Discovering “Frontier Politics Studies”: Frontier Politics Research between Academics and Political Situation in the Republican Era

Long Wei

Abstract:The study of 玝ianzhengxue(Frontier Politics) was an academic subject created in the second wave of frontier studies in academic circles in the early 1940s, whose purpose was to conduct a systematic study of the politics of the frontier. The subject flourished for a while, but, then disappeared. Frontier Politics Studies is not well-known to people today. The recently published 玬inguo shiqi and bianzheng yu bianzhengxue (Frontier Politics and Frontier Politics Studies in the Republican Era) by Wang Hongliang, takes this lost subject as its focus, and explores the process of the development of Frontier Politics Studies in the Republican Era. Although this book is titled 獸rontier Politics and Frontier Politics Studies, 玶eaders might think that it would equally concern both the management of the frontier and Frontier Politics Studies in the Republican Era. However, it actually is concerned more about “studies” than “politics”, and only takes “frontier politics” as the space and context of “studies”. Its real purpose is to describe the rise and development of “Frontier Politics Studies”. If we only focus on “frontier politics”, then it would appear that the content of the book is far removed from the title. However, if we focus on “Frontier Politics Studies”, then it can be regarded as an excellent work of this historical discipline. The book is very distinctive in the following aspects.

The book places “Frontier Politics Studies” within the context of national crisis and reconstruction of the nation in modern times; it investigates the rise of Frontier Politics Studies by putting it within an academic context in which Chinese Frontier Geographical History Studies were transformed from traditional to modern academics; and it describes the rise and fall of the discipline as a dynamic process of academic evolution. All of these points are profound and impressive. The book takes Frontier Politics Studies as its starting point, and then carefully sorts out the efforts made by scholars from various disciplines in the Southwest (partly in Northwest) for building Frontier Politics Studies during the Republican era when the national government餾 political center moved to the west.

It especially highlights how Chinese scholars, such as Yang Chengzhi, and Wu Wenzao, drew from the theory and methodology of western sociology, anthropology and ethnology in order to construct Chinese Frontier Politics Studies. It shows that Frontier Studies in the Republican era, both from its method and theory, and from the research group and its way of communication, cannot be compared even with the Northwest Historical Geography Studies from the mid- Qing dynasty. Putting Frontier Politics Studies within this historical context and within the discipline of history is not only helpful for correctly positioning the research of Frontier Politics and the disciplinary position of the Frontier Politics Studies itself, demonstrating the historical logic of the academics and politics, but, it is also helpful for understanding Chinese scholars efforts in guarding ideological trends from “matching with world academics ” to “academic sinicization” , and understanding the sinicization process of anthropology and sociology.

In addition, the author especially emphasizes the intervention and influence of Republican politics on the academic field from the perspective of frontier politics. The work notes that Frontier Politics Studies of the Republican era was a product of the transformation of Chinese traditional frontier study to modern academics studies. It did so within a context of growing foreign aggression and when the Chinese people were making efforts to build a nation-state. Hence, Frontier Politics Studies is an excellent case for studying the relationship between politics and academics in the Republican era. The move of the National Government to the west promoted the Southwest which previously had received little attention.It now became a home front for “Anti-Japanese sentiment and nation building”, and the base for the “revival of nationhood”. Its political and military position was suddenly promoted. Hence, the government and people placed high expectations on it. With the advocacy and encouragement of political and academic circles, a concern for frontier and frontier politics rose within the country, something which made the creation of “Frontier Politics Studies” possible. The book, using a narrative method, clearly outlines the internal relationship between “Frontier Politics Studies” during the Republican era and frontier politics in the later period of the Sino-Japanese War. Moreover, it provides an introduction to and research on the contributions of modern scholars to this discipline and its related fields. This helps to revive this academic historical memory that had already largely been forgotten. It is clear that the rise of Frontier Studies had a close relationship with frontier politics. Hence, only when we understand the relationship between politics and academics within the historical context of the Sino-Japanese war, can the development line of Frontier Politics Studies be clearly recognized.

It is worthy to note here that Wang餾 book reconstructs the development trail and basic features of Frontier Politics Studies in the Republican era which has been forgotten for a long time—this is just like “rediscovering” a historical site. Wang餾 work discusses systematically the establishment of the Chinese Frontier Politics Society, and the founding and running of the 玝ianzheng gonglun(Frontier Politics Forum). Moreover, starting from the classic works of anthropologists Yang Zhicheng and Wu Wenzao,

the book analyzes the system of the Frontier Politics Studies constructed by them, provides a detailed introduction to the situation, and, of course, to the major settings related to Frontier Politics in colleges during the Republican era. Hence, this forgotten subject has been re-discovered. Wang餾 “rediscovery” of “Frontier Politics Studies”, which was created in the 1940s, relatively comprehensively reconstructs the formation, development and evolution of China餾 Frontier Politics Studies for the first time, and describes the academic features of the Frontier Politics Studies in the Republican era. Finally, it constructs the development genealogy of the Frontier Politics Studies in the Republican era. This will be helpful for understanding the Frontier Historical Geography Studies of Modern China from the aspect of historical lineage, and academic history.

The author states that there are three points regarding the research idea of the book. These points, based on a reconstruction of the historical facts of the rise of the Frontier Politics Studies and its achievements in the Republican era, are: 1. To explore the academic process of Frontier research餾 stepping from a traditional mode to a modern one from the perspective of the inner logic of academic development; 2. To explore the relationship between Frontier Research and Frontier Politics from the perspective of the interaction of text and context; 3. To explore the sinification process of anthropology, ethnology and sociology as well as to explore achievements from the perspective of these western disciplines being introduced to the east.

