Author: GCA Admin

Xiangqun Chang

Abstract：This blog takes two academic and cultural events attended by the author in London as its empirical point of departure and, based on on-site observation, examines the pathways through which Chinese culture and scholarship are entering the contemporary global space. It argues that the global circulation of Chinese experience is increasingly characterised by a pattern of “direct entry,” in which individuals and teams engage in cross-cultural communication and knowledge dissemination through forms of co-presence in specific institutional settings.

Building on this observation, the blog raises a further question: how can such forms of situated entry be transformed from one-off practices into sustainable mechanisms of knowledge production and institutional operation? To address this, the article adopts the perspective of “relational civilisation,” in conjunction with the theory of relational generativity and a methodological approach combining corpus analysis, artificial intelligence, and theoretical judgment. It seeks to integrate dispersed experiences and theoretical reflections into a structurally coherent system of knowledge.

At a broader level, the blog engages with Fei Xiaotong’s vision of a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology. It proposes a five-dimensional framework of knowledge production—comprising experience, concept (language), theory, method, and institution—and, through the coordinated development of academic institutions, publishing platforms, and dialogical forums, explores the structural pathways through which Chinese social scientific knowledge can enter the global knowledge system. The blog argues that “direct entry” should be understood as a starting point, whose significance lies in enabling the structural transformation and institutional extension of knowledge through the ongoing generative processes of relations.

Keywords relational civilisation; relational generativity; li shang wang lai (reciprocity); renxin; direct entry; institutionalisation; five-dimensional knowledge production framework; corpus–AI–theoretical judgment; transculturality; a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology

In the past week, I attended two events held in London, each organized and led by a Chinese writer and their team, as well as a Chinese scholar and their team. The two events differed in format and approach, yet both achieved unexpectedly positive outcomes. Through participating in these on-site experiences, I gained clearer insights into how Chinese culture and scholarship are currently entering the global space.

At the same time, I am in the process of compiling the book “40 Years of Witnessing the Globalization of Chinese Social Sciences.” Thus, after each event, I promptly recorded and organized the related materials and reflections overnight, ensuring they would not be lost over time. Using this as an opportunity, I extracted several relevant sections from the book’s overall framework, presenting them as extended discussions later on. These outline my work over the past decade or so in theoretical research, methodological and method innovations, platform development, and exploring pathways for fostering a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology.

On April 6th, I will visit China and plan to stay for three months. During this period, I will deliver academic talks at certain universities and research institutes and revisit several villages where I conducted fieldwork 30 years ago. Amid multiple ongoing projects, I had not intended to add new activities, yet these two events this week naturally became a starting point for this phase of observation and reflection. Let us begin with a recap of the most recent event.

I. Entering University Spaces via Academic Communities: The Practice of FANG Lili

On March 27th, an event was held at the UCL Institute of Archaeology. It was, in fact, my first time in 35 years crossing disciplines to attend something in the field of archaeology in London. Originally, I went out of courtesy to support Professor FANG Lili, a friend in academic circles. However, to my amazement, the lecture hall was packed. The title of Professor Fang’s lecture was “Post-Agricultural Civilisation: Insights from the Development and Transformation of Jingdezhen, China’s ‘Porcelain Capital.’” Based on her long-term fieldwork in Jingdezhen, the concept of post-agricultural civilisation she proposed was quite inspiring. The short films played before and after the lecture added a certain “performative” layer, enriching the academic presentation.

Notably, the week-long exchange at UCL was coordinated by Professor Rodney Harrison from the Institute of Archaeology’s Heritage Studies. The short films shown before the lecture indicated that Professor Harrison had previously conducted fieldwork in China, hosted and accompanied by Fang Lili. This trip can be seen as a continuation of reciprocal visits—from China to the UK—returning to a specific academic space and forming a cross-national exchange mechanism built upon personal academic ties.

FANG Lili is the last postdoctoral researcher of Fei Xiaotong, one of the key founders of Chinese sociology and anthropology. She has inherited and expanded the platform of the Chinese Society of Art Anthropology established with support from Fei, which now has about 4,000 members. After the lecture, we reminisced about the 2019 “Fei’s Disciples Walk Fei Xiaotong’s Path” events in the U.S., including sessions at the University of Chicago. Plans back then included continuing this academic route in the UK, though these have been cancelled due to the pandemic.

Interestingly, at the UCL lecture, a scholar raised a comparison between Jingdezhen’s experience and Chile in South America. This question brought back an earlier idea: in the original UK visit plan, there was a proposal to visit Stoke-on-Trent, the UK’s “ceramics capital,” since back in 1981, when Fei Xiaotong came to the UK to receive the Huxley Award, the Royal Anthropological Institute arranged for him to visit that location. This unfinished comparative path was implicitly evoked in a new academic context.

After the lecture, during the reception, I introduced UCL anthropology PhD students to FANG Lili, and we took a group photo. To some extent, this facilitated mutual introductions between her and these younger researchers, extending academic ties between archaeology and anthropology in the UK context through direct interaction.

In the subsequent conversation, I spoke with one of Professor Fang’s doctoral students. Using theater theory as a lens, she was conducting research in Kaixiangong Village, the field site of Fei Xiaotong’s Peasant Life in China. I told her that as early as 1996, I had conducted fieldwork in that village, completing my doctoral dissertation and the book Guanxi or Li Shang Wanglai ?: Reciprocity, Social Support Networks, Social Creativity in a Chinese Village . It has now been exactly 30 years. Over the past two decades, I have revisited Kaixiangong multiple times and maintained close ties with the local community. This May, I will return once again for a brief revisit.

The chair of the event, Professor Harrison, posed the first question after FANG Lili’s talk—a classic anthropological methodological question: How representative is the case of Jingdezhen for China? This question turned a specific case into a methodological issue and became the starting point for my upcoming fieldwork. Around this question, I will not only revisit Kaixiangong but also plan to conduct a new round of fieldwork across 10 villages in five provinces, just as I did 10 years ago. Through this cross-temporal comparison, I will gather continuous data on the thirty-year changes in these villages and attempt to bring Fang Lili’s concept of post-agricultural civilisation into my field research perspective for verification and development.

II. Entering University Spaces through Literature and Publishing: The Practice of Xue Mo

On 21 March, an event was held at SOAS, University of London. I arrived after attending another event, and the scale of the event was, comparatively speaking, quite substantial. The title was “New Literary Creation and Cross-Cultural Communication in UK Universities: A Symposium on the Works of Xue Mo and International Academic Exchange.” It reminded me of the international conference “Weber and China: Culture, Law and Capitalism” that we held at the same venue in 2013, which brought together scholars from around the world and was similar in overall scale.

Xue Mo is an internationally recognised novelist and cultural scholar. I edited the overseas Simplified Chinese edition of his book Renxin (Human Hearts and Minds), which was launched at the London Book Fair in 2024 as part of the “Chinese Concepts” series of Global Century Press. The book carries a clear intellectual orientation. In recent years, Xue Mo has continued to participate in international publishing platforms such as the Frankfurt Book Fair. Through multilingual publications, live events, and sustained visibility, he has gradually built a stable international readership and a growing network of cultural dissemination. His success is reflected not only in the cross-linguistic circulation of his works, but also in the sustained presence and visibility of both the author and his team within the global cultural space.

