The Path to Constructing an Independent Knowledge System for Area and Country Studies

The dialectical unity of articulating China and articulating the world is a key proposition for area and country studies. China’s independent knowledge system must necessarily be grounded in a Chinese standpoint and summarize Chinese practice, while also possessing the value-consciousness of reconstructing global concepts and reshaping global discourse. In this discursive reconstruction, area and country studies face two fundamental epistemological questions: first, how to transcend the narrowness of a knowledge system resulting from fragmented, partial research through holistic concepts and methods; second, how to enable China and other countries to unite in the international discursive action of seeking independent expression. Therefore, constructing an independent knowledge system for area and country studies requires achieving a comprehensive understanding of the research object and strengthening global collaboration in knowledge research.

表述中国和表述世界的辩证统一是区域国别研究的重要命题。中国自主的知识体系必然要立足中国立场、总结中国实践，同时也应有重建全球观念、重塑全球话语的价值自觉。在话语重构中，区域国别研究面临两个基本的认识论问题：一是如何以整体性的观念和方法超越碎片化、局部性研究导致的知识体系偏狭；二是如何使中国与各国在寻求独立表达的国际话语行动上达成联合。因此，建构区域国别学自主知识体系要达成对研究对象的全面认识，加强知识研究的全球协作。

The Value Foundation of Knowledge Autonomy

知识自主性的价值基础

Area and country studies should strive to overcome the problem of research fragmentation. This fragmentation manifests conceptually in a focus on information analysis of the research object itself or its internal aspects, lacking a holistic perspective that situates the object within the global picture; in practice, it is reflected in independent research conducted from different disciplinary perspectives, which, although sharing the same object, fail to achieve theoretical co-creation and research integration.

区域国别研究应努力克服研究碎片化的问题。这种碎片化在理念上表现为聚焦研究对象本身或内部的信息研析，缺乏将研究对象置于世界图景的整体性视野；在实践上则体现为不同学科视角下的独立研究，虽然这些研究共享同一对象，但未能实现理论共创和研究共融。

Constructing a knowledge system for area and country studies is a practice already undertaken by many countries. The worldview and historical outlook followed in understanding the research object and organizing knowledge production determine the historical value of a knowledge system. In the colonial era, Western social sciences were dominated by a world understanding based on a hierarchy of civilizations. The military conquest of “degenerate peoples” by “superior nations” was regarded as a “natural order,” and the East was designated as perpetually stagnant and “benighted,” an “outsider to history.” The accompanying colonial studies observed “primitive tribes” through a lens of cultural exoticism, conducted geographical exploration according to the logic of power domination, and constructed a knowledge system of Orientalism through a highly othering approach. During the Cold War, the United States, aiming to promote so-called “universal values” globally, began to overcome “the limitations of classical Orientalism,” using interdisciplinary methods to focus on contemporary issues and strategic regional studies. Because this approach broke through single disciplines and pursued a “sense of wholeness” in research, it produced some methodologically instructive results. However, since the standpoint of these studies was either a binary oppositionalism of defeating ideological enemies or a modernization monism of transforming “backward peoples” according to Western industrial capital needs, this knowledge system inevitably reinforced the discourse of geopolitical hegemony.

建构区域国别研究知识体系是很多国家已有的实践。遵循何种世界观和历史观来理解研究对象、组织知识生产，决定了一套知识体系的历史价值。殖民主义时代，支配西方社会科学的是基于文明等级观的世界理解。“优秀民族”对“堕落民族”的武力征服被视为“自然秩序”，东方被指认为永远停滞和“蒙昧”的“历史局外人”。与之伴生的殖民研究，以文化猎奇的视角观察“原始部落”，以强权支配的逻辑开展地理勘探，用高度他者化的方式建构了东方学的知识体系。冷战时期，美国围绕向全球推广所谓“普世价值”的目标，开始克服“古典东方主义的局限性”,用跨学科方式聚焦当代问题和战略地区研究。由于在路径上突破单一学科，追求研究的“整体感”，因而产生了一些在研究方法上具有借鉴性的成果。然而，由于这些研究的立场观点要么是战胜意识形态敌人的二元对立论，要么是按西方产业资本需求对“落后民族”予以改造的现代化一元论，因而该知识体系不可避免强化了地缘霸权的话语。

