2025年11月1日，北京大学燕京学堂和康奈尔大学列文森中国与亚太研究项目在北大静园三院联合主办了题为“在中国研究中国”（Study China IN China) 的研讨会，围绕在地研究的必要性与多元发展路径展开深入交流。
燕京学堂院长董强由于在外地出差，未能出席上午的开幕仪式。他于当天专程赶回，参加下午的总结环节并发言。他回顾了在欧美汉学界曾经出现的“从中国内部视角研究中国”的范式转变，提出“在中国研究中国”可以被称为是在此前基础上的又一次范式转变。时代在变化，当今全球的人文、社科学界，应当联合起来，共同应对AI及其他因素带来的挑战。“在中国研究中国”，与国家所提倡的“世界的中国学”并行不悖、相辅相成。他相信，燕京学堂与参加论坛的其他同行机构所共同推行的学科建设和在地化实践，必将为“世界的中国学”提供源源不断的资源和人才。
现将董强院长的总结发言发布如下。因现场发言为英文，英文稿一并附于后。
各位亲爱的同仁:
请允许我再次代表燕京学堂欢迎各位。抱歉因为我不得不去外地参加了另外一个学术论坛，时间上冲突了，所以缺席了上午的开幕式。尤其要感谢大家，在百忙之中，在一个周末前来参加会议，尽管我得承认，这个时段是北京最美的秋季，值得各位一来。感谢学堂的名誉院长袁明教授代替我接待各位，虽然即便我在，也会请她来帮我，因为备受尊重和爱戴的袁老师一定做得比我好。感谢康奈尔大学，感谢徐昕老师，大家知道，康奈尔大学与北大的20年合作是发起这次研讨会的契机，而这二十年中的第二个十年，有很重要的一部分就是徐昕老师跟袁老师、范老师和其他老师一道，精心构建起了CIT课程。这一课程得到多方面的认可，最近又获了一个奖。特别感谢范士明老师和学堂的团队，在这么短的时间内组织起这次研讨会。这次研讨会旨在提供一个机会，请大家共同讨论，分享自己的经验甚至教训，从而为学科建设提供可贵的新材料、新思路。所以感谢各位，也热烈祝贺研讨会获得圆满成功。
大家知道，对于“中国学”，我是一个门外汉，完全是因为袁老师和北大的信任，才接手了学堂的工作。而且由于最近太忙，更兼身体有恙，我没有时间静下心来考虑这个话题。但同时，我自从来到燕京学堂，就开始思考“中国学”的内涵，以及在学科发展上如何进一步推进，进一步深化。比方说，我曾经试图提出一个新的英语词，叫sinography，以区分于传统的sinology。这个词其实就像geography一样，需要学生和学者们去行走山川，丈量大地。接下来，请允许我跟大家分享我在飞机上匆匆写下的几点粗浅看法：
首先，关于“在中国研究中国”这个话题，我注意到，有许多杰出的汉学家都提出了要从中国的角度研究中国。
最近去世的美国汉学家柯文（Paul A. Cohen）引起了人们的关注，我也买了一些他的书，试图去了解他的“中国中心观”。柯文在《在中国发现历史——中国中心观在美国的兴起》中，批判了美国中国历史研究中传统的“冲击—回应”模式和“传统—近代”模式，主张从中国内部视角出发研究中国历史，强调要从中国自身的语言、文化和社会结构中寻找历史变革的逻辑，把中国历史的中心放在中国。这一观点为中国历史研究提供了新的思路和范式，推动了美国汉学研究的转型。
同样，在欧洲，比如在法国，汉学家汪德迈（Léon Vandermeersch，1928-2021）也主张从中国内部研究中国，摒弃以往海外汉学界以西方思维研究中国的定式。他的这一理念主要体现在以下几个方面：一是从语言文字入手：汪德迈认为汉字是举世无双的文字，它把语言的交流功能与思维方式的思辨功能结合在一起，塑造了中国人的思维方式。二是以中国概念研究社会制度。他强调中国社会形态与欧洲社会形态差异巨大，不能用西方词汇片面地翻译中国社会形态。他将西方学术与中国传统语言文字学交叉研究，提倡将传统国学的原典释读法与现代人文科学方法相结合，从整体上研究中国文化。例如，他从哲学方法、经验认知和宏观对话的视野，建立人类文化共存的思维新模式，发现中国社会治理中文化对于社会运行的积极作用。
其次，我们看到，这些接触的汉学家提出从中国的角度研究中国，更多是一种姿态，是一种视野的改变。他们承认了中国作为研究对象的主体性，以及中国作为体系的完整性。这是一种尊重的姿态，同时也是一种全新的方法论。同时，这种姿态也会带来一种其他的后果，就是有人会不仅把中国视为一个他者，更是一个彻底的、绝对的他者。比如法国汉学家朱利安，就是这样一种态度，这种态度在强调互相尊重的同时，也会带来一种负面的后果，也就是彻底的文化相对论，把中国依然视为一种无法与西方或者现代交融的文化体系。
大家知道，中国政府现在高度重视中国学，提倡“世界的中国学”。最近在上海，刚刚举办了第二届论坛。我觉得，我们所探讨的“在中国研究中国”，与“世界的中国学”是并行不悖，或者说互相补充的。我们不是强调中国的中国学，而是强调在中国大地上培养出来的青年，他们将成为未来的“世界的中国学”的主力军。他们在中国的体验和研究，将帮助他们就地形成对于中国的观念。
第三，强调在中国研究中国，是对当下各种挑战的应对。相对于柯文、汪德迈，我们再次需要新的立场。这一立场不再是人文学界的学者们去讨论应该从中国内部还是从中国外部研究中国，而是中外人文社科的学者们需要联合起来，为人文社科研究争得一席之地。“在中国研究中国”，这既是一种范式的再转变，又是一个可以举一反三的课题，它直视了当下需要面临的真正挑战。我简要提及四个挑战：
1.在政治与科技主导中西叙事的当下，人文和社科领域能在重塑不同社会间的共情与理解方面，发挥何种独特作用？
2.鉴于近期以来学术与文化交流遭遇阻碍，我们应如何重建中西方高校间可持续且去政治化的机构合作关系？
3.如今许多年轻人主要通过网络媒体接触“他者”文化，燕京学堂等机构应如何构建数字时代的叙事体系，以应对两极分化，并培养真正的探索欲？
4.展望未来，当文化影响力日益通过去中心化的网络而非国家主导的举措传播时，“软实力”的内涵将发生何种变化？
等等，等等。
各位同仁，以上是我关于此次讨论主题的一些想法，敬请大家批评指正。我想，这也是为什么，在充分借助于北京大学深厚的人文社科资源之外，燕京学堂需要进一步发扬北京大学的“博雅通识”传统。让学生们时刻生活在人文、对话的氛围中。比如今晚将为大家献上的肖邦钢琴之夜。我们不会拘泥于中国的传统，或者拘泥于直接与中国相关的东西。我们希望无论是中国学生还是外国学生，都意识到当今中国的开放性，或者说通透性。现代中国自诞生之日起，就是中西合体的。归根到底，这是中国人的强项。这种与生俱来的包容性，或者说中西共生性，是中国现代文化最强大的生命力，它对于作为民族的中国，具有深刻的意义。一方面它不断从几千年的历史与传统中汲取力量，另一方面，它向全人类多元的优秀文化开放，并不断与它们进行相互借鉴。