As I arrived toward the end of the event, I happened to see several speakers engaged in discussion. Two of them were familiar to me: Professor Hugo de Burgh, former Director of the China Media Centre at the University of Westminster, where I once served as a visiting professor; and Dr Yukteshwar Kumar, currently Director of the China Studies programme at the University of Bath. During the Beijing International Book Fair last year, I had chaired a dialogue between him and Xue Mo.

In the final part of the discussion, the moderator invited each speaker to leave the audience with a single sentence. Taken together, these remarks revealed a shared orientation: while participants approached Xue Mo’s work from different pathways, they all pointed toward its underlying intellectual depth. This was precisely the intention behind our publication of Renxin—to present Xue Mo not only as a novelist, but as a thinker. At the same time, this process of entering the same text through multiple perspectives generated a transcultural space of understanding across different disciplines and cultural experiences.

Before the event concluded, a book presentation ceremony was held. The representative receiving the donated copies on behalf of SOAS was Dr Lianyi Song, Principal Teaching Fellow at the Department of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics at SOAS, and also one of the founding editors of the Journal of Chinese for Social Sciences, published by Global Century Press.

Finally, Xue Mo collaborated with a music teacher from SOAS for a live performance, accompanied by the pipa. This moment extended what had been an academic event centred on literature and ideas into a more integrated form of cultural expression. The atmosphere shifted from discussion to participation, creating another sense of “being present.” In this process, text, sound, and embodied practice were reconnected, and academic exchange moved beyond language alone into a lived experience of relational generation.

Before leaving, I arranged to visit Xue Mo’s academy in early May, during my fieldwork trip to Gansu, in order to further experience the cultural and historical environment that informs his writing.

III. From Direct Entry to Relational Civilisation: My Methodological and Theoretical Reflections and Platform Development

In the first two sections, whether through academic communities entering university settings or through literature and publishing entering academic spaces, both cases reflect a pattern of “direct entry.” However, when these practices are considered at the level of theory and method, a further question emerges: how should we understand the position of these dispersed experiences within a broader structure of knowledge?

While listening to these presentations, I gradually became aware of a related issue: how can we move from rich but scattered experiences toward an analytical framework that allows us to grasp their overall structure? In this sense, FANG Lili’s work provides an important empirical foundation and practical inspiration for addressing this question.

This, in turn, points to a more general problem. In the Chinese academic context, research has often developed in relatively fragmented clusters, lacking an overarching structure capable of integrating these experiences into a coherent whole. This is precisely the issue that Fei Xiaotong had in mind in his vision of constructing a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology.

1. From Linear Development to Relational Civilisation: Methodological Shift and Theoretical Construction

I noticed that in this lecture, FANG Lili approached the question of civilisation primarily from her fieldwork experience, without explicitly situating it within the theoretical lineage of Fei Xiaotong’s work. From the perspective of the development of Chinese sociology and anthropology, this issue of theoretical continuity is itself of considerable significance. It also points to a more fundamental question: as empirical knowledge continues to accumulate, how can such research be brought back into existing theoretical traditions and, on that basis, developed into a knowledge system with an internal structure.

In my view, the development of human knowledge should, on the basis of accumulated experience, take the form of a “knowledge architecture” with its own internal logic and layered structure. In this sense, Fei Xiaotong’s work provides a crucial foundation. He not only proposed the relational vision of civilisation expressed in the idea of “each appreciating its own beauty and the beauty of others,” but also established a level of theoretical articulation upon which Chinese sociology and anthropology can continue to develop.

It is worth noting that Fei Xiaotong did not produce systematic monographs explicitly titled “modernisation” or “civilisation.” Instead, his reflections on these themes are dispersed across texts written in different periods and contexts. Yet it is precisely through this cross-temporal and cross-contextual body of writing that a rich and internally connected set of ideas emerges.

Against this background, a key question arises: how can dispersed fieldwork experience, theoretical reflection, and practical engagement be integrated into a coherent system of knowledge with an internal structure? This question has emerged from my long-term corpus-based research on The Complete Works of Fei Xiaotong (20 volumes). This corpus constitutes a continuous body of thought spanning approximately 80 years, systematically documenting the transformation of Chinese society from rural structures to modern forms, together with its accompanying theoretical reflections. It is one of the most extensive and structurally complete individual intellectual corpora in the history of Chinese social sciences, and is also rare in global scholarship.

On this basis, I further introduce a methodological approach combining corpus analysis, artificial intelligence, and theoretical judgment. By systematically analysing the concept of “civilisation” across the corpus, dispersed texts can be reorganised at a structural level. This allows the question of civilisation to move beyond a linear developmental framework toward an understanding based on relational structures and generative processes, thereby providing a methodological foundation for the development of a theory of relational civilisation. Along this line of inquiry, this blog seeks to advance the ideas of “relational civilisation” and “relational generativity,” responding to Fei Xiaotong’s vision of constructing a Chinese school of sociology and anthropology.

Based on corpus statistics across the 20 volumes, the term “civilisation” appears 725 times, including approximately 188 occurrences in the translated works (Volumes 18 and 19). The corpus also contains fragmentary references to or engagements with other theorists of civilisation, including Oswald Spengler, Arnold J. Toynbee, and Samuel P. Huntington. This tradition generally treats civilisation as a macro-historical unit, focusing on rise, development, and conflict, and is largely characterised by a linear model of development.

By contrast, Fei Xiaotong’s understanding of civilisation is more directly rooted in conceptual resources from his early translated works, particularly in Volumes 18 and 19. These include authors such as William F. Ogburn, Bronislaw Malinowski, Raymond Firth, C. G. Seligman, and Elton Mayo. In these texts, “civilisation” appears mainly in analyses of social development, institutional structures, social types, and industrial society, forming an important methodological foundation for his early anthropological training.

In Fei’s own writings, the term “civilisation” appears 537 times and shows a clear shift over time. In the early period (1930s–1950s), it is used largely in descriptive sociological and anthropological contexts. In the middle period (1980s–1990s), it becomes more closely associated with discussions of Chinese civilisation and social transformation. In the later period (around 2000, particularly in Volume 17), it appears 237 times—about 44% of all occurrences—marking its transition from a descriptive term to a central analytical concept. At this stage, “civilisation” is no longer treated as a given object of analysis, but is re-problematised as a question of relations between different civilisations, articulated normatively through the idea of “each appreciating its own beauty and the beauty of others.”

This shift indicates that Fei Xiaotong’s theory of civilisation moves from imported analytical tools in translation to a relational theory developed in his own writings. It not only departs from linear developmental or civilisational conflict models, but also offers an alternative approach centred on coexistence.

In this context, the concepts of complicity and commensuration proposed by Professor Hans Steinmüller in his inaugural lecture at the London School of Economics provide an important mid-level analytical perspective. Complicity refers to tacit, situational forms of alignment grounded in relationships, which increase social complexity. Commensuration refers to processes of standardisation and comparability that reduce complexity and enable large-scale social coordination. Together, they reveal the dynamic balance between complexity and simplification.

