The 12th lecture of the Master Salon series hosted by the Institute of Area Studies, Peking University (PKUIAS) was held on March 24, 2025. The lecture was delivered by Prof. Zhao Dingxin, dean of the Zhejiang University Institute for Advanced Study in Humanities and Social Sciences. The theme of the lecture was “Area Studies and Historical Sociology."
The session was moderated by Prof. Zhang Yongle, deputy director of PKUIAS. Among the attendees were Prof. Zhang Changdong from School of Government, Associate Professor Tian Geng from Department of Sociology, Associate Professor Wang Liping from the Graduate School of Education, Associate Professor Zhuang Yu from Department of History, Associate Professor Guo Jie and Assistant Professor Chen Muyang from School of International Studies, and Assistant Professor Xie Kankan and Assistant Professor Yang Meng from School of Foreign Languages. Also present were Kong Tao, director of the Research Division at the Chinese Social Sciences Survey Center of PKU and Prof. You Mi from the University of Kassel, Germany, who participated in the discussion.
The lecture systematically reviewed the historical origins, international development context, and academic evaluation system of area studies, as well as its theoretical connection with historical sociology. It made note of key problems and gave theoretical references for the future development of area studies in China.
Prof. Zhao Dingxin first reviewed the origin of area studies, emphasizing how it had been deeply influenced by colonial era exploration activities. Area studies initially began in the early 19th century with geographical and ethnographic exploration and gradually developed into an academic field serving national strategies. After World War II, particularly during the Cold War period, area studies became an important component of the American academic system, gradually becoming a resource for the formulation of national security and foreign policy. Prof. Zhao Dingxin specifically mentioned that area studies in the US were not merely academic explorations; they were also closely linked to national policy-making., Through their in-depth studies of important regions around the world, scholars indirectly advanced the US’s foreign and strategic planning.
When analyzing how to evaluate the quality of a country’s area studies, Prof. Zhao Dingxin proposed three key indicators: first, the number and scale of area studies institutions and their personnel; second, the status and recognition of the field within mainstream disciplines; third, the influence of the country’s area studies among scholars in the target countries. He pointed out that while China has made significant progress in establishing area studies institutions, challenges still exist in terms of global perspective and theoretical originality. Prof. Zhao Dingxin particularly noted that area studies in China often emphasize “Chinese particularities” and lack necessary international comparative perspectives, which is especially evident in certain fields, such as religious and cultural studies.
He further discussed the performance of American sociology, history, anthropology, and other disciplines in area studies, pointing out that the degree of participation by different disciplines varied. History is relatively well-developed in area studies, especially the dual appointment model between “home research” and main disciplines, which greatly promotes the in-depth development of the discipline. In contrast, sociology and economics have a weaker influence in area studies, although their home disciplines are well-developed. He argued that area studies should strengthen interdisciplinary integration to break the limitations of a single discipline and promote more comprehensive academic progress.
Finally, Prof. Zhao Dingxin delved into the relationship between area studies and historical sociology. He opined that the core value of historical sociology in area studies lay in its structural and mechanistic analysis, especially under the guidance of a historical perspective, in understanding how structural forces in historical change had driven overall trends and diversity in various regions. He emphasized that the essence of historical sociology lay in combining historical perspectives with structural analysis, particularly strengthening ontological awareness of historical perspectives, expanding historical depth, and enhancing cross-regional comparative research. He stressed that different historical perspectives had a profound impact on the direction and methods of academic research, so researchers must consciously examine their own historical perspectives in order to conduct more in-depth and broad academic exploration.
During the discussion session, Zhang Changdong explored the differences between political science and sociology in area studies, highlighting the importance of comparative politics in the study of major countries and emphasizing the significance of interdisciplinary approaches to the study of regions such as Africa, West Africa, and Southeast Asia. He advocated for broadening research topics. Chen Muyang explored the effectiveness and international evaluation of China’s development financing model, pointing out that the cognitive framework provided by Western academia greatly influenced the evaluation of China’s practices. Xie Kankan discussed the relationship between cultural confidence and cultural hegemony, reflecting on China’s international academic dissemination from the perspective of the American experience. Wang Liping focused on the tension between historical sociology and area studies, sharing his own challenges within the academic framework and raising the issue of how to shape independent consciousness in area studies. You Mi pointed out the differences in academic development between European and American academia, discussing how Europe’s independent academic methods and topics could offer valuable lessons for China’s area studies, and advocating for more attention to European academic experience within the country.
Prof. Zhao Dingxin responded to each participant’s questions, and in so doing, further explored interdisciplinary research methods and the potential for the development of Chinese academia.