因此，燕京学堂虽然只是一个小小的学院——无论从学生人数还是教学场所来看——我们愿意让它成为这种人文精神的一个承载之地。是的，我们只有两个小小的四合院，但从内核上来看，正如中国的“四合”可以指天下，我们愿意“心怀天下”。
谢谢。
Dear Colleagues and friends,
Please allow me to again welcome all of you on behalf of Yenching Academy. I apologize for missing this morning's opening ceremony — I had to attend another academic forum out of town, leading to a scheduling conflict.
A special thank-you goes to everyone for taking time out of your busy schedules, on a weekend no less, to attend this conference. Though I must admit, this time of year offers Beijing’s most beautiful autumn scenery, making your visit well worth it. I also want to thank Professor Yuan for greeting you in my stead. Even if I had been present, I would still have asked her to take on this role, because the highly respected and beloved Professor Yuan is certainly more capable than I am in this regard.
My gratitude also goes to Cornell University and Professor Xu Xin. As you know, the 20-year collaboration between Cornell University and Peking University served as the catalyst for launching this workshop. Over the past two decades, the second ten years saw Professor Xu Xin, together with Professor Yuan, Professor Fan, and other colleagues, work diligently to develop the CIT (China in Transition) program—a program that has gained wide recognition and recently won an award.
A particular thank-you goes to Professor Fan and the Academy’s team for organizing this workshop in such a short time. The purpose of this workshop is to provide an opportunity for everyone to engage in joint discussions, share experiences and even lessons learned, thereby contributing valuable new materials and perspectives to the development of academic disciplines. So, thank you all, and I warmly wish this workshop a complete success.
As you know, I am an outsider in this field. It is only due to the trust placed in me by Professor Yuan and Peking University that I have taken on the responsibility of leading the Academy. Moreover, due to recent busyness and a period of poor health, I have not had the time to calmly reflect on this topic. However, since I joined Yenching Academy, I have been reflecting on the connotation of "China Studies" and how to further promote and deepen its disciplinary development. For instance, I once attempted to propose a new English term, "sinography," to distinguish it from the traditional "sinology." Similar to "geography," this term requires students and scholars to traverse mountains and rivers, and measure the land. Next, please allow me to share a few preliminary thoughts that I jotted down hastily during my flight:
First, regarding this topic, I have noticed that many outstanding sinologists have advocated for "studying China from within China."