Further, in her lecture at UCL, FANG Lili, drawing on long-term fieldwork in Jingdezhen, pointed out that civilisation does not develop along a single linear trajectory, but unfolds through ongoing cycles of return and recombination between historical resources and present conditions. This observation of “indirect development” provides an empirical correction to linear models of civilisation and demonstrates how relations are realised in concrete contexts through processes of reconfiguration.

Within this framework, Fang Lili’s work and my own theory of relational generativity form a relationship of resonance with distinct emphases. Both are grounded in long-term fieldwork and focus on how relations are formed and enacted in practice. However, FANG Lili places greater emphasis on how relations are realised under contemporary conditions, while my work focuses more on the continuity of relational elements and examines how relations are generated and transformed across different historical conditions. In this sense, if Steinmüller highlights the tension between complexity and simplification, my approach further examines how this tension is sustained and transformed through ongoing generative processes.

From a more general perspective, civilisation is often understood in terms of material and spiritual dimensions: the former relating to systems of production and technology, and the latter to systems of value and meaning. On this basis, I propose a perspective of “relational civilisation”, which understands civilisation as a form of social organisation centred on relations.

Within this framework, Fei Xiaotong’s idea of “each appreciating its own beauty and the beauty of others” constitutes the normative level, pointing toward a normative goal of coexistence among different civilisations. Steinmüller’s concepts of complicity and commensuration constitute the mechanism level, explaining how relations operate between complexity and simplification. Fang’s fieldwork constitutes the practical level, demonstrating how relations are realised through processes of reconfiguration. The “theory of relational generativity” constitutes the generative level, explaining how relations are continuously produced and transformed across different historical conditions.

Building on my research on lishang wanglai or ‘recipropriety’, I have been developing the theory of relational generativity, understood as the generative logic of social relations. Here, li shang provides the structural foundation of relations as norm and expression, while wang lai constitutes the practical process of relational generation as interaction and circulation. Through their continuous interplay, relations are generated, sustained, and extended. My research further shows that the key elements of society and civilisation have not disappeared, but have instead continuously changed their forms across different historical stages, undergoing transformation and recombination while maintaining continuity. This helps explain how relations are continuously generated and transformed across contexts.

In this sense, relational civilisation is not only a normative ideal, but also a dynamic system unfolding through mechanisms, practices, and generative processes. It manifests both as structures of human coexistence and as an ongoing historical process of relational generation.

As mentioned earlier, I edited and published Xue Mo’s book Renxin. Xue Mo enters the public sphere through literature, thought, and narrative, reaching human hearts through reading and dissemination. My own work, by contrast, unfolds more through relations and practice, enabling renxin to emerge and operate through processes of relational generation in concrete interactions, fieldwork, and platform development. These two paths differ, yet converge on a shared question: how renxin can be connected, understood, and transformed into relational structures that can continue to unfold in contemporary society.

In this context, Xue Mo’s notion of renxin refers primarily to inner moral cultivation and spiritual development, representing an inward-oriented humanistic practice. By contrast, in my research on lishang wanglai, renxin refers to the ontological foundation of relational generation: the capacity of human beings, as relational beings, to make judgments, negotiate situations, and generate relations in concrete contexts. This shift moves renxin from an ethical category to an ontological basis of relational generation, transforming the question of inner cultivation into the question of how relations are generated and unfold.

In recent years, my research has moved from Marshall Sahlins’ typology of reciprocity and Max Weber’s understanding of meaningful action, toward Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of social reproduction and Anthony Giddens’ theory of the interaction between structure and agency. Through this ongoing dialogue, I have gradually developed the basic structure of relational generativity: renxin as the ontological foundation; lishang as the dynamic structure, encompassing morality, emotion, reason, and belief; wanglai as the relational form, including generous, expressive, instrumental, and negative forms; and the generative mechanism understood as transformations between different types of relations.

On this basis, this theoretical framework advances existing social theory at three levels: it shifts the analysis of relations from structure and exchange toward generative processes, provides an ontological foundation for relations in renxin, and offers a pathway through which Chinese experience can enter theoretical structures with broader explanatory relevance.

2. Two Pathways of Entry: Situated Practice and Mechanism Transformation

1）Two pathways of entry and their contributions to cultural and academic exchange

From a broader perspective, the two events described above reveal two distinct yet equally instructive pathways through which Chinese culture and scholarship are entering the global space.

During the 2022 Frankfurt Book Fair, Xue Mo ranked first among international media trending topics outside Germany. As a writer working with his team, he has continuously entered the global cultural sphere through international book fairs and publishing systems. FANG Lili, by contrast, relied on the platform of the Chinese Society of Art Anthropology to organise a group of twelve scholars for lectures and study visits, engaging directly within university settings.

Although these two pathways differ in form, they share a common tendency: entering target spaces as active subjects, and completing communication and exchange through forms of co-presence and interaction, rather than relying primarily on external intermediary structures.

This shift is also closely related to technological conditions. Although FANG Lili’s lecture was delivered in Chinese, the use of English slides and real-time screen translation—including live interpretation during the Q&A—enabled participants from different linguistic backgrounds to engage simultaneously. Technological development has thus shifted cross-language communication from transmission mediated by others toward shared understanding in co-present settings, providing practical conditions for this mode of direct entry.

One may recall Fang Lili’s observation, based on her research on Jingdezhen, that in periods of transformation there always emerges a group of “pioneering actors.” In this sense, both Xue Mo—who continues to enter the global cultural sphere through literature and thought—and FANG Lili—who engages through academic communities in concrete institutional settings—are not merely participants, but actors shaping emerging pathways of global transformation. What their practices reveal is not simply individual success, but a new possibility for Chinese culture and scholarship in the contemporary world.

2）From pathways of entry to institutional mechanisms: a five-dimensional framework and platform development

If the pathways of “direct entry” emphasise presence and practice in specific settings, a further question arises: how can such entry be transformed from one-off actions into mechanisms capable of sustained operation?

Across forty years of academic practice, this question has gradually taken the form of a structural task: how to transform dispersed empirical research and theoretical exploration into a knowledge production system with an internal structure and the capacity for continuous development.

From this perspective, my work has not followed a single linear trajectory, but has unfolded across five interrelated dimensions: experience, concept, theory, method, and institution. Experience is grounded in fieldwork and historical materials; concepts emerge through linguistic abstraction and articulation; theory provides explanatory structure; method offers pathways for comparison and verification; and institution enables the sustained production and dissemination of knowledge.

This five-dimensional framework transforms “direct entry” from individual practice into an institutionalised mechanism that can be organised, extended, and reproduced over time.

Over the past decade, I have developed the theory of relational generativity on the basis of long-term fieldwork and comparative research, taking renxin as its ontological foundation and systematically examining how relations are generated and transformed across different contexts. At the same time, I have advanced a methodological approach combining corpus analysis, artificial intelligence, and theoretical judgment, exploring how Chinese social research can move from empirical description toward conceptual refinement, theoretical construction, and methodological innovation.

Within this framework, I propose a five-dimensional model of knowledge production—experience, concept (language), theory, method, and institution—and explore how research on Chinese society, both within and beyond China, can enter the global knowledge system through processes of structural transformation. At the same time, I have worked to promote the global dissemination and integration of Chinese social scientific knowledge through the institutional platforms I have established.

In terms of institutional and platform development, three interrelated platforms have gradually taken shape.

