NI Feng: China’s American Studies-Evolution, Characteristics and Prospects
The goal of building an independent knowledge system for American Studies is to forge a new knowledge paradigm rooted in China, grounded in a deep understanding of America.
Welcome to the 77th edition of our weekly newsletter! I am SUN Chenghao, a senior fellow with the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University, Council Member of The Chinese Association of American Studies and a visiting scholar at the Paul Tsai China Center of Yale Law School (fall 2024).
ChinAffairsplus shares Chinese academic articles focused on topics such as China’s foreign policy, China-U.S. relations, China-European relations, and more. This newsletter was co-founded by me and my research assistant, ZHANG Xueyu.
Through carefully selected Chinese academic articles, we aim to provide you with key insights into the issues that China’s academic and strategic communities are focused on. We will highlight why each article matters and the most important takeaways. Questions or criticisms may be addressed to sch0625@gmail.com
Today, we have selected an article written by NI Feng on China’s American Studies.
Summary
In recent years, China’s research on area studies and the construction of an independent knowledge system have developed rapidly and yielded substantial results. China’s American Studies is a specialized field devoted to the systematic observation and understanding of the U.S. in all its dimensions, including China-U.S. relations. Its developmental trajectory reflects the evolution of modern Chinese scholarship and the continuous deepening of China’s understanding of the outside world.
However, China’s American Studies still faces several developmental bottlenecks, which call for coordinated efforts in research paradigms, disciplinary integration, talent development, and knowledge system construction.
Why It Matters
In 2022, area studies was officially established as a first-level discipline in China, laying a stronger institutional basis for the field within the national academic system. The core significance of this move lies in constructing China’s independent knowledge system to inform national strategy.
China-U.S. relations are widely regarded as one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world. Given this context, China’s American Studies has gained renewed significance as a field that seeks to systematically understand the U.S. and China-U.S. relations through interdisciplinary and comprehensive approaches.
It aims to develop a deeper understanding of the complex social and political dynamics of the U.S., grasp the underlying logic of its behavior, and respond to the practical challenges of China-U.S. relations, as well as the strategic need to rejuvenate the Chinese nation. Against this backdrop, this article critically reviews the achievements and limitations of China’s American Studies and offers reflections on the construction of this evolving field.
Key Points
From Learning to Strategic Response and Disciplinary Subjectivity
Origins and Foundation Building (1949-late 1970s)
During this period, China’s American Studies was highly integrated into international situation assessments and foreign policy decision-making support. It was characterized by strong practical orientation and a degree of confidentiality. First, it focused on intelligence analysis and strategic assessment. The central task of research was to accurately assess U.S. intentions toward China and the trajectory of its policies. Second, early academic work began to take shape, especially in American history and the history of China-U.S. relations. Universities and research institutions began to conduct foundational studies on American history and the history of China-U.S. relations, laying the groundwork for later development of the discipline.
Institutionalization and the Rise of a Research System (late 1970s-early 1990s)
China’s reform and opening up, combined with the formal establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the U.S., provided both motivation and conditions for developing American Studies. This period was marked by three major developments. First, the establishment of core research institutions. For example, the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was founded in 1981. Specialized journals such as American Studies were launched. Second, the expansion of university-based research networks. Several leading universities established American Studies centers, drawing on strengths in history, political science, and international relations to form distinctive research orientations. Third, the broadening and deepening of research perspectives. Research agendas gradually expanded from China-U.S. relations and U.S. foreign policy to include domestic political institutions, economic models, history, and culture. Many American academic works and theoretical writings began to be introduced into China.
Expansion and Deepening Phase (early 1990s-2017)
Following the end of the Cold War and China’s accelerated integration into the world, American Studies entered a period of diversified expansion. In terms of research agendas, studies rapidly expanded from traditional “high politics” fields such as history, politics, and economics to “low politics” areas including society, culture, ethnicity, and religion, with the aim of constructing a comprehensive, panoramic understanding of the U.S. In terms of research networks, a structure centered on state institutions, affiliated research institutes, universities, and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences system gradually took shape. In terms of methodology, scholars consciously introduced theories and methods from established disciplines such as international relations, political science, economics, sociology, history, and cultural studies, undertaking mid-range theoretical construction and case-based analysis.
