1. Samuel Kim has argued this view in his numerous works. See his “China in and out of the changing world order,” Occasional Paper No. 21, World Order Studies Program, (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1991)Google Scholar; “China's international organizational behavior,” in Robinson, Thomas and Shambaugh, David (eds.), Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).Google Scholar See also Robinson, Thomas W., “Interdependence in China's foreign relations,” in Kim, Samuel (ed.), China and the World: Chinese Foreign Relations in the Post-Cold War Era (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Christensen, Thomas, “Chinese realpolitik,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75, No. 5 (09/10 1996), pp. 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. For example, several books cited in this article had been delayed or denied for publication due to official disapproval and have subsequently been published by local publishers outside Beijing or even in Hong Kong.

3. It is said that the Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, has for the past few years encouraged scholars in major universities and think-tanks to come up with more independent, in-depth analyses of foreign affairs in the spirit of “having multiple voices internally, while speaking in one voice externally.” But the result has been frustrating. The Chinese leaders have realised that, as a great power, China must have its own independent voice in the world. Right judgements on international situations also help domestic policy-making and implementation. See the briefing for Chinese Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Qian Qichen's talk commemorating the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the leading think-tank, China Institute of International Studies, Guoji wenti yanjiu (International Studies), Vol. 1 (1997), p. 1.Google Scholar

4. See a recent article by Hughes, Barry B., Chan, Steven and Kegley, Charles W. Jr., “Observations on the study of international relations in China,” International Studies Notes, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Fall 1994), pp. 17–22.Google Scholar My assumption is further testified by a later review article on Chinese views of international relations, which finds the official, scholarly and populist perspectives do not differ much in terms of core views. See Hughes, Christopher, “Globalization and nationalism: squaring the circle in Chinese international relations theory,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1997), pp. 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Wight, Martin, “Why is there no international theory?” in Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, Martin (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (Cambridge, MA:, 1966), p. 26.Google Scholar

6. Wight, Martin, “Western values in international relations,” in Butterfield and Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, p. 101.Google Scholar E. H. Can explicitly addressed the contrast between domestic and international politics in terms of the tension between realism and idealism in Western political theory: see The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939 (London: Macmillan, 1939).Google Scholar

7. Because neorealism focuses on the international structure as its level of analysis, it is also known as “structural realism.” For the most systematic articulation of “structural realism,” see Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Welsley, 1979).Google Scholar For a penetrating critique of Waltz's views, see Ruggie, John G., “Continuity and transformation in the world polity: toward a neorealist synthesis,” World Politics, Vol. 35, No. 2 (1983), pp. 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There are many variants of neorealist theory, a good review of which can be found in Dougherty, James E. and Pfaltzgraff, Robert L. Jr, Contending Theories of International Relations, 4th edition, (New York: Longman, 1997), especially Chapters 2 and 10.Google Scholar

8. Morgenthau, Hans and Thompson, Kenneth, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 6th edition, (New York: Knopf, 1985), pp. 5, 11.Google Scholar

9. See the special edition of Xiandai guoji guanxi (Contemporary International Relations), No. 6 (1994)Google Scholar, which is devoted to commemorating the 40th anniversary of the announcement of the five principles of peaceful co-existence.

10. Xiaoping, Deng, Deng Xiaoping wenxuan (The Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping), Vol. III (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1993).Google Scholar See also, Jingdian, Gao (ed.), Deng Xiaoping guoji zhanliie shixiang yanjiu (A Study on Deng Xiaoping's Thoughts on International Strategy) (Beijing: Guofang daxue chubanshe, 1992), Chapter 3Google Scholar; Taiping, Wang (ed.), Deng Xiaoping waijiao shixiang yanjiu lunwenji (A Collection of Research Papers on Deng Xiaoping's Thoughts on Diplomacy) (Beijing: Shijie zhishi chubanshe, 1996)Google Scholar; Guangqian, Peng and Youzhi, Yao (eds.), Deng Xiaoping ihanlue shixiang lun (On Deng Xiaoping's Thoughts on Strategy) (Beijing: Jiefangjun kexue chubanshe, 1994), Chapter 3.Google Scholar

11. Wendt, Alexander, “Collective identity formation and the international state,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, No. 2 (06 1994), p. 388 and passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Huning, Wang, “Wenhua kuozhang yu wenhua zhuquan: dui zhuquan guannian de tiaozhan”Google Scholar(“Cultural expansion versus cultural sovereignty: a challenge to the concept of sovereignty”), in Jisi, Wang (ed.), Wenming yu guoji zhengzhi – Zhongguo xuezhe ping hengtingdun de wenming chongtu lun (Civilizations and International Politics – Chinese Scholars' Responses to Huntington's Theory of Civilizational Clashes) (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1995).Google Scholar

13. Wei, Hu, “Lun lengzhanhou guoji chongtu: dui ‘wenming fanshi’ de piping”Google Scholar(“Conflicts in the post-Cold War world: a critique of the ‘civilization paradigm’”), Fudan xuebao: shehui kexue ban (Fudan Journal: Social Sciences Edition), Vol. 3 (1995), pp. 254–262.Google Scholar

14. Aron, Raymond, Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations (New York: Praeger, 1967), p. 599, tr. Howard, Richard and Fox, Annette Baker.Google Scholar

15. Some may argue that support for supremacy of national interest is in itself a form of ideology. But this “anti-ideological” background has to be considered in the Chinese context.

