ABSTRACT
Introduction China Studies in Taiwan have played an important part in the whole international China Studies field due to Taiwan’s geographical and cultural proximity to the mainland. Its extraordinary sensitivity to the patterns and changes of the PRC’s elite politics and foreign policy was once a precious asset for Taipei’s Western partners. In addition to the familiarity gained by the shared culture and experiences during a seven-decade-long conflict, another advantage of Taiwan is its China expertise, which can be divided into two major approaches. The first approach, the so-called “traditional approach”, features a deep comprehension of Chinese history and the internal politics of the Communist Party of China (CPC). A few veteran members of this approach were in fact defected Communists from the CPC. The research findings by this approach were internationally influential as they correctly predicted major events like the Sino-Soviet conflict and the downfall of the Gang of Four. The second approach, the so-called “scientific approach”, started in the late 1980s as a natural result of returning social scientists educated in the West, mainly in Taipei’s top ally the United States. Equipped with American social sciences theories, scholars of this approach have produced quality books and papers recognized by their Western colleagues (Chiu and Chang 2013: 439-440). Taiwan’s unique political and cultural status and its intellectual endowments empowered by these two approaches mean that a Taiwanese perspective on the debates and emergence of a Chinese School of IR can provide some added value in critically evaluating this intellectual endeavor across the Taiwan Strait. Meanwhile, considering the context of time and space, a Taiwanese perspective on the Chinese School also stands out by having an edge in both mainstream IRT’s scientific training and familiarity with Chinese history and culture.2
To paraphrase Robert Cox (1986, 1996), the conventional IR knowledge on China’s IR should correspond to such a context of time and space. However, as Peter M. Kristensen puts it in his chapter of this volume, Chinese IR was virtually “imported” from the United States, which dominates conventional IR. The rapid change of China’s position and identity nowadays have made conventional knowledge, of mainstream IRT in particular, increasingly debatable, if not arbitrary. In this regard, three chapters in this volume contributed by scholars from Taiwan have demonstrated Taiwan’s intellectual competitiveness. I maintain that such a unique intellectual position will continue to contribute to reflective interpretations of Chinese history, culture and international politics. One other compelling reason to offer a Taiwanese perspective refers to Taiwan’s identity. Taiwan embraces both an identity force of estrangement and a relational opportunity of reconnection in regard to China. A growing “postChinese identity” in Taiwan may facilitate the agency of Taiwanese authors for critical reflections and innovations with historical sympathy to the construction of a Chinese School. For example, Shih Chih-yu’s distinction between “ethnic Chineseness” of Southeast Asian intellectuals to sensitize difference and hybridity and “cultural Chineseness” of Northeast Asian intellectuals to pursue cultural centrality is a good initiative in studying how the evolving Chinese identity globally will facilitate scholarly debates (Shih 2005, 2015). A post-Chinese identity, registered in the intellectual capacity to creatively tap into shared cultural and historical resources, enables reconnection among Chinese or China scholars each in accordance with their strategic decisions. When reviewing the Chinese School as an intellectual endeavor, a Taiwanese perspective hence promotes dialogues between evolving Chinese identities un-owned by any national projects, and will be readily accessible to Chinese and China scholars anywhere. The rest of this chapter provides a reflective review of the debates integral in the evolution and emergence of a Chinese School of IR. Analytically, it focuses on three issues of debate. It starts with a critical review of the search for central problematiques in constructing a putative Chinese School of IR. This is followed by a review of methodological and ontological debates among Chinese scholars in this endeavor. The third section moves to discuss intellectual and physical resources and constraints in the construction of a Chinese School of IR. The final and concluding section offers my evaluation of the prospect of constructing a Chinese School of IR as an intellectual project, with my suggestions for moving this project forward. The analysis of this chapter is in part based on my ongoing project, launched in 2009 with support of the “Database of Journal Articles of Chinese IRT (1996-2014)”. Another supporting source are my in-depth interviews conducted with senior Chinese IR scholars between 2010 and 2012. In addition, insightful Taiwanese studies directly or indirectly referring to Chinese IRT have been indispensable building blocks of my study. I will include my reflections on their scholarship, where appropriate.