China’s area and country studies face the proposition of reconstructing a global intellectual system within a new world configuration. Only by adhering to a correct standpoint and clarifying the research direction can we avoid the fragmentation of disciplinary resource allocation and the unconscious replication of research actions. For example, when a researcher begins work on African studies, the first thing to consider is not the specific question of which piece of information to collect or which policy to study, but rather the fundamental epistemological question of how to understand Africa and how to comprehend the Global South. For instance, is the “Third World” an outdated concept, or a continuously generated global practice? How can we rethink the consensus once reached by the Global South in the second half of the 20th century amid global crises? These questions concern how to define Africa’s subjectivity within the overall global picture and lead to an understanding of the multiple relationships between China, Africa, and the world. Based on these questions, African studies can transcend the “stamp-collecting research” of gathering information on each country one by one, transcend the “hasty research” produced quickly under policy advisory needs, truly break free from the path dependence of disciplinary thinking and the rigid research driven by tasks, and, by focusing on more important structures and relationships, achieve value-driven research, enabling knowledge production to generate new meaning.

中国的区域国别研究面临着在新的世界格局中重建全球思想体系的命题。只有坚持正确立场、明确研究方向，才能避免学科资源配置的条块分割、研究行动上的无意识复刻。比如，当研究者着手非洲研究，首先要思考的不是收集哪条信息、研究哪项政策的具体问题，而应该是关于如何认识非洲、如何理解全球南方的基本认识论问题。例如，“第三世界”到底是过时的概念，还是不断生成的全球实践？如何在全球危机中重新思考20世纪下半叶全球南方曾达成的认同？这些问题关涉如何在整体世界图景中界定非洲的主体性，并导向对中国—非洲—世界多重关系的理解。以这些问题为基础，非洲研究才能超越逐个搜集各国资讯的“集邮式研究”，超越由政策咨询需要而短时速成的“急就章研究”，真正突破学科思维的路径依赖和任务驱动的僵化研究，通过关注更重要的结构和关系实现研究的价值驱动，使知识生产生发出新的意义。

To achieve the autonomy of the knowledge system for area and country studies, it is necessary to quickly complete the disenchantment with the Western worldview, historical outlook, and its knowledge system, and to guide research practice with the goal of a holistic understanding of the research object. To accomplish this task, innovation in both theory and practice are mutually supportive and indispensable. Although there is a basic consensus on reflecting on Western-centrism, alternative discourses are still being explored. Theoretical discourses and concepts that possess both a Chinese standpoint and global communication potential, and that integrate Chinese and foreign elements, have not yet taken shape. Profound reflection and outstanding insight from the Chinese and Global South intellectual communities are urgently needed for theoretical innovation. Of course, theoretical discourse and research practice are in a constant dynamic of mutual construction, so it is equally important to drive the continuous renewal of conceptual understanding through research practice. We must vigorously support theoretical discussions and the rewriting of global history and global civilizational processes, enabling researchers to establish autonomous problem awareness, break through the performance-oriented thinking of research tasks, and endow knowledge actions with meaning through independent judgment. Use global concepts to adjust the support system for research resources, conduct comprehensive research on different modernization paths and diverse civilizations, excavate alternative narratives within the global picture and present their historical subjectivity. In terms of disciplinary pathways, autonomously apply knowledge and methods from various disciplines around the goal of comprehensively understanding the research object, avoiding falling into the transplantation of existing disciplinary paths or an obsession with the “scientificity” of a particular method. In talent cultivation, focus on reforming the curriculum, increase teaching and discussion on global history and diverse civilizations, stimulate students’ academic aspirations, and encourage them to grow into a solid reserve force for China’s area and country studies in the vast global arena.

实现区域国别学知识体系的自主性，必须尽快完成对西方世界观、历史观及其知识体系的祛魅，以对研究对象的整全性理解为目标来指导研究实践。要实现此任务，理论和实践两个方面的革故鼎新互为支撑、缺一不可。尽管反思西方中心主义已有基本共识，然而替代性话语仍在探索之中，兼具中国立场和全球传播潜力的、融通中外的理论话语和概念尚未成型，迫切需要中国与全球南方知识界以深刻思辨和卓绝洞察实现理论创新。当然，理论话语和研究实践是不断动态互构的，因而以研究实践驱动认识理念的持续更新同样重要。要大力支持全球历史和全球文明进程的理论研讨和重新书写，使研究者建立自主的问题意识，突破研究任务的绩效思维，以独立判断赋予知识行动以意义。以全球性观念调整科研资源的支持体系，对不同现代化道路和多元文明开展全面研究，在全球图景中挖掘替代性叙事并呈现其历史主体性。在学科路径上，围绕全面理解研究对象的目标，自主运用各个学科的知识和方法，避免陷入对既有学科的路径移植或对某一方法“科学性”的迷恋。在人才培育上，着力改革课程体系，增加全球历史和多元文明的教学研讨，激发学生的学术志趣，鼓励他们在全球的广阔天地中成长为中国区域国别研究的坚实后备力量。

Synergistically Advancing the Construction of an Independent Knowledge System

协同推进自主知识体系建构

In recent years, China’s research capacity and resources in area and country studies have seen an overall improvement; relatively speaking, international exchange remains rather limited. The influence of a knowledge system includes not only the consensus of a country’s researchers but also depends on whether it can achieve global dissemination and recognition. Only by synergistically advancing the domestic construction and international dissemination of an independent knowledge system can we avoid the lag and passivity in the construction of the international discourse system.