First, the Global China Academy is an independent, global, fellowship-based academic institution headquartered in the United Kingdom. Grounded in a global and comparative perspective, it is dedicated to advancing comprehensive research on China in the humanities and social sciences, while sustaining dialogue and collaboration within transnational academic networks.

Second, Global Century Press serves as a publishing platform. As Editor-in-Chief, I oversee the Journal of Global and China in Comparative Perspectives, the Global China Dialogue Proceedings, and several book series including Chinese Concepts, The Globalisation of Chinese Social Sciences, China and Chinese Civilisation in Comparative Perspective, Three-Eyed Transcultural Studies, and Emerging Frontiers. Through four academic journals and eight bilingual series, this platform establishes a sustained mechanism for knowledge production and dissemination.

Third, the Global China Dialogue forum operates as a platform for ongoing exchange. Based on interdisciplinary and comparative approaches, it brings together scholars, professionals, and members of the public from different countries. Through continuous dialogue, it promotes understanding of global issues and shared concerns. The forum connects universities, research institutes, governments, international organisations, media, and publishers, and develops its agenda around the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, covering areas such as AI, energy, education, migration, health, and global security. It is gradually forming a global space of dialogue centred on transculturality and social creativity.

These three platforms have distinct functions yet operate in a mutually reinforcing manner: The academy, with fellows as its core driving force, provides an institutional framework while continuously advancing academic community building; the press sustains knowledge production and dissemination; and the dialogue platform enables ongoing exchange and problem generation. Together, they form a structural system linking research, communication, and institutional development.

Conclusion

The two events observed in London over the past week illustrate that Chinese culture and scholarship are entering the global space through multiple pathways. On the one hand, “direct entry” enables face-to-face engagement and communication in specific settings through individuals and teams. On the other hand, these practices themselves raise new questions: how can such situated forms of entry be transformed into sustainable mechanisms of knowledge and institutional operation?

In this sense, these events are not only significant in their own academic and cultural terms, but also provide an empirical basis for further structural development.

At the same time, the content of the lectures—whether grounded in fieldwork on civilisational transformation or expressed through literary and intellectual explorations of renxin—points to a deeper question: how to establish internal connections between experience, concept, and theory, so that dispersed knowledge can enter structured frameworks of understanding.

It is in response to this question that this blog has sought to develop a perspective of relational civilisation, drawing on relational generativity and the methodological approach of corpus–AI–theoretical judgment, in order to further theorise how relations are generated, operate, and transform across different levels.

From this perspective, “direct entry” is not an endpoint, but a starting point. It allows Chinese experience to become visible in the global space. Through platform development and methodological innovation, such entry can be transformed into a sustained process of knowledge production. It is precisely in this process that the relationships between experience, theory, and institution are gradually reorganised, opening pathways for Chinese social sciences to enter broader global knowledge systems.

References (omitted)

常向群

提要：

本文基于作者在伦敦参与的两场学术与文化活动，从现场观察出发，分析中国文化与学术在当代全球空间中的进入路径。文章指出，当前中国经验的全球传播，正呈现出以个体与团队为主体的“直接进入”趋势，即通过在具体场域中的在场实践，实现跨文化交流与知识传播。在此基础上，本文进一步提出：如何使这种在场性的进入，从一次性的实践转化为可以持续运作的知识与制度机制。围绕这一问题，文章从“关系文明”的视角出发，结合“关系生成论”以及“语料库—人工智能—理论判断”的方法路径，尝试将分散的经验与理论整合为具有内在结构的知识体系。在更宏观层面，本文回应费孝通提出的“社会学与人类学的中国学派”的建构问题，提出以经验、概念（语言）、理论、方法与制度构成的五维知识生产框架，并结合学术院、出版与对话平台的协同建构，探索中国社会科学成果进入全球知识体系的结构性路径。文章认为，“直接进入”是起点，其关键在于通过关系的持续生成，实现知识的结构转化与制度延展。

关键词：关系文明；关系生成论；礼尚往来；人心；直接进入；制度化机制；五维知识生产框架；语料库—人工智能—理论判断；转文化性；社会学和人类学的中国学派

最近一周内，我先后参加了两场在伦敦举行的活动，分别由来自中国的作家及其团队，以及学者及其团队推动和组织。两场活动在形式与路径上各不相同，却都取得了出人意料的成功。通过参与这些现场，可以更清晰地看到中国文化与学术在当下如何进入全球空间。

与此同时，我正在整理《中国社会科学全球化——40年见证》一书。也正因此，在活动结束之后，我将相关材料与由此引发的思考一并连夜记录与整理，以免其在时间中流失，并以此为契机，从《见证》一书的整体构思中抽出若干相关内容，作为延伸性的讨论放在后文之中，概括了自己近十几年来在理论研究、方法和方法论创新、平台建构以及推动社会学和人类学的中国学派的路径探索等方面的工作。

4月6日我将回国，计划在国内停留三个月，其间将在部分高校与研究机构做一些学术讲座，并走访30年前开展田野调查的若干村落。在当前多项工作并行推进的阶段，本无意额外安排新的活动，而这一周的两场活动，恰好成为这一阶段观察与思考的一个自然起点。以下先从最近的一场活动谈起。

一、 以学术共同体进入大学场域：方李莉的实践

3月27日，在伦敦大学学院考古系举行的这场活动，是我来伦敦35年来第一次跨学科到考古学系参加活动。原本只是因为方李莉教授是学界朋友，出于礼貌前往支持，但是令人感叹——讲座现场座无虚席。方李莉教授讲座的题目是“后农业文明：来自中国“瓷都”景德镇发展与转型的启示”，基于她在景德镇长期田野研究所提出了“后农业文明”观点，具有相当的启发性。讲座前后播放的短片，使通常的学术讲座呈现出一定的“表演性”，为学术表达增添了层次。

值得一提的是，此次在伦敦大学学院的一周交流活动，主要由该校考古研究所遗产研究罗德尼·哈里森教授协调安排的。方教授讲座前放的短片显示，哈里森教授此前曾多次赴中国进行田野考察，均由方李莉接待与陪同。此次行程可以看作是一种延续性的互访关系：从中国到英国，回到了具体的大学场域之中，形成一种以个人学术联系为纽带的跨国交流机制。

方李莉是中国社会学与人类学的重要奠基者之一费孝通先生的最后一位博士后研究人员，她继承并发展了费先生为其搭建的中国艺术人类学学会平台，目前会员已达四千人规模。讲座结束后，我们回顾了2019年共同组织的“费门弟子走费孝通之路”的美国活动，其中包括在芝加哥大学举办的系列活动。当时的计划还包括在英国延续这一学术路线，但因疫情等原因，至今未能实现。

有意思的是，在UCL讲座现场，有学者提出将景德镇的经验与南美智利进行比较的问题。这一提问实际上触及了一个更早的设想：在原有英国访问方案中，曾包括前往英国“瓷都” 斯托克-特伦特Stoke-on-Trent 的考察，因为早在1981年费孝通来英国领取赫胥黎奖期间，皇家人类学会Royal Anthropological Institute 曾安排他赴当地进行相关考察。这一未完成的比较路径，在新的学术语境中再次被隐约唤起。

