Authors

Xin Zhang⁴; Jing Shi²; Cheng Yang⁵; Catherine Owen¹; Yoshiro Ikeda³;  ¹ University of Exeter, UK;  ² Tsinghua University, China;  ³ University of Tokyo, Japan;  ⁴ East China Normal University (ECNU), China;  ⁵ Shanghai International Studies University, China

Discussion

The influence of decolonial and non-Western approaches has challenged dominant narratives of socio-political phenomena. These approaches have shown how knowledge is partial and situated, located in a specific context, and with a specific goal in mind (Haraway 1988; Loke & Owen 2024). The study of Eurasia is no exception. While during the 2000s, mainstream Political Science framings sought to measure ‘transition’, assess the emergence of ‘civil society’ (Howard 2002; Uhlin 2006) and when, that failed, classify varieties of authoritarianism in the region (Ambrosio 2014), these narrow, teleological approaches have come under increasing criticism, not least from critical Area Studies scholars (Cheskin & Jasina-Schaefer 2022; Heller, 2022).

This round table will critically evaluate the contributions to Eurasian Area Studies in the China and Japan. In both, the study of Eurasia is of significant (geo)political importance, yet the two states have very different historical-political relations with the region. In China, Area Studies is being actively promoted in the recognition that regionally specific knowledge constitutes a key component of a rising China (Yang 2022; Zhang 2023) and the push for more “policy-relevant knowledge” has been the driving force behind this expansion (Zhang 2023; Cheng & Liu 2022). Empirically, Chinese studies of Eurasia prioritize foreign policy and grand strategy, reflecting China's geopolitical ambitions, its interest in shaping regional dynamics through the Belt and Road Initiative and its broader international diplomacy. Studies often frame Eurasia with a focus on historical ties and cooperative frameworks, aiming to foster a stable, multi-polar order.

In Japan, Eurasian studies are well established, characterized by a strong historiographical orientation. From a Politics perspective, the Slavic Eurasian Research Center has advanced the analysis of Eurasian polities through the lens of empire, exploring the differences and commonalities in the techniques of governance in the Russian Empire, the USSR, and modern Russia (Tabata 2015). From an Economics perspective, important research has explored the impact of the Soviet planned economy on the economic systems of the Japanese empire and Manchukuo (Yamamuro 2006). 

This round table will discuss what is distinctive about the study of Eurasia in East Asia. It will debate whether and how Chinese and Japanese approaches complement or challenge dominant Western framings, as well as each other, and will probe the financial, geopolitical, and epistemic reasons behind these divergences. Speakers will summarise key trends in Eurasian Studies in their national context, critically assess the relationships between foreign policy making and academia, and assess the culturally essentializing pitfalls of tying scholarly approaches to specific geographical regions.