近年来，我国区域国别学的研究力量和研究资源已有了整体提升，相对而言，国际交流仍然较为有限。一套知识体系的影响力，不仅包括一国研究者的共识，还取决于其能否实现全球层面的传播和认同。唯有自主知识体系的国内建构和国际传播协同推进，才能避免国际话语体系建设的滞后和被动。

As a discipline that studies foreign civilizations, international engagement is not only an academic pathway for area and country studies to break through limitations of perspective and constraints of thought, but also an important channel for China’s global initiatives to establish bridges with the rich localized practices of various countries and achieve inclusive integration. First, international engagement will directly help researchers break out of self-referential cycles and information cocoons, understand cutting-edge developments in relevant fields, absorb useful ideas in the academic arena of diverse viewpoints and contention, optimize research design, strengthen problem awareness, and deepen research consciousness. This is particularly important in the early stages of discipline construction. Second, joint discussions and collaborative research with scholars from various countries facilitate the interactive fusion of subjectivity and intersubjectivity, promoting a holistic and comprehensive understanding of the research object through the mutual reference and cross-fertilization of perspectives, thereby providing possibilities for more extensive and universal theoretical innovation. Finally, an outward-oriented disciplinary construction path, using individual researchers and institutions as nodes, is the fundamental channel for connecting with overseas networks, radiating international influence, and building a global knowledge network. It is also an inevitable requirement for promoting deep exchange and generating discursive synergy among the Global South intellectual community.

作为以域外文明为研究对象的学科，国际交往不仅是区域国别研究突破视野局限和思维桎梏的学术路径，更是中国的全球性倡议与各国丰富的在地化实践建立桥接并实现兼容并蓄的重要渠道。首先，国际交往将直接助益研究者打破自我循环和圈层茧房、了解相关领域的前沿进展，在多元观点碰撞、交锋的学术场域中吸收有益思路，优化研究设计，强化问题意识，深化研究自觉。这一点在学科建设的初期阶段尤为重要。其次，与各国学者的共同研讨、合作研究，有助于主体性和主体间性的交互融合，以视角的互鉴互参推动对研究对象的整体性和全面性认识，为更具广泛性和普遍性的理论创新提供可能。最后，外向型的学科建设路径是以研究个体和机构为节点，联络海外人脉、辐射国际影响、构建全球知识网络的根本渠道，也是推动全球南方知识界深度交流、产生话语合力的必然要求。

Once an international knowledge network is constructed, it can expand through the spontaneous exchange of intellectuals, exerting a profound influence on the global discourse system. To construct an independent knowledge system for area and country studies within the existing configuration, it is necessary to consolidate research strength and value consensus through open international collaboration, and, through a knowledge pattern that embraces all rivers and a historical confidence that discerns true knowledge, reshape global discourse through dialogue.

一个国际性的知识网络一旦得以建构，便可经由知识分子的自发交流而扩大，对全球话语体系产生深远影响。若要在现有格局中建构区域国别学自主知识体系，就要以开放性的国际协作凝聚研究力量和价值共识，通过海纳百川的知识格局和明辨真知的历史自信，使知识体系在对话中实现全球话语的重塑。

To rectify what is right without seeking personal gain, to illuminate the Way without calculating its merits. [1]1 A classical Confucian maxim from Dong Zhongshu (c. 179–104 BCE), emphasizing moral rectitude over material gain. Constructing an independent knowledge system for area and country studies must transcend the knowledge needs of a single country, a single period, or a single policy, and carry out international academic exchange and cooperation. First, break the closed nature of the knowledge system and actively promote the intellectual community’s “borrowing a boat to go to sea.” [2]2 A Chinese idiom meaning to use others’ resources or platforms to advance one’s own goals, here referring to leveraging international academic networks. Through in-depth investigation of the academic lineages and research strengths of the philosophical and social sciences of various countries, identify research institutions and intellectuals with shared interests, and conduct research cooperation in diverse and flexible ways. Second, fully recognize that the subjective perspective of the research object is difficult for external researchers to replace; this is particularly prominent in the study of non-common languages and various civilizations, for example, Arab researchers well-versed in Islamic civilization, African scholars proficient in Swahili, and so on. Therefore, we should extensively engage with scholars from the countries under study and actively cooperate with them, in order to achieve complementary perspectives and mutual theoretical learning. Finally, on the basis of critique, make use of the research results of various countries for our own purposes. The research literature of the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, Belgium, Japan, and other countries contains a large number of anthropological observations and field records, which should also serve as material for Chinese researchers to reconstruct and reflect upon knowledge. It is particularly important to actively build international exchange platforms that serve the knowledge production of the Global South, stimulating the combined force of discourse expression from the Global South.

