The 10th lecture of the seminar series “Autonomous Knowledge System Construction and New Perspectives in Area Studies" was held at Peking University (PKU) on December 13. Entitled “Questions on developing an Autonomous Knowledge System for Area Studies: Research and Reflection on the Modern History of the Central Asian Steppe,” the lecture was delivered by Shi Yue, assistant professor of the School of Foreign Languages, PKU, and moderated by Zan Tao, deputy director of the Institute of Area Studies (PKUIAS). Mao Keji, assistant research fellow of the Strategic Research Division of the Center for International Cooperation of the National Development and Reform Commission, Zhang Yongle, deputy director of PKUIAS, Feng Kaidong, associate professor of PKU’s School of Government, Yang Meng, assistant professor of PKU’s School of Foreign Languages, and Dong Yu, post-doctoral fellow of PKU’s Department of History, as well as other faculty members and students from various departments participated in the discussion.
Focusing on the theme of developing China’s autonomous knowledge system, Shi Yue started with an interpretation of the key concept of autonomous knowledge system of area studies, and mainly explored how to construct the autonomous system from two perspectives, the construction of the discipline of area studies and the study of the modern history of Central Asia. With the Ministry of Education identifying area studies as a first-level discipline under the cross-disciplinary category in 2022, the core debate in the academic community has shifted to whether it is necessary to build a theoretical system for area studies. To respond, Shi Yue approached the topic from the three dimensions of the interpretation of science, the definition of disciplines and the meaning of theories, pointing out that in the field of natural sciences, not all disciplines have overarching theories, and in the fields of chemistry, biology and medicine, the construction of axiomatic systems may not necessarily help to promote new scientific discoveries or invention of new technologies. From the history of science, the key factor driving the development of science and disciplines is usually not the axiomatic system covering the whole discipline, but the urgent practical demands of major political and economic problems, the innovation and modification of technological tools, and the intellectual innovation of human beings. Therefore, the adaptation of observation, measurement and computation tools, the iteration of their use, the rethinking of basic concepts, the updating of the way of describing phenomena, and the proposal of new classifications are scientific advances as important as the generalization of new laws and the formulation of new theories, and should be regarded as innovative academic work. In contrast, the main significance of constructing an overarching theory lies in recording, organizing and disseminating scientific results, and promoting the exchange of information between different disciplines, and may not necessarily have a direct role in promoting the above activities.
The view of science in the natural sciences has implications for the social sciences, which try to emulate the natural sciences, and for the humanities, which are heavily influenced by the social sciences. In the case of area studies, over-emphasis on the construction of an overarching theory (which can be tentatively called “theory-centrism”) has at least two negative impacts: first, this orientation essentially excludes the academic value of a great deal of academic work, such as language learning, accumulation of knowledge of the documentary community, translating, editing and proofreading of materials, review of research progress at home and abroad, and so on.
Second, this orientation tends to make researchers understand academic research as the application of case studies of overarching theories, which leads to the over-exhaustion of researchers’ energy in the digestion and application of theoretical discourse systems, while relatively neglecting the examination of the accuracy and traceability of knowledge. This makes researchers even less likely to pay attention to the exploration and accumulation of ancient and modern Chinese and Western knowledge which is even lower in terms of the cost-effectiveness ratio. It is not easy to pay attention to the accumulation of knowledge of ancient, modern, Chinese and Western knowledge, which is less cost-effective. In the long run, although it is worthwhile to pursue an overarching discipline theory, it is not advisable to overemphasize the significance of a covering discipline theory, and it should not be used as a reason for deciding whether the discipline should be retained or abolished. From this point of view, the discipline of foreign languages is basic knowledge beyond the meaning of “tools” for area studies. If we take Asia, Africa and Latin America, especially countries with low English dominance, as the object of discussion, foreign languages are not only the equivalent of “observation and measurement tools” for science and technology, but also the intellectual basis for reflecting on basic concepts, raising new questions and establishing new ways of categorizing.
According to Shi Yue, the purpose of the development of area studies is, on the one hand, to help the decision-making and executive departments to grasp the political situation of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the developing countries more accurately, and on the other, to explain the history and the present of the developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America in a more in-depth and comprehensive way, so as to support the development of an autonomous knowledge system of philosophical and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. Obviously, the above tasks cannot be fully undertaken by the area studies institutions at universities, and there exists an “industrial chain” for the production and consumption of area studies knowledge in which multiple sectors of society cooperate. The fundamental task of university education is to promote moral education, that is, to provide specialized talent in the relevant “industrial sectors.” Therefore, when discussing the development of area studies in colleges and universities, it is necessary to distinguish at least four types of training, including literature researchers, field researchers, practitioners in applied research departments and practitioners in government agencies, enterprises and institutions. While producing new knowledge, the construction of area studies also needs to consider the cultivation of excellent talent who can adapt to today’s society in a systemic way. Shi Yue also proposed four aspects of talent development -- foreign languages, local knowledge, disciplinary training and policy vision.
The study of modern Central Asian history is not only about clarifying historical facts, but also about contemporary concerns. The study of Central Asia is strategically related to the security of China’s borders, the westward land corridor, and the diversification of energy and mineral imports, and also has a dual orientation in terms of a community of neighboring destinies and the Chinese national community. To build an autonomous knowledge system of area studies in Central Asian studies, we need to be wary of the dependence on both Russian and English literature, and we also need to transcend the Soviet view of nationhood and the contemporary Western view of pluralism, and build linguistic and paradigmatic autonomy based on China’s standpoint. Taking Wang Zhilai, the author of A General History of Central Asia, as an example, Shi Yue specifically discussed the importance of mastering multiple languages in Central Asian studies, the necessity of reading multiple documentary texts, and recalled Wang Zhilai’s impressive response to the country’s call to fight for the right of international discourse. Shi Yue then discussed his new book History of the Conquest of the Russian Steppe: From Orenburg to Tashkent, which involves topics spanning the collection and summarization of historical materials, the methodology of the North-South division of Central Asia, the bibliography of historical materials in Central Asian studies and the compiling of terminology and transliteration systems.
During the discussion session, the participating scholars exchanged views on issues related to area studies and Central Asian studies. Zan Tao said that area studies should set up correct “views” and sort out the valuable spiritual wealth left by predecessors. Zhang Yongle affirmed Shi Yue’s thinking on the “autonomous knowledge system” of area studies, and said that Shi Yue’s exploration in sorting out and inheriting the academic tradition of the country is inspiring for the area studies of PKU to establish its own academic history narrative. Feng Kaidong said that the construction of a contemporary theoretical system should be concerned with China rather than making the West the priority. Mao Keji’s example of Indian studies in the last century showed that area studies should be oriented to practice and solve practical problems. Dong Yu agreed with Shi Yue that contemporary Central Asian studies should also not presuppose Western and ancestral studies as authoritative. Yang Meng discussed with Shi Yue research on Jews in Central Asia. Shi Yue concluded by saying that building an autonomous knowledge system of area studies does not mean reducing the learning and borrowing of area studies from other countries, nor does it mean going back to traditional Chinese systems and cultures, but rather it means believing that one is the main body of labor and creation, and is able to consciously use rationality to think about the problems one creates, and to formulate and choose the rules that one abides by.