讲座结束后，在 reception 环节，我为方李莉介绍了 UCL 人类学博士生，并与他们一同合影。在一定程度上，这也促成了她与这些年轻研究者之间的相互引入，使在英国环境中的考古学与人类学之间的学术联系在具体互动中得以延展。

在随后的交流中，我与方李莉教授的一位博士生进行了对话。她以剧场理论为视角，在费孝通《江村经济》的田野点——开弦弓村开展研究。我告诉她，早在 1996 年，我曾在该村进行田野调查，并完成了我的博士论文及著作《关系抑或礼尚往来？：江村互惠社会支持网和社会创造的研究》。至今正好30年。过去20余年来，我也多次返回江村，与当地保持着较为密切的联系。今年 5 月，我将再次前往进行一次简短的考察。

讲座主持人哈里森教授在方李莉讲座结束后提出的第一个问题，是一个典型的人类学方法论问题：景德镇这一案例在中国具有多大代表性？这一提问将具体个案转化为方法性问题，并构成了我此次田野研究的出发点。围绕这一问题，此次回国我不仅将再次访问江村，还计划像10年前那样，对五个省的10个田野村展开新一轮考察。通过这一跨时段的比较，我将获得关于10个村庄30年变迁的连续性资料，并尝试将方李莉提出的“后农业文明”这一观点带入我的田野研究视野之中加以检验与发展。

二、以文学与出版进入大学场域：雪漠的实践

3月21日，在伦敦大学亚非学院举行。我是在参加完其他活动之后赶到现场的。相比之下，规模挺可观的。活动的题目是“英国高校学者新文学创作与跨文化传播——作家雪漠作品研讨及国际学术交流会”。回想2013年，我们曾在同一地点举办‘韦伯与中国：文化、法律与资本主义’国际大会，来自世界多国的学者参与，整体人数看上去活动的规模颇为相近。

雪漠是国际知名的小说家和文化学者。我曾编辑其著作《人心》的海外中文简体字版，并于2024年在伦敦书展发布。该书收入环球世纪出版社“中华概念”丛书，是一部具有明确思想指向的作品。近年来，雪漠以作家身份持续参与法兰克福书展等国际出版平台，通过多语种出版、现场活动与持续露出，逐渐形成稳定的国际读者群体与传播网络。其成功不仅体现在作品的跨语种传播与持续出版上，也体现在作者本人及其团队在国际文化空间中的持续在场与能见度。

由于我入场时活动已接近尾声，正好看见正在参与对话的几位嘉宾。其中两位我较为熟悉：一位是戴雨果Hugo de Burgh教授，曾任西敏寺大学中国传媒中心主任，我曾在该中心担任过数年客座教授；另一位是余德烁Yukteshwar Kumar博士，现任University of Bath中国研究课程主任。去年北京国际书展期间，我曾主持过他与雪漠之间的对话。

在讨论的最后阶段，主持人邀请在场嘉宾用一句话留给听众。综合各方发言，可以看到一个共同的取向：从不同路径进入雪漠的作品，但都指向其内在的思想性。这也正是我们出版《人心》一书的初衷——向读者呈现一个作为思想家的雪漠。与此同时，这种多路径进入同一文本的过程，也在不同学科与文化经验之间生成了一种转文化的理解空间。

活动结束前还设置了赠书环节。代表SOAS University of London接受赠书的，是伦敦大学语言、文化与语言学学院首席教学研究员，同时也是我们环球世纪出版社出版的《社科汉语研究期刊》的创刊主编之一——宋连谊博士。

最后，雪漠还与亚非学院的一位音乐教师合作进行了现场表演，对方以琵琶伴奏。这一环节使原本以文学与思想为核心的学术活动，进一步延展为一种综合性的文化表达，也使现场氛围由讨论转向参与，形成了另一种意义上的“在场”。在这一过程中，文本、声音与身体实践被重新连接，学术交流不再仅停留于语言层面，而转化为一种关系生成的现场经验。

临别前，我与雪漠老师相约，今年5月初在我赴甘肃开展田野访问期间，前往雪漠书院参观，从其具体空间与环境中进一步感受作家写作所依托的历史文化背景。

三、 从直接进入到关系文明：我的方法和理论反思与平台建构

在前两部分中，无论是以学术共同体进入大学场域，还是通过文学与出版进入学术空间，都呈现出一种“直接进入”的实践路径。然而，当这些实践上升到理论和方法层面时，一个问题随之显现：我们如何理解这些分散经验在更大知识结构中的位置？在聆听其讲述的过程中，我逐渐意识到一个问题：如何在既有丰富经验的基础上，形成一个可以把握其整体结构的分析框架。也正是在这一意义上，方李莉的研究为这一问题提供了重要的经验基础与实践启发。这引出了一个更普遍的问题：长期以来在国内学术中，往往形成许多彼此分散的“小山头”，缺乏能够将这些经验整合起来的整体性结构，就是费孝通所期望的中国社会学或人类学学派的建构问题。

（一）从线性发展到关系文明：方法转向与理论建构

我注意到，在此次讲述中，方李莉主要从其田野经验出发展开文明问题的讨论，而并未将其明确放入费孝通相关论述的理论脉络之中。就中国社会学与人类学的发展而言，这一理论承接问题本身具有重要意义，也提示出一个更为关键的方向：在经验不断累积的背景下，如何使相关研究重新进入既有理论传统，并在此基础上形成具有内在结构的知识体系。

在我看来，人类知识的发展应在经验的累积基础上构成一座具有内在逻辑与层级结构的“知识大厦”。在这一意义上，费孝通的工作提供了一个关键基础：他不仅提出了“美美与共”的关系文明观，也为中国社会学与人类学确立了一个可以持续展开的理论高度。值得注意的是，费孝通并未以“现代化”或“文明”为题形成系统性的专著表达，相关论述更多以分散的方式呈现在其不同时期的文本之中。然而，正是在这种跨时段、跨语境的持续论述中，蕴含着丰富而具有内在关联的思想资源。

在此基础上，如何将分散的田野经验、理论探索与现实实践整合起来，进而形成具有内在结构的知识体系，成为一个关键问题。这一问题意识，来源于我对《费孝通全集》（20卷）的长期语料库研究。该全集构成了一部跨越约80年的连续性思想文本体系，系统记录了中国社会从乡土结构向现代形态转型的经验过程与理论反思，是中国社会科学史上时间跨度最长、结构最为完整的个人思想文本体系之一，在世界社会科学史上亦属罕见。

在此基础上，我进一步引入“语料库—AI—理论判断”的研究范式，对《费孝通全集》中“文明”概念进行系统分析，使原本分散的文本在结构层面得以重新组织，从而将文明问题从线性发展路径转向关系结构与生成过程的理解，并为“关系文明”的理论建构提供方法基础。沿着这一方向，本文尝试推进“关系文明”与“关系生成论”的提出，以回应费孝通所期望的中国社会学或人类学学派的建构问题。

基于《费孝通全集》20卷语料统计，“文明”一词共出现725次，其中第18、19卷译著约188次。在全集中亦可见其对其他文明论者观点的片段性引用或回应，包括斯宾格勒 Oswald Spengler、汤因比 Arnold J. Toynbee及亨廷顿 Samuel P. Huntington等。这一理论传统通常将文明视为宏观历史单位，侧重文明的兴衰、发展与冲突，整体呈现出以单向推进为特征的线性发展路径。

