up, although Chinese scholars achieved much in their study of China, for various reasons they failed to stay at the international academic frontier in some fields. For example, the once-common saying “Dunhuang is in China, but Dunhuang studies are in Japan” stung the hearts of many Chinese scholars. [13]13 Dunhuang, in Gansu Province, China, is the site of the Mogao Caves, a vast repository of Buddhist art and manuscripts. The saying reflected the fact that for much of the 20th century, the leading scholarly work on these materials was done by Japanese researchers. After reform and opening up, with the continuous expansion and deepening of international academic exchanges, Chinese scholars’ research on Dunhuang studies achieved fruitful results, enabling them to lead the progress of international Dunhuang studies and elevate the research level of this important component of Global China Studies to a higher stage. This example shows that as long as they continuously enhance exchanges with scholars from other countries and integrate their research into the mainstream of world scholarship, Chinese scholars will surely be able to make a louder and more powerful voice in the international academic community.

王国维有言：“学问之事，本无中西。”世界中国学是一门世界性的、开放性的学问，欢迎各国学者积极参与。但对于中国人来说，“我们”与“他者”的身份是无法回避的。中国是世界中国学的研究对象，中国学者理所当然应该在中国研究中发挥主要作用。不仅如此，对于世界中国学研究来说，中国不仅拥有研究所需最丰富的资源，而且还拥有最大的研究群体，因此中国学者也拥有特殊的优势。改革开放以前，虽然中国学者对中国的研究取得不少成就，但是由于各种原因，中国学者在一些领域未能走在国际学术前沿。例如，曾经的“敦煌在中国，敦煌学在日本”刺痛了许多中国学者的心。改革开放以后，随着对外学术交流的不断扩展和深化，中国学者的敦煌学研究取得了丰硕成果，得以引领国际敦煌学研究的进展，把敦煌学这个“世界中国学”重要组成部分的研究水准推向更高阶段。这个例子说明，只要不断增进与其他国家学者的交流，让中国学者的研究融入世界学术主流，中国学者一定能够在国际学界发出更大、更有力的声音。

At a time when China studies worldwide are undergoing major transformations, it is precisely the right moment to fully leverage our own advantages and build China into a center for Global China Studies. In 2004, the “World Forum on China Studies” first systematically elaborated the connotation of “Global China Studies” and adopted “Global China Studies” (GCS) as its 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 Global China Studies. Starting in 2023, the “Global China Studies Conference” has united China studies researchers from around the world to jointly advance the cause of Global China Studies, achieving fruitful results. After the concept of “Global China Studies” was proposed, the international academic community responded positively. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology took the lead in offering a master’s program in “Global China Studies” in 2013, having trained nearly a thousand students to date. Subsequently, the National University of Singapore, the London School of Economics and Political Science, Harvard University, Cambridge University, and other institutions have also successively offered related courses. The annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies in the United States is one of the most important academic conferences for Asian studies globally, and research on the interaction between China and the world has become a standing core topic, among other developments. All of this demonstrates the growing influence of “Global China Studies” in the international academic community. The facts fully prove that, through the joint efforts of Chinese and foreign scholars, the field of “Global China Studies” has become an important part of mainstream global scholarship and has made a powerful voice.

在如今世界范围内中国研究发生重大转变的时候，充分发挥自身优势，在中国建设“世界中国学”的中心，正当其时。2004年，“世界中国学论坛”首次系统阐释“世界中国学”的内涵，并使用“Global China Studies”（GCS）作为英文译名。2012年，依托世界中国学论坛，上海社科院成立了世界中国学研究所，全力推动世界中国学的发展。2023年起，“世界中国学大会”团结世界各国的中国问题研究者，共襄世界中国学大业，取得丰硕成果。“世界中国学”概念提出后，国际学界反映积极。香港科技大学在2013年率先开设“环球中国学”硕士项目，至今已培养学生近千人。之后，新加坡国立大学、伦敦政治经济学院、哈佛大学、剑桥大学等高校也先后开设了相关课程。美国的亚洲研究协会（Association for Asian Studies）年会是全球亚洲研究最重要的学术会议之一，中国与全球互动的研究成为常设核心议题，等等。以上这些都体现出“世界中国学”在国际学界的影响力日益扩大。事实充分证明，在中外学者的共同努力下，“世界中国学”这门学问已经成为世界主流学术的一个重要组成部分，并发出了有力的声音。

(Author: Li Bozhong, Chair Professor of Humanities, Peking University)

（作者：李伯重，系北京大学人文讲席教授）