American sinology through the lens of the neoconservative switch

The foreign policy decision-making remains “blank” for researchers. It is impossible to determine exactly what in-put is available to a decision-maker and how the final decision is elaborated. For example, we do not have access to the classified materials provided by intelligence or the US Department of Defense. In other words, the entire foreign policy mechanism is a “black box”. In this regard, think tanks can be considered as a convenient and valid alternative material for studying the decisionmaking process.

American sinology originated in the second half of the 19th century. It was founded by missionaries, merchants and manufacturers. Over the years, they have contributed to the development of Chinese studies. Even during the periods when the United States pursued an isolationist foreign policy, sinology continued to develop. At some point, new directions originated within the discipline. The latter also contributed to the development of sinology into a separate regional studies branch of knowledge.

But the disputes between experts have contributed not only to the emergence of new meanings and notions, but also to a decrease in the resilience of Chinese studies to politicization. Moreover, not only politicians tried to politicize it and use it against their competitors, but also some experts who sought greater involvement in the decision-making process. In other words, “shaping” expertise for domestic and foreign political interests of decisionmakers has become more conspicuous during the neoconservative switch.

1. Chi Wang (2009), George W. Bush and China. Policies, problems and partnership, Lexington Books, New York, USA.

2. Kranert, M., ed., (2020), Discursive approaches to populism across disciplines, Palgrave Macmillan, Southampton, UK.

3. Mann, J. (2004), Rise of the vulcans. The history of Bush’s War Cabinet, Penguin Group, New York.

4. Ryan, M. (2010), Neoconservatism and the New American century, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA.

5. Seybolt, P.J. (1973), China studies in crisis, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, USA.

6. Shambaugh, D. (2015), American studies of contemporary China, Routledge, New York, USA.

7. Smith, R.A. (1982), “On the third realm. Elitism versus populism: The continuing debate”, The Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5–10.

8. Tao, W. (2018), The US policy making process for post-Cold War China. The role of US Think Tanks and Diplomacy, China Social Science Press/Springer, Beijing, China.

9. Trani, E.P. and Davis, E.D. (2009), Distorted mirrors: Americans and their relations with Russia and China in the 20th century, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA.