The development of overseas ethnography has expanded the empirical foundation of Chinese anthropology. Photo: TUCHONG

---

In the Chinese academic context, “overseas ethnography” refers to ethnographic works written in Chinese, based on long-term fieldwork conducted abroad and grounded in anthropological theory. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the development of overseas ethnography has expanded the empirical foundation of Chinese anthropology, while the subjective awareness cultivated by Chinese scholars as they observe the wider world is becoming a deeper driving force for disciplinary advancement. At the same time, it is essential to recognize the dialectical relationship between the outward-looking orientation of overseas ethnography and the Chinese academic context, transcending the rigid binary opposition between China and “the outside world.”

Producing first-hand knowledge of the world

“Overseas ethnography” is a uniquely Chinese academic concept. In Western anthropology, which originated as the study of foreign societies, the “overseas” dimension is an implicit spatial premise of ethnographic research. In contrast, it was not until the 21st century—when various conditions had matured—that Chinese anthropologists began conducting large-scale, long-term fieldwork abroad. This process of “going global” has reshaped the structure of world knowledge within the Chinese academic community. For much of the past, Chinese scholars’ understanding of the world largely relied on secondary sources, mediated through the perspectives of foreign scholars. Today, Chinese anthropologists are directly producing first-hand world knowledge for the Chinese audience.

Overseas ethnography emphasizes writing in Chinese, with Chinese readers as its primary audience. However, this does not imply a rejection of internationalization. In recent years, Chinese overseas ethnography has attracted increasing attention from the international academic community, particularly from foreign scholars engaged in China studies who seek to understand the emergence of overseas ethnography in China from multiple perspectives—a global academic phenomenon in its own right. Meanwhile, Chinese overseas ethnographers have also remained open to international academic exchange. In addition to Chinese, they also write in English—the lingua franca of global academia—and the non-English languages used in the societies they study, promoting multilingual academic communication and contributing to a more equitable global academic landscape.

A shared challenge facing overseas ethnographers is the tension between research agendas rooted in Chinese social concerns and fieldwork conducted abroad. Chinese social science research has traditionally been regarded as scholarship about China, not about the world. As a result, domestic research on China rarely needs to justify its relevance, whereas fieldwork conducted abroad often requires explicit justification. The author argues that the fundamental value of overseas ethnography lies in its detailed and vivid portrayal of “another culture” and “another way of life,” evoking recognition and insight among domestic readers.

Meanwhile, the focus of overseas ethnography is shifting from the study of the Other to an exploration of “a world shared by the self and the Other.” As Chinese people increasingly participate in global mobility, and as China’s global influence continues to grow, an unprecedented level of interdependence has developed between China and the world. In this context, drawing rigid boundaries between self and Other is no longer tenable. Therefore, the mission of overseas ethnography lies not only in promoting mutual understanding and appreciation among cultures, but also in evoking readers’ resonation with and reflection on the shared challenges facing humanity.

Avoiding intellectual pitfalls

Writing overseas ethnographies in Chinese entails using the conceptual frameworks and methodological resources embedded in Chinese intellectual culture to explore new aspects of the world. Yet in doing so, several intellectual pitfalls must be avoided.

First, retrogressive thinking and essentialist approaches to understanding Chinese culture should be avoided. Conceptual resources should not be drawn exclusively from ancient Chinese thought. Chinese civilization has evolved through the convergence of multiple civilizations and has continually drawn upon intellectual resources from other parts of the world since modern times. Its particularity and universality should be understood within a dynamic historical process.

Second, the understanding and application of ancient Chinese intellectual resources should not be separated from contemporary contexts or from the genealogies of current knowledge systems. Instead, we should examine how thinkers across different historical periods interpreted these traditions and how ancient Chinese thought may acquire new meanings in the present.

Third, anthropology should not be abstracted into purely philosophical reflection, nor should binary intellectual boundaries be drawn between China and the rest of the world. The significance of overseas ethnography lies in enriching our intellectual resources by discovering the world and developing new narratives, thereby contributing to a general understanding of the human condition.

Gong Haoqun is a professor from the School of Sociology and Anthropology at Xiamen University.

Edited by WANG YOURAN