相较之下，费孝通文明观的形成，更直接来源于其早期译著所提供的概念资源，主要集中于第18、19卷。其代表性作者包括奥格本 William F. Ogburn、马林诺夫斯基 Bronislaw Malinowski、费思 Raymond Firth、塞利格曼 C. G. Seligman以及梅奥 Elton Mayo等。这一类文本中的“文明”，主要体现为对文明发展、制度结构、社会类型及工业社会问题的分析，构成其人类学训练与早期研究中的方法性资源。

在其自著文本中，“文明”共出现537次，并呈现出明显的阶段性变化：早期（1930年代至1950年代）多为社会学与人类学语境中的一般性描述；中期（1980年代至1990年代）逐步进入中国文明与社会转型问题的讨论；晚期（2000年前后，集中体现于第17卷）则达到237次，占全部自著使用的约44%，标志着该概念由描述性用语转变为核心分析范畴。在这一阶段，“文明”被重新问题化，不再作为既定分析对象，而转向对“不同文明之间”关系的系统思考，并在“美美与共”的理念中获得规范性表达。

由此可见，费孝通的文明观体现为从译著输入的分析工具，转向自著中生成的关系性理论，这一转向不仅突破了以线性发展或文明冲突为核心的既有框架，也为当代文明研究提供了一种以共处为中心的解释路径。

在此基础上，伦敦经济学院人类学家石汉 Hans Steinmüller 在其教授就职演讲中提出的“complicity”与“commensuration”概念，为理解关系如何运作提供了一个重要的中观视角：前者指向基于情境与关系的内在默契，增强社会的复杂性；后者则通过标准化与可比性降低复杂性，使大规模社会得以运作，从而揭示关系在复杂性与简化之间的动态平衡 complexity / simplification。 

进一步地，在此次 UCL 的讲座中，方李莉基于景德镇的长期田野研究指出，文明发展并非单线推进，而是在历史资源与现实条件之间不断回环与重组。这一“迂回发展”的观察，从具体经验层面对传统线性文明观构成了重要修正，也在实践层面展示了关系如何在具体情境中被实现 reconfiguration。

在这一基础上，方李莉的研究与我提出的“关系生成论” relational generativity 形成了一种相互呼应的关系。两者均基于长期田野研究，关注关系如何在实践中形成与展开，但侧重点有所不同：方李莉更强调关系在当代条件下的具体实现，而我的研究则进一步从连续性角度出发，探讨关系在不同历史条件下的生成机制与转化逻辑。在这一意义上，若石汉所揭示的是关系在复杂性与简化之间的运作张力，那么本文进一步关注这一张力如何在持续的关系生成过程中得以维系与转化的生成逻辑 generative logic。

从更一般的角度来看，文明通常被理解为物质文明与精神文明两个维度：前者涉及生产与技术体系，后者涉及价值与意义结构。在此基础上，本文尝试提出以“关系文明”为统领的分析视角，将文明理解为以关系为核心的社会组织方式。

在这一框架中，费孝通提出的“美美与共”构成规范层，指向不同文明之间如何共处的规范性目标 normative goal；伦敦经济学院人类学家石汉 Hans Steinmüller 通过“共谋性” complicity 与“可比化” commensuration 构成机制层，解释关系如何在复杂性与简化之间运作 complexity / simplification；方李莉基于景德镇的田野研究构成实践层，展示关系如何在具体情境中被实现 reconfiguration；而我提出的“关系生成论” relational generativity 构成生成层，揭示关系如何在不同历史条件下持续产生与转化的生成逻辑 generative logic。

我正在“礼尚往来”或互适‘recipropriety’ 研究的基础上发展出“关系生成论” the generative logic of social relations。其中，“礼尚”作为规范与表达，提供关系的结构性基础；“往来”作为互动与流动，构成关系生成的实践过程。二者在持续互动中相互作用，使关系得以生成、维系与延展。我的研究还显示，构成社会与文明的关键要素并未真正消失，而是在不同历史阶段不断改变其存在形式，在连续性中实现变形与重组，从而有助于理解关系如何在不同历史条件下持续产生与转化 generative logic。由此，“关系文明”不仅是一种规范性理想，也是一种在机制、实践与生成过程中不断展开的动态体系；它既表现为人与人之间的共处结构，也体现为一种在历史过程中持续展开的生成性过程。

前文已提及，我曾编辑并出版雪漠的《人心》一书。雪漠通过文学、思想与叙事进入公共空间，在阅读与传播中触达人心；而我的工作则更多在关系与实践中展开，通过具体互动、田野研究与平台建构，使人心在关系生成的过程中逐步显现并发生作用。两种路径不同，却指向一个共同的问题：人心如何在当代社会中被连接、被理解，并转化为能够持续展开的关系结构。

在这一背景下，雪漠所讨论的“人心”，主要指向个体内在的道德修养与精神境界，其路径是一种向内的修行性人文实践；而在“礼尚往来”的研究中，我所提出的人心 renxin，则指向关系生成的本体基础，即人作为关系性存在，在具体情境中进行判断、权衡并生成关系的能力。这一差异，使“人心”从伦理范畴转向关系生成的本体层面，从而将个体内在修养的问题，转化为关系如何被生成与展开的问题。

近年来，我的研究视线从萨林斯 Marshall Sahlins 关于互惠类型的讨论、韦伯 Max Weber 对行动意义的理解，进一步延伸至布迪厄 Pierre Bourdieu 关于社会再生产的分析，以及吉登斯 Anthony Giddens 关于结构与行动互动的理论。在这一理论脉络的持续对话中，我逐步形成了“关系生成理论”的基本结构：以人心 renxin 为本体基础，以礼尚作为动力结构（涵盖道德、情感、理性与信仰），以往来作为关系形式（包括赠与性、表达性、工具性与否定性），并通过不同关系类型之间的转化来理解其生成机制。

在此基础上，这一理论尝试在三个层面上推进既有社会理论：将关系从结构与交换层面引向生成过程，为关系提供本体基础（人心），并为中国经验进入具有普遍解释力的理论结构提供一种可能路径。

（二）两种进入路径：在场实践与机制转化

1. 两种进入路径及其对文化与学术与交流的贡献

以上两场活动，从更宏观的角度看，呈现出两种不同但同样具有启发性的实践路径。2022年法兰克福书展期间，雪漠在德国本土之外的国际媒体热点话题排行榜位列第一。他以作家与团队为主体，通过国际书展与出版体系，持续进入全球文化传播空间；方李莉则依托中国艺术人类学学会平台，组织由12人组成的讲学与游学团队，在具体大学场域中展开交流。两种路径在形式上虽有所不同，但都呈现出一个共同趋势：以自身为主体进入目标空间，在在场的互动中完成传播与交流，而不再主要依赖外部中介结构。

这一变化也与技术条件密切相关。方李莉教授的讲座虽以中文进行，但通过英文PPT与实时屏幕翻译，包括问答环节的即时互译，使不同语言背景的听众能够同步参与。技术的发展，使跨语言交流从“经由他人传递”逐渐转向“共同在场中的理解”，从而为这种以主体直接进入的实践提供了现实条件。