Transformation and Innovation Phase (2017-present)
With the U.S. clearly shifting its China policy toward “strategic competition”, China’s American Studies has entered a new stage focused on responding to major-power competition and developing innovative research approaches. First, this phase is marked by an unprecedented strengthening of problem consciousness, with a sharper focus on real-world concerns and policy orientation. Issues such as “America First”“decoupling” “de-risking” and “U.S. technology containment of China” have rapidly become central topics of scholarly analysis. Second, understanding of internal changes in the U.S. has enhanced, including “political polarization”“culture wars” and “identity politics”. Third, self-awareness within the discipline has increased. China’s American Studies actively explores new interdisciplinary approaches, aiming to construct an independent knowledge system of American Studies with China’s characteristics.
Strategic Alignment, Real-Time Agenda Tracking, and Dual Research Perspectives
Main Characteristics: Alignment with Strategic Needs, Emphasis on Dynamic and Strategic Agendas, and Duality of Research Perspectives
First, China’s American Studies is closely aligned with national strategic needs and has consistently focused on major strategic priorities of national development. For example, scholars’ attention to the Taiwan question stems from the fact that it is the most important and sensitive issue in China-U.S. relations. Similarly, Chinese research on the U.S. Congress began in the context of the 1995 Taiwan Strait crisis.. Research on intellectual property rights was also closely linked to negotiations between China and the U.S. over China’s accession to the WTO.
Second, there is a strong focus on dynamic developments and strategic issues. Chinese scholars have long paid attention to major debates within U.S. political, academic, and strategic circles, such as “economic globalization”, the thesis of “end of history” “clash of civilizations”“soft power”“smart power” and the “Thucydides Trap”. Through these discussions, scholars seek to understand shifts in U.S. strategic thinking while engaging in dialogue with American and international counterparts. In addition, China has continuously tracked the evolution of U.S. global strategy. For instance, the Clinton administration’s “enlargement and engagement”, the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia”, the Trump administration’s “trade war” and its strategy of great-power competition during the first term. China has also maintained close attention to changes in U.S. domestic politics, such as the 2008 financial crisis, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the Tea Party movement. Related research has often developed in near real time alongside these events, responding promptly to emerging concerns.
Third, there is a duality of research perspectives and an increasing methodological pluralism driven by interdisciplinary exploration. Research perspectives operate on two levels: first, an effort to understand the U.S. in itself - that is, what the U.S. is; and second, an inquiry into the relationship between the U.S., China, and the wider world - that is, what the U.S. means for China and for the world. The latter perspective has increasingly become more prominent. Ultimately, American Studies in China converges on the question of the challenges the U.S. poses to China and China’s responses to them. As understanding deepens, scholars have come to recognize that no single discipline is sufficient to grasp the complexity of a superpower. As a result, interdisciplinary integration has become a consensus within the field.
Developmental Bottlenecks: Insufficient High-Quality Works, Limited Theoretical and Methodological Innovation, Disconnect between Research and Public Understanding...
Compared with the goal of building a mature and independent knowledge system, China’s American Studies still faces several developmental bottlenecks.
First, many studies remain descriptive and policy-responsive, and high-quality scholarly works are insufficient. Many studies are limited to immediate descriptions of changes in U.S. policies and corresponding policy-response analyses, with insufficient exploration of underlying historical and cultural roots. As a result, there is a lack of deep, long-term structural explanations with strong analytical penetration.
Second, theoretical and methodological innovation remains limited. In terms of research methods, although quantitative research and data analysis have been strengthened, the field is still in the process of exploring how to organically integrate the holistic perspective and dialectical thinking rooted in China’s traditional scholarly approaches into modern scientific methods, to form a distinctive methodological framework.