The recently deceased American sinologist Paul A. Cohen has drawn people’s attention. I have also bought some of his books, trying to understand his "China-centered approach." In his work Discovering History in China: American Historical Writing on the Recent Chinese Past, Cohen criticized the traditional "impact-response" model and "tradition-modernity" model in American studies of Chinese history. He advocated for studying Chinese history from an internal Chinese perspective, emphasizing the need to seek the logic of historical changes from China’s own language, culture, and social structure, and to place China at the center of its own historical narrative. This viewpoint provided new ideas and paradigms for Chinese historical research and promoted the transformation of American sinological studies.
Similarly, in Europe—for example, in France—the sinologist Léon Vandermeersch (1928-2021) also advocated for studying China from within, abandoning the previous tendency in overseas sinology to research China through a Western mindset. His ideas are mainly reflected in the following aspects:
• Starting with language and writing: Vandermeersch believed that Chinese characters are unparalleled in the world, as they combine the communicative function of language with the analytical function of thinking, shaping the Chinese way of thinking.
• Studying social systems using Chinese concepts: He emphasized that Chinese social forms differ greatly from those in Europe, and Western terminology cannot be used to one-sidedly translate Chinese social forms. He conducted interdisciplinary research combining Western scholarship with traditional Chinese philology, advocating for the integration of the classic exegesis method of traditional Chinese studies with modern humanities approaches to study Chinese culture as a whole. For instance, from the perspectives of philosophical methodology, empirical cognition, and macro-level dialogue, he established a new mode of thinking for the coexistence of human cultures and identified the positive role of culture in the operation of Chinese society.
Second, we can see that when these outstanding sinologists propose "studying China from a Chinese perspective," it is more of a stance — a shift in perspective.
They recognize China’s subjectivity as an object of study and the integrity of China as a system. This is a stance of respect and, at the same time, a brand-new methodological approach. However, this stance can also lead to other consequences: some people may view China not just as an "other," but as a complete and absolute "other." For example, the French sinologist François Jullien holds such a view. While this perspective emphasizes mutual respect, it also brings about a negative outcome—namely, extreme cultural relativism, which still regards China as a cultural system that cannot integrate with the West or modernity.
As you know, the Chinese government now attaches great importance to Chinese studies and promotes the concept of "Global Chinese Studies." Recently, the second Global Chinese Studies Forum was just held in Shanghai. I believe that what we are discussing is consistent with, or even complementary to, the concept of "Global Chinese Studies." We are not emphasizing "Chinese Studies centered on China"; instead, we are stressing that young people educated on Chinese soil will become the main force behind the future of "Global Chinese Studies." Their experiences and research in China will help them form an understanding of China based on on-the-ground engagement.
Third, emphasizing "studying China from within China" is a response to the various challenges we face today.
Compared with Cohen and Vandermeersch, we now need a new stance. This stance is no longer about humanities scholars debating whether to study China from an internal or external perspective; rather, it requires Chinese and foreign scholars in the humanities and social sciences to unite and secure a place for humanities and social science research. "Studying China from within China" is a topic that can be extrapolated to other fields, as it directly addresses the real challenges we must face today. For example:
1, At a time when politics and technology dominate the western–China narrative, what unique role can literature, art, and the humanities play in restoring empathy and understanding between different societies?
2, Given recent disruptions to academic and cultural exchange, how can we rebuild sustainable and depoliticized institutional ties between Chinese and western universities?
3, Many young people now encounter the “other” primarily through online media. How can institutions like the Yenching Academy shape digital-era narratives that counter polarization and foster genuine curiosity?
4, Looking ahead, what does “soft power” mean in an age when cultural influence increasingly flows through decentralized networks rather than state-led initiatives?
This is also why, while fully leveraging Peking University’s profound resources in the humanities and social sciences, we need to further carry forward Peking University’s tradition of "liberal arts and general education." We want students to live in an atmosphere of humanistic inquiry and dialogue at all times—such as the Chopin Piano Evening we have prepared for everyone tonight. We will not be confined to Chinese traditions or limited to things directly related to China. We hope that both Chinese and international students will recognize the openness, or "permeability", of contemporary China. Modern China has been a fusion of Chinese and Western elements since its inception. Ultimately, this is a strength of the Chinese people. This inherent inclusiveness, or the coexistence of Chinese and Western influences, is the most powerful source of vitality in modern Chinese culture, and it holds profound significance for China as a nation. On one hand, China continuously draws strength from its several thousand years of history and tradition; on the other hand, it remains open to the diverse and outstanding cultures of all humanity, engaging in constant mutual learning with them.
Therefore, although Yenching Academy is just a small institution, whether measured by the number of students or the size of its teaching facilities, we are committed to making it a carrier of this humanistic spirit. Yes, we only have two small siheyuan (traditional Chinese quadrangle courtyards), but in essence, just as the Chinese term "sihe" (literally meaning "four unions") can symbolize the whole world, our aspirations extend far beyond our physical space.
Thank you.