或许可以借用方李莉教授在其研究中对景德镇社会结构变迁的一个判断：在转型过程中，总会出现一批“先锋人群”。从这一意义上看，无论是通过文学与思想传播持续进入国际文化空间的雪漠，还是依托学术共同体在具体场域中展开交流的方李莉，他们都不仅是参与者，同时也在型塑全球社会变化的路径。他们的实践所呈现的，不只是个体经验的成功，而是中国文化与学术在当代世界中展开的一种新的可能性。

2. 从进入路径到制度化机制：五维框架和平台建设

如果说前述“直接进入”的路径强调的是个体与团队在具体场域中的在场与实践，那么进一步的问题在于，这种进入如何从一次性的行动转化为可以持续运作的机制。在我四十年的学术实践中，这一问题逐渐呈现为一个更为结构性的任务：如何将分散的经验研究与理论探索，转化为具有内在结构并能够持续展开的知识生产体系。

从这一角度看，我的研究路径并非单一方向的发展，而是在经验、概念、理论、方法与制度五个相互关联的维度上逐步展开：以田野与历史材料为基础形成经验，通过语言与概念提炼进行表达，在此基础上形成具有解释力的理论结构，并通过方法提供可比较与可验证的路径，最终在制度层面使知识得以持续生产与传播。这一由“经验—概念—理论—方法—制度”构成的五维框架，使“直接进入”不再停留于个体实践，而转化为一种可以被组织、延续并不断扩展的制度化机制。

近十余年来，我在持续的田野与比较研究基础上发展“关系生成论” relational generativity，即以“人心”为本体基础，系统探讨关系的生成机制及其在不同类型之间的转化逻辑。同时，我进一步推动语料库与人工智能相结合的研究路径，探索中国社会研究从经验描述向概念提炼、理论建构与方法创新的转化机制。在方法论上，我提出并推进“语料库—人工智能—理论判断”相结合的研究范式，构建由经验、概念（语言）、理论、方法与制度构成的五维知识生产模型，探索国内外关于中国社会的研究成果如何通过结构性转化进入全球知识体系。与此同时，我也通过所创建的制度性平台，推动中国社会科学的全球传播与知识整合。

在制度与平台建构方面，我逐步形成了三个相互关联的学术平台。

首先，全球中国学术院是一家总部设于英国的独立性、全球性院士制学术机构，以全球与比较视野为基础，致力于推动人文社会科学领域关于中国的综合研究，并在跨国学术网络中持续展开对话与合作。

其次，环球世纪出版社作为出版平台，由我兼任总编辑，主编《全球中国比较研究》期刊、《全球中国对话文集》辑刊，以及“中华概念”“中国社会科学全球化”“中国与中华比较视野”“‘三只眼’转文化”“新锐与前沿”等系列丛书，承担四种学术期刊与八套系列丛书的中英双语出版工作，从而在知识生产与传播层面形成持续运作的机制。

再次，“全球中国对话”系列论坛以跨学科与比较视角为基础，汇集来自不同国家的学者、专家与公众，通过持续性的对话机制推动对全球议题与共同利益的理解。论坛不仅连接大学与研究机构，也与政府、国际组织、媒体与出版机构展开合作，围绕联合国可持续发展目标（SDGs）持续展开议题讨论，涵盖人工智能、能源、教育、移民、健康与全球安全等关键领域，逐步形成一个以转文化性 transculturality 与社会创造力 social creativity 为核心的全球对话空间。

这三个平台在功能上各有侧重，却相互支撑：以院士为核心的学术院，在提供制度性框架的同时，持续推进学术共同体建设，出版社承担知识生产与传播，对话平台推动持续交流与问题生成，从而共同构成一个连接研究、传播与制度的结构性体系。

结语

从伦敦这一周的两场活动可以看到，中国文化与学术正在以不同路径进入全球空间：一方面，通过个体与团队的“直接进入”，在具体场域中实现面对面的交流与传播；另一方面，这些实践本身也在不断提出新的问题，即如何使这种在场性的进入，转化为可以持续运作的知识与制度机制。在这一意义上，这些活动不仅具有自身的学术与文化价值，也为进一步的结构性建构提供了现实基础。

与此同时，讲座所涉及的内容——无论是围绕文明转型的田野经验，还是通过文学与思想展开的人心表达——都指向一个更为根本的问题：如何在经验、概念与理论之间建立起内在关联，使分散的知识能够进入具有结构的理解框架之中。正是在这一问题的推动下，本文尝试从“关系文明”的视角出发，结合“关系生成论”以及“语料库—人工智能—理论判断”的方法路径，对关系如何在不同层面上生成、运作与转化进行进一步的理论化探索。

从这一角度看，“直接进入”并非终点，而是一个起点：它使中国经验得以在全球空间中被看见，而通过平台建构与方法推进，这种进入才可能转化为一种能够持续展开的知识生产过程。也正是在这一过程中，经验、理论与制度之间的关系逐步被重新组织，从而为中国社会科学进入更广阔的知识体系提供了可能。

参考文献（略）

中国研究学生论坛由伦敦大学亚非学院 SOAS学生会联合主席（民主与教育事务）的韩雪宸 Sam Hardy 发起并于2023年举办了第一届论坛。第二届和第三届论坛分别于2024和2025年在伦敦国王学院KCL和伦敦经济学院LSE举办。这是一个由学生组织、学生参与，在这三校之间轮流主办、由三校汉语教师支持的跨校学术平台。相关教师同时担任由环球世纪出版社出版的《社科汉语研究期刊》（中文版）（Journal of Chinese for Social Science）编委。“社科汉语”或“社会科学汉语言”是“专门用途汉语”（CSP）的一个分支，如同“科技汉语”或“商务汉语”，它审视汉语在特定背景下的使用，并引起学术界对现有翻译文本和中国社会科学语言运用的关注。

在伦敦大学语言、文化与语言学学院首席教学研究员、《社科汉语研究期刊》创刊主编之一宋连谊博士，全球中国学术院院长、环球世纪出版社主编常向群教授以及相关教师/编委的支持下，论坛得以持续运行与发展。论坛采用英汉双语发表与讨论，不仅展示了社科汉语教学的成果，也推动了学术表达的双语转化。遴选的优秀论文已在《社科汉语研究期刊》发表，使这一跨校学术平台逐渐形成“会议—发表”的学术转化机制。

第四届中国研究学生论坛于2026年3月21日在伦敦大学亚非学院SOAS成功举办。本届论坛由韩雪宸组织并主持，得到了语言、文化与语言学学院首席语言讲师宣力Lik Suen女士的大力帮助。来自LSE、KCL、牛津、格拉斯哥等高校的12位本硕博学生发表了研究成果，系统呈现了当代中国研究在不同学科与方法之间的交叉发展。研究主题大致分为三类：一是历史与思想研究（如主权翻译、地方议会与早期跨文化认知），二是国际关系与比较政治（如欧洲对华话语、印尼与中国的比较、瑞士中立性），三是当代社会与知识生产（如留学生信任、青年就业、媒体中的中国想象等）。这些研究不仅关注“中国本身”，更通过比较、翻译与跨文化视角，将中国置于全球知识与话语体系之中，体现出明显的跨学科与转文化transcultural研究取向。