The author places his investigation of the Frontier Politics Studies within the academic line of Chinese Frontier historical geography studies transforming from traditional to modern academics, and explores how frontier research walked from its traditional base to a modern one. This is undoubtedly a good academic topic. However, if we think about it carefully, and suppose that a process exists in which the frontier transformed from traditional to modern as the author said, then where was the traditional Frontier Politics Studies? When the author began his narrative, he might have presupposed a narrative path starting from the traditional leading to the modern. Hence, it overshadowed the question of traditional “Frontier Politics Studies”. Although the Wang餾 book provides a lot of description on the process of the rise of Frontier Politics Studies, it is clear that most of it was from the politics of the time, and could be attributed to the external stimulation of the time. It rarely discusses the internal drive for founding this discipline. Therefore, it is relatively difficult to analyze the transformation process from the traditional to the modern.

In addition, this kind of question might also contain another important question. With regard to the traditional frontier historical geography studies of China, we can ask whether “Frontier Politics Studies” is a transformation through a process of grafting and creation, or is it a direct transplant from western anthropology and ethnology on a particular research object-the frontier of China? Or we could ask if the rise of Frontier Politics Studies was only a tool used by the scholars in the Republican era, borrowed from western modern academic norms in order to re-explore and sort out the history, ethnicity and languages of the Frontiers which was stimulated by the national crisis, and in so doing understand, evaluate, and develop the Frontiers? Wang餾 work noticed that in the 1930s, anthropology and ethnology were already extremely strong, and their disciplinary systems and theoretical methods were relatively mature. Wang餾 book, obviously, takes western anthropology, sociology and ethnology as an important resource for “Frontier Politics Studies”.

In addition, the author tried to look at the sinicization process of anthropology, ethnology and sociology, and related achievements resulting from the western disciplines being introduced to the east. The work devotes a large number of pages investigating the effort given to the sinicization of western studies, under the stimulation of nationalism. This is obviously necessary for understanding the founding of the Frontier Politics Studies. However, does this narration clearly distinguish the relationship between anthropology, ethnology and sociology and Frontier Politics Studies? Anthropology, ethnology and sociology, except for providing academic resources for the Frontier Politics Studies, were there any academic competition and conflicts? Did Frontier Politics Studies have its own disciplinary “border”? A discipline餾 independence obviously should be different from and not dependent on other disciplines. However, from the founding of “Frontier Politics Studies”, the relationship of the discipline with sociology, anthropology and ethnology is difficult to clarify. Except for the research circles defining it as “Frontier”, it is difficult to find clear academic distinctions and differences among these disciplines based upon their research paradigms and linguistic systems.

It may seem that there are not many connections among the above mentioned questions. However, actually they are related to the disciplinary attributes of “Frontier Politics Studies”, and, in the 1940餾, they also have connections with the academic fates of the different related disciplines, such as anthropology and sociology. As a discipline, what are the attributes of Frontier Politics Studies, or we can ask what is the nature and features of the discipline? Although Wang餾 work involves some discussion on these questions, it is relatively brief. The author does not give a clear definition of the border of the Frontier Politics Studies. Hence, to the readers, it is difficult to sort out the relationship and border between Frontier Politics Studies and sociology, ethnology and anthropology. He also does not provide concrete evidence for the independence of the discipline, which will further influence academic judgment on the development of the Frontier Politics Studies.

In the case of Frontier Politics Studies, Wang餾 work has given a detailed description of the formation of the Frontier Politics Studies in the Republican era. However, as readers, we might want to understand why the Frontier Politics Studies suddenly went silent in 1948. Except for political reasons, we want to know whether it was due to the fact that the attributes of “Frontier Politics Studies” are vague or unclear? The key point of Wang餾 book is in the rise of “Frontier Politics Studies”, but it rarely discusses the dicipline餾 progress after the formation of the Studies. In addition, the ending of the book seems slightly hasty.

In conclusion, as a discipline which rose and declined rapidly, it is clear that the fate of the structure of Frontier Politics has a close and interactional relationship with the structure of modern frontier politics. Is the entanglement of academics and politics lucky or unlucky? Frontier Politics Studies can be taken as a typical case for understanding the relationship between politics and academics in the Republican era. The rise of Frontier Politics Studies obviously is related with the southwest frontier餾 important position in the whole of national politics and the cultural context during the Sino-Japanese war period. However, at the end of 1940s, the center for national construction moved to the east, and the western frontier was once again marginalized. Hence, Frontier Politics Studies also lost its importance. Just as the author states: the rise, decline of Frontier Politics Studies can clearly reflect that the “noted discipline” formed during a special period in time is also a “dangerous discipline” which was easily influenced by the changes of the time.

Key Words: frontier politics Studies; Wang Hongliang; academic transformation; frontier politics

References:

Chen Pingyuan. 珃hongguo xiandai xueshu tixi de jianli—yi zhangtaiyan, hushi wei zhongxin(Building of Chinese Modern Academic System—Taking Zhang Taiyan and Hu Shi as the Center). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe,1998:8.

Gu Jiegang. 玠angdai zhongguo shixue (Modern Chinese Historical Studies). Shanghai: shiji chuban jituan/shanghai guji chubanshe, 2006:1-2.

Li Guang,Ren Dingcheng. 玧iaocha xueke daolun(An Introduction to Inter-discipline). Wuhan:hubei renmin chubanshe,1989:37-55.

Thomas S. Kuhn. 玨exue geming de jiegou (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Jin Wulun, Hu Xinhe,transl. Beijing: beijing daxue chubanshe, 2003:163-168.