Third, there is a disconnect between academic research, policymaking, and public understanding. Effective channels for disseminating high-quality academic findings to the public remain limited, and the discipline has not fully played its role in guiding rational public understanding of the United States or shaping public opinion on U.S.-related issues.
Fourth, interdisciplinary integration remains relatively shallow. In practice, political science, economics, history, and sociology largely continue to operate in parallel rather than in deep integration.
Fifth, there is a shortage of talent and room for improvement in training mechanisms. The overall scale of China’s American Studies community remains insufficient, and talent cultivation mechanisms remain narrow and insufficiently systematic.
Reflections on Constructing an Independent Knowledge System in Social Science
Emphasizing a China-Centered Perspective
A China-centered research agenda is the foundation of an independent knowledge system. Agenda-setting should proceed from China’s national interests, development needs, and security concerns, rather than simply following topics set by American academia. Researchers should draw on China’s historical experience, philosophical thinking, and practical standpoint to produce original knowledge about the U.S. that can engage in dialogue with the international academic community.
Promoting a Profound Transformation of Research Paradigms
First, strengthening problem consciousness. Research should focus on changes within the U.S., with particular attention to internal divisions, crises, and conflicts. Existing knowledge should be updated in response to these developments. Second, strengthening comparative politics and transnational perspectives. The U.S. should be examined within a broader global context. Third, deepening historical, cultural, and ideational research, to understand the logic of U.S. behavior through its historical trajectory. Fourth, encouraging the application of interdisciplinary approaches and emerging methods. Big data, artificial intelligence, and other tools can be used to analyze U.S. public opinion, politics, and elections, while integrating economic models to form a comprehensive analytical toolkit. Fifth, placing greater emphasis on fieldwork and primary sources. Through on-site visits, archival research, and elite interviews, scholars can obtain deeper insights that go beyond publicly available reports.Strengthening the Three Pillars of Discipline, Data, and Talent
First, promoting interdisciplinary integration. Relying on area studies as a foundation, research institutions and universities should genuinely establish research centers and training programs that break down disciplinary boundaries. Second, building independent and authoritative databases and case libraries. Systematically collecting, organizing, and translating primary materials on U.S. politics, economy, and society is essential. Third, innovating talent training models for interdisciplinary professionals. Emphasis should be placed on the integration of foreign language proficiency, disciplinary theory, area knowledge, research methods, and cross-cultural practice.At the same time, more flexible “revolving door” mechanisms should be explored, allowing scholars to gain experience in policy and practice-oriented institutions. Likewise, experienced practitioners from diplomacy, trade, and public communication fields should be encouraged to bring their practical experience into classrooms and research settings. Support should also be given to a more diverse range of research actors.
Actively Participating In and Guiding the Formation of International Academic Discourse
Chinese scholars should engage more confidently on the international academic stage, contribute Chinese conceptual frameworks to global discussions, and conduct equal, rational dialogue and cooperation with international peers, while actively helping to shape the agenda of global American Studies.
Conclusion
The goal of building an independent knowledge system for American Studies is to forge a new knowledge paradigm rooted in China, grounded in a deep understanding of the U.S., and capable of integrating Chinese and international perspectives. This requires a more confident and composed mindset, systematically analyzing the complex internal structure of the U.S. while continuously reflecting on and defining China’s own position and methodological approach as the research subject, thereby providing important intellectual support for interpreting changes in the U.S. and shaping China-U.S. relations.
About the Author
NI Feng (倪峰): Senior Research Fellow, PhD supervisor, Former Director of the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), and President of the Chinese Association for American Studies (CAAS). His main research interests include U.S. domestic politics and China–U.S. relations.
About the Publication
The Chinese version of the article was published by the Journal of University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (《中国社会科学院大学学报》). The journal, administered by the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), was founded in 1981, at the early stage of China’s reform and opening up. The journal publishes academic articles by leading scholars and experts from China and abroad, with a focus on studies addressing major contemporary theoretical and practical issues.