在既有汉语教师点评的基础上，本届论坛新增两位外部评委参与评议。他们是伦敦大学亚非学院历史系系主任劳曼Lars Peter Laamann副教授和由欧盟资助的咨询与顾问项目的政策分析师和 马修·尼科尔 Matthew Nicol。 论坛的最后环节，由常向群教授简单介绍《社科汉语研究期刊》网站的相关内容，期刊主编、伦敦政治经济学院中文部副主任施黎静博士与作者易蔚洋Derin Bohcaci对谈。他发表的文章是“现代性”或“欧洲中心主义”——对比土耳其与中国的语言改革‘Modernity’ or ‘Eurocentrism’— A Comparative Study of Language Reforms in Turkey and China，他们分享的投稿与发表经验，进一步强化了论坛与期刊之间的互动与学术生态建设。

以下为论坛议程

1. 从“合法性身份”到“项目性身份”，姚承哲，格拉斯哥大学
2. 晚清中国“主权”概念的翻译，陈乐言，伦敦政治经济学院 LSE
3. 欧洲各国政府如何构建对华政治关系的话语？，Victor El-Khoury，伦敦政治经济学院 LSE
4. 苏哈托政权倒台以来，印尼在多大程度上能够效仿中国的崛起？，商一鸣 Sam Stephens，伦敦大学亚非学院 SOAS
5. 20世纪初广东省议会研究，赵逸轩，利物浦大学
6. 20世纪初中国人对纽约犹太移民的认知，刘元昊，伦敦国王学院 KCL
7. 来华外国留学生对中国的信任度，Eleonora Di Benedetto，四川大学
8. 从“勤劳革命”重新思考资本主义，胡家祯，牛津大学
9. 精英学生如何应对中国青年失业危机，Hedi Deban，伦敦政治经济学院 LSE
10. 中国对瑞士中立性及其“桥梁作用”的认知，Jael Lorena Stettler，伦敦国王学院KCL /中国人民大学
11. 新闻中的中国技术“技术东方主义”想象，Hatty Liu，伦敦政治经济学院 LSE
12. 1938–1978年中泰教育政策中的民族主义与意识形态控制，陈淑云 Jaruwan Teanmahasatid，伦敦大学亚非学院 SOAS 

（部分中文名待确认）

以下为论坛活动照片选

上面照片为主持人与发言人（按出场顺序排列）。

上图为讨论与问答环节。

茶歇期间的交流。

期刊网站简介（上）及主编与作者的对谈（下）。

The China-Focused Student Research Forum was initiated by SU Co-President, Democracy and Education, Sam Hardy at SOAS, University of London, with its first forum held in 2023. The second and third forums were hosted in 2024 and 2025 at King’s College London (KCL) and the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), respectively. The forum is a cross-institutional academic platform organised by students and for students, rotating among SOAS, KCL, and LSE, and supported by Chinese language teachers across the three institutions. They also serve on the editorial board of the Journal of Chinese for Social Sciences (Chinese edition), published by Global Century Press. ‘Chinese for social science’ or ‘Chinese language for Social Science’ is a branch of ‘Chinese for Specific Purposes’ (CSP), like ‘Chinese for science and technology’ or ‘business Chinese’. It examines the use of the Chinese language in context and draws academic attention to the usefulness and validity of existing translated texts and language usage in Chinese social science. 

With the support of Dr Song Lianyi, Principal Teaching Fellow at the School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, University of London, and one of the founding editors of the Journal of Chinese for Social Sciences; Professor Xiangqun Chang, President of the Global China Academy and Editor-in-Chief of Global Century Press; as well as the above teachers and editorial board members, the forum has been able to sustain its development. Conducted bilingually in Chinese and English, both in presentations and discussions, the forum not only showcases achievements in teaching Chinese for social sciences but also promotes the bilingual transformation of academic expression. Selected outstanding papers have been published in the Journal of Chinese for Social Sciences, gradually establishing a “conference-to-publication” mechanism within this cross-institutional platform.

The 4th China-Focused Student Research Forum was successfully held on 21 March 2026 at SOAS, University of London. The event was organised and chaired by Sam Hardy, with strong support from Ms Lik Suen, Principal Lector at the School of Languages, Cultures and Linguistics. A total of 12 undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral students from institutions including LSE, KCL, Oxford, and Glasgow presented their research, collectively demonstrating the interdisciplinary and methodological diversity of contemporary China studies.

The research topics can be broadly grouped into three areas: (1) historical and intellectual studies (e.g. the translation of sovereignty, provincial assemblies, and early cross-cultural perceptions); (2) international relations and comparative politics (e.g. European discourses on China, Indonesia’s comparison with China, and Swiss neutrality); and (3) contemporary society and knowledge production (e.g. international students’ trust in China, youth employment, and media imaginaries of China). These studies not only focus on China itself but also situate China within global knowledge and discursive systems through comparative, translational, and cross-cultural perspectives, reflecting a distinctly interdisciplinary and transcultural approach.

In addition to the established commentary by Chinese language instructors, this year’s forum introduced two external discussants, including Associate Professor Lars Peter Laamann, Head of the Department of History at SOAS, University of London, and Matthew Nicol, policy analyst and Key Expert on an EU-funded advisory programme (EUCLERA).

In the concluding session, Professor Xiangqun Chang briefly introduced the Journal of Chinese for Social Sciences website. This was followed by a dialogue between Dr Shi Lijing, Deputy Head of the Chinese Programme at LSE and Editor-in-Chief of the journal, and the author Derin Bohcaci, whose published article, “‘Modernity’ or ‘Eurocentrism’? A Comparative Study of Language Reforms in Turkey and China,” served as the basis for discussion. They shared their experiences of submission and publication, further strengthening the interaction between the forum and the journal, and contributing to the development of a sustainable academic ecosystem.

The following section outlines the programme of the forum.

1. From Legitimised Identity to Project Identity, Chengzhe Yao, University of Glasgow
2. Translating Sovereignty (主權) in Late Qing China, Lok Yin Chan, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
3. How Do European Governments Frame Political Relations with China? Victor El-Khoury, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
4. To What Extent Has Indonesia Since the Fall of the Suharto Regime Been Able to Emulate China’s Rising Status? Sam Stephens, SOAS, University of London
5. The Guangdong Provincial Assembly in the Early 1900s, Yixuan Zhao, University of Liverpool
6. Early Twentieth-Century Chinese Perceptions of Jewish Immigrants in New York, Yuang Marcus Liu, King’s College London (KCL)
7. Trust of International Students in China, Eleonora Di Benedetto, Sichuan University
8. Rethinking Capitalism through the Industrious Revolution, Jiazhen Hu, University of Oxford
9. How Elite Students Navigate China’s Youth Unemployment Crisis, Hedi Deban, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
10. China’s Perception of Swiss Neutrality and Its Bridge-Builder Role, Jael Lorena Stettler, King’s College London (KCL) / Renmin University of China
11. Techno-Orientalist Imaginaries of China in Journalism, Hatty Liu, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
12. Nationalism and Ideological Control in Sino–Thai Education Policy, 1938–1978, Jaruwan Teanmahasatid, SOAS, University of London

The following are selected photographs from the event.

The above are the chair and presenters (in order of appearance).

The above shows the discussion and Q&A session.

Networking during the break.

Introduction to the journal website (top) and a dialogue between the editor-in-chief and a contributor (bottom).