Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power represents an initiative by international relations (IR) scholars from China to enter into theoretical conversations with counterparts elsewhere. This translation of work by Yan Xuetong and his colleagues examines prominent pre-Qin dynasty (221–202BC) political philosophies with the aim of providing analytical, predictive, prescriptive and normative insights for IR (pp. 3, 21). This ambitious project may appeal to readers seeking an introduction to how IR scholars from China conceptualize and apply pre-Qin thought to inter-state relations. More importantly, the book highlights major questions facing current efforts to overtly relate Chinese traditions to contemporary world politics.
Yan and his collaborators organize the volume into three sections together with an introduction by series editor Daniel Bell, which outlines the tensions, implications, and history of the project. As the book's conceptual core, the three chapters in part one review work by major pre-Qin thinkers, relating them to IR theory and strategies for managing China's rise. Yan's starts by comparing different outlooks on inter-state relations in canonical pre-Qin texts, framing them in terms of IR discussions over levels of analysis, norms and hegemony. He next examines the work of the philosopher, Xunzi, to illustrate how morality, hard power, strategic reliability, force, stratagems and norms can together shape inter-state order along humane authority, hegemony or tyranny. Chapter three by Yan and Huang Yuxing surveys the normative and individual bases for hegemony, which they see as The Stratagems of the Warring States' (Zhan guo ce) main message for inter-state politics.
Part two contains reactions by Yang Qianru, Xu Jin and Wang Rihua. Their respective chapters argue for better contextualization in the reading of pre-Qin texts, emphasizing benevolence and justice in pre-Qin concepts of inter-state leadership, as well as the centrality of governance and legitimacy to inter-state order. Yan's rejoinder opens part three. He points to how pre-Qin political thought may enhance the theoretical and empirical study of IR, while proposing refinements to his delineation of key concepts – especially humane authority and hegemony. Part three also features three appendices, which include Xu Jin's overview of the pre-Qin, Spring and Autumn (~771–403BC) and Warring States (~403–221BC) eras, an interview with Yan by Lu Xin, and an essay by Yan on the absence of a “Chinese School” of IR. The latter two pieces underscore Yan's longstanding interest in marrying the study of IR with China's early political traditions.
The authors could have enriched the volume by relating their ideas more explicitly and consciously to existing work on Chinese philosophy and history in addition to IR, sociology and other social sciences. Notably, the contributors see “justice,” “benevolence,” and “rites” as critical for humane authority and hegemony, treating them as self-evident and unproblematic. Responding directly to intellectual historians Theodore de Bary, Peter Bol, Chien Mu, Hsiao Kung-chuan, Willard Peterson, Wang Fan-Sen and Yu Ying-shih, who identify traditionally fierce literati debates over these concepts, could prove instructive. In arguing for the limits of existing scholarship on pre-Qin inter-state politics, Yan and Huang could react to research by political scientist Victoria Hui and sociologist Zhao Dingxin, alongside older work by historians Lei Haizong and Lin Tongji (pp. 25–26, 109–112) When stressing morality, legitimacy, and norms in pre-Qin perspectives on order, hierarchy, and inter-state relations, the authors could likewise reply to parallel positions advanced by G. John Ikenberry, Alastair Iain Johnston, Allen Carlson and David Kang.
Yan and his collaborators could more clearly pursue their goal of using pre-Qin thought “not just to analyse actual international politics but also to predict trends in international politics” (p. 215). Readers may find greater systematic substantiation and evaluation of the authors' claims about the practical and moral advantages of pre-Qin approaches to foreign policy and IR particularly useful. The authors could articulate precise, testable theories and hypotheses derived from pre-Qin insights, which they may then assess against empirical evidence. This could move the book's evidentiary basis beyond brief anecdotes that variously reference everything from IMF rules and American foreign intervention to Chinese grand strategy. These enhancements could more fully underline the value of pre-Qin philosophy to IR theory, foreign policy analysis and the social sciences.
By trying to tie together the study of IR and pre-Qin thought, Ancient Chinese Thought reminds social scientists about the possible gains of drawing from a broad array of intellectual sources. Such inter-disciplinary outreach may benefit readers most when they engage robustly with related literatures and empirical material. More extensive dialogue in this direction can enable scholars and students to better problematize and grapple with matters of legitimacy, authority and dominance in inter-state politics, which are among the contributors' main concerns. Readers may therefore wish for more care and rigour in the treatment of pre-Qin thinking and IR. Taking these expectations seriously could help the project become more than a reference point on present thinking about IR theory and foreign policy in China.