正其义不谋其利,明其道不计其功。建构区域国别学自主知识体系，必须超越一国、一时、一策的知识需要，开展国际学术交流与合作。首先，打破知识体系的封闭性，积极推动知识界“借船出海”。通过对各国哲学社会科学学术脉络和研究力量的深入调研，挖掘具有共同旨趣的研究机构和知识分子，以多样、灵活的方式开展研究合作。其次，充分认识到研究对象的主体视角是外来研究者难以取代的，这在非通用语和各文明研究中尤为突出，例如谙熟伊斯兰文明的阿拉伯裔研究者、通晓斯瓦希里语的非洲学者等。因此，应广泛接触对象国学者并积极与之合作，以实现视角互补和理论互鉴。最后，在批判的基础上将各国研究成果为我所用。美国、法国、德国、英国、俄罗斯、比利时、日本等国的研究文献包含大量的人类学观察和田野记录，这也应成为中国研究者进行知识重构和反思的素材。尤为重要的是积极搭建服务于全球南方知识生产的国际性交流平台，激发全球南方话语表达的合力。

Promoting Paradigm Innovation in Social Science Research through Area and Country Studies

以区域国别研究推动社会科学的研究范式创新

The philosophical and social sciences bear the intellectual mission of responding to historical changes and interpreting the logic of the world. However, because China’s existing discourse system is, to a certain extent, influenced by the Western knowledge system in terms of values, theoretical lineages, conceptual models, discourse expression, and disciplinary divisions, disciplinary reform and the generation of original discourse face certain difficulties. To this end, exploration and transformation are needed at the levels of disciplinary setup, research perspectives, and theoretical methods, laying a foundation for the reconfiguration of disciplinary resources and theoretical innovation.

哲学社会科学肩负着回应历史变化、诠释世界逻辑的知识使命。然而，由于我国既有话语体系在价值观念、理论脉络、概念模型、话语表达、学科分工上受到西方知识体系的一定影响，学科改革以及原创话语的生成面临一些困难。为此，需要从学科设置、研究视野、理论方法等层面进行探索与变革，推动学科资源重新配置，为理论创新打好基础。

The newly established discipline of area and country studies happens to possess the advantage of serving as a test field for the reform of the philosophical and social sciences. It can, to a certain extent, stimulate the vitality of innovation and transformation in the humanities and social sciences, integrating the knowledge achievements of various disciplines into a holistic picture of the research object. If area and country studies can break through the constraints of existing disciplinary structures and discourse systems, explore institutional mechanisms for optimizing the allocation of research resources, encourage original research with autonomous problem awareness, transcend evaluation systems based on quantification, and drive knowledge integration and theoretical innovation, then it can provide a useful reference for promoting the overall development of China’s social sciences.

新近成立的区域国别学科，恰好具备作为哲学社会科学改革试验田的优势，能在一定程度上激发起人文社会科学创新与变革的活力，将各学科的知识成果整合成一份关于研究对象的整体图景。如果区域国别研究能够打破既有学科建制和话语体系的限制，探索优化研究资源配置的体制机制，鼓励具备自主问题意识的原创研究，超越以量化为尺度的评价体系，驱动知识整合和理论创新，那就可以为推动中国社会科学的整体发展提供有益参照。

The exploration of paradigm innovation by the research subject should become the source and driving force for constructing an independent knowledge system for area and country studies. In terms of research philosophy, we must strive for autonomous problem awareness, avoid replicating the problem perspectives and object preferences of mainstream international research, and endeavor to reveal objects that are obscured and neglected in the global picture; conduct in-depth research on the research object, seeking perspectives for independent expression from its historical evolution and development process. In terms of research methods, organize research with the goal of a holistic understanding of foreign civilizations, achieve autonomy in knowledge acquisition through localized field research, and avoid treating information collected by previous scholars and existing achievements as a priori premises and intellectual dogmas; respect the subjectivity of the research object, driving the deepening of understanding. This means not only incorporating the verbal expressions of interview subjects in the collection of materials but also, based on the analysis of individuals and cases, excavating the subjectivity of the historical traditions and cultural characteristics of each region and country. In terms of research forces, promote the diversification of the disciplinary composition of research institutions, closely carry out research collaboration around the same object, and explore theoretical innovation that breaks disciplinary boundaries; actively introduce talents with international backgrounds and global perspectives, promoting the diversity of cultural backgrounds among research forces.

研究主体的范式创新探索应成为建构区域国别学自主知识体系的源泉和动力。在研究理念上，务求自主的问题意识，避免复刻国际主流研究的问题视角和对象偏好，力求揭示在全球图景中被遮蔽和忽视的对象；开展对研究对象的深度研究，从其历史演进和发展进程中寻找独立表达的视角。在研究方法上，以对域外文明的整全性理解为目标组织研究，以在地化调研实现知识获取的自主性，避免将以往学者搜集的资讯和既有成果奉为先验前提和知识圭臬；尊重研究对象的主体性，驱动认识不断深入。这不仅意味着在素材搜集中吸纳采访对象的言语表述，而且意味着基于对个体和个案的剖析，挖掘各区域国别历史传统和文化特征的主体性。在研究力量上，推动科研机构学科构成的多元化，围绕同一对象紧密开展科研协作，探索打破学科界限的理论创新；积极引进具有国际背景和全球视野的人才，促进研究力量文化背景的多样性。

The dialectical unity of articulating China and articulating the world needs to embody a high degree of integration between China’s autonomy and the universality of discourse in the construction of an independent knowledge system. In international expression, explore original expressions of concepts, terminology, and discourse narratives, avoid mechanically copying existing expressions or swallowing foreign things uncritically, use a mindset that integrates China and foreign countries to excavate resources for dialogue within Chinese and Western traditions, and strive for seeking common ground while reserving differences in theoretical philosophical thinking. In resource allocation and evaluation systems, innovate sharply, promote the tilting of research resources toward original and autonomous achievements, accelerate the cultivation of research talent through journals, projects, seminars, and other means; take root in China’s historical traditions, academic lineages, and development paths, avoid blind transplantation of foreign models and superstition about international publication channels. In the exploration of paradigm change, actively carry out academic community discussions, summarize effective models and experiences truly suitable for China’s philosophical and social sciences in exchange, in order to promote the innovation diffusion of typical practices.

表述中国和表述世界的辩证统一需要在自主知识体系的建构中体现中国自主性和话语普遍性的高度统合。在国际表达上，探索概念术语和话语叙事的原创性表达，避免对既有表述的照抄照搬和食洋不化，以融通中外的思维挖掘中西传统中的对话资源，力求理论哲思的求同存异。在资源配置和评价体系上，锐意创新，推动研究资源向原创性和自主性成果倾斜，以期刊、课题、研讨等方式加速科研人才培育；植根中国的历史传统、学术脉络和发展路径，避免对国外模式的盲目移植和对国际发表渠道的迷信。在范式变革的探索中，积极开展学术共同体研讨，在交流中总结真正适合中国哲学社会科学的有效模式和经验，以推动典型实践的创新扩散。

The independent knowledge system of area and country studies takes promoting international collaboration and forming global consensus as an important path, and strives to continuously reach new realms of cognition through the mutual construction and spiral ascent of theory and practice. Driven by such epistemology and problem awareness, China’s independent knowledge system will transcend the artificial embellishment of fashionable concepts and novel terms, avoid losing the substance for the shadow due to excessive focus on fragmented clues and individual cases, truly transcend superficial dialogue, and arrive at the theoretical destination of mutual learning among civilizations through deep dialogue and intellectual exchange on the cultural traditions, development paths, and modernization concepts of various regions and countries.

区域国别学自主知识体系以推动国际协作、形成全球共识为重要路径，并力求在理论与实践的互构互建和螺旋上升中不断达成认知的新境界。以这样的认识论和问题意识为驱动，中国自主的知识体系将超越对时髦概念和新颖语词的造作雕饰，避免因过度聚焦碎片线索和个案导致的舍本逐末，真正超越浅表性对话，以各区域国别文化传统、发展道路、现代化理念的深层对话和思想交流抵达文明交流互鉴的理论归宿。

(Author: Zhai Xiufeng, Associate Researcher at the Institute of Area and Country Studies, Capital Normal University)

（作者：翟秀凤，系首都师范大学国别区域研究院副研究员）

Online Editor: Huihui

网络编辑：慧慧