16. For the most rigorous articulation of this view, see Xinning, Song, “Guojia liyi de lilun renshi”Google Scholar (“A theoretical understanding of national interests”), Zhongguo shehui kexue jikan (Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly), No. 20 (Autumn 1997), pp. 119–131.Google Scholar See also, Jiliang, Zhang, Cuoji guanxi gailun (An Introduction to International Relations) (Beijing: Shijie zhishi chubanshe, 1990), p. 58Google Scholar; Tejun, Feng and Xinning, Song (eds.), Guoji zhengzhi gailun (Introduction to International Politics) (Beijing: Zhongguo renmin daxue chubanshe, 1992), pp. 123–25Google Scholar; Jingdian, Gao (ed.), Guoji zhanlüe xue gailun (Introduction to the Study of International Strategy) (Beijing: Guofang daxue chubanshe, 1995), Chapter 1.Google Scholar

17. Yinzhong, Jin and Shixiong, Ni, Guoji guanxi lilun bijiao yanjiu (A Comparative Study of International Relations Theory) (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1992), pp. 116–122.Google Scholar

18. Shoude, Liang and Yinxian, Hong, Guoji zhengzhi xue gailun (Introduction to International Politics) (Beijing: Zhongyang bianyi chubanshe, 1994), passim, especially, pp. 75–76, 83–87.Google Scholar

19. Xuetong, Yan, Zhongguo guojia liyi fenxi (Analysis of China's National Interests) (Tianjin: Tianjin remin chubanshe, 1996), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar

20. This expression is coined by Liang Shoude, Dean of the School of International Relations, Beijing University: see his Introduction to International Politics, and “Guoji zhengzhi xue zai Zhongguo” (“The study of international politics in China”), Guoji zhengzhi yanjiu (Studies of International Politics), Vol. 1 (1997), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

21. Tejun, Feng and Xinning, Song (eds.), Introduction to International Politics, p. 123.Google Scholar

22. Shoude, Liang and Yinxian, Hong, Introduction to International Politics, pp. 58–60.Google Scholar

23. Xiaoping, Deng, The Selected Works, p. 331; pp. 347–48.Google Scholar

24. For example, Deng Xiaoping once told Richard Nixon, former United States President and his visitor in Beijing, that “national self-interests should be the starting point of international relations … In this way, all problems can be resolved properly … Thus, your trip to China in 1972 was not only wise but also bold. I know you are anti-communist, and I am a communist. Yet we both hold our national self-interests as the highest principle when talking about and dealing with problems.” Xiaoping, Deng, The Selected Works, p. 330.Google Scholar

25. Shoude, Liang (ed.), Guoji zhengzhi xinlun (New Introduction to International Politics) (Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 1996), p. 60.Google Scholar

26. Xuetong, Yan, Analysis of China's National Interests.Google Scholar See also his “Guojia liyi de fengxi fangfa” (“The analytical methods of national interests”), Zhongguo shehui kexuejikan (Chinese Social Sciences Quarterly), No. 20 (Autumn 1997).Google Scholar

27. Lapid, Yoseph, “The third debate,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3 (1989), pp. 235–254;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHoffmann, Stanley, “An American social science: international relations,” Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3 (1979), pp. 41–60.Google Scholar

28. Guangqian, Peng and Youzhi, Yao, On Deng Xiaoping's Thoughts on Strategy, Chapter 6Google Scholar; Jingdian, Gao, A Study on Deng Xiaoping's Thoughts on International StrategyGoogle Scholar, Taiping, Wang, A Collection of Research Papers on Deng Xiaoping's Thoughts on Diplomacy.Google Scholar

29. Xuetong, Yan, Analysis of China's National Interests, Chapter 2.Google Scholar

30. See for example, Xiaochun, Zhao, “Lun lengzhan hou guojia liyi de xin bianhua”Google Scholar (“On new changes in national interests in the post-Cold War era”), Guoji guanxi xueyuan xuebao (Journal of the Institute of International Relations), Vol. 1 (1995), pp. 1–7.Google Scholar

31. Yang, Wei, “Guojia liyi gaoyu yiqie” (“National interests take precedence over everything”), Liaowang (Outlook), Vol. 19 (1997), p. 1.Google Scholar

32. Huning, Wang, “Deng Xiaoping tongzhi dui guoji zhanlue de sikao”Google Scholar (“Comrade Deng Xiaoping's thoughts on international strategy”), Wenhui bao, (26 02 1994), p. 1.Google Scholar

33. Xin, He, Zhonghua fuxing yu shijie weilai (China's Revival and the World's Future: Vols. I and II) (Sichuan: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 1996), p. 338.Google Scholar

34. Friedrich List (1789–1846), one of the earliest critics of Adam Smith and liberal classical economics, is also considered one of the classical spokesmen for contemporary neomercantialism and economic nationalism. According to some, his views have helped inspire the state-driven East Asian model of political economy. See, e.g. Fallows, James, “How the world works,” Atlantic Monthly (12 1993), pp. 61–87.Google Scholar The Chinese version of List's most important book, The National System of Political Economy, first appeared in 1927. The translated version was republished in the 1960s and 1980s mainly because of its relevance to Marxism. For the Chinese Marxists, while List's critique of classical economics contributed to Marxism, his analysis of capitalism as a national system made his theory “unscientific” and “wrong,” and his theory also contributed to capitalist vulgar economics. For the Chinese “Marxian” interpretation of List, see Qiling, Hu's “Preface to the Chinese version” (written in 1980) in The National System of Political Economy (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1997), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar The book was reprinted again in 1997 in large numbers and is increasingly read as a book advocating economic nationalism.

35. For He Xin on Morgenthau and List, see China's Revival and the World's Future, especially, pp.69, 130, 153, 628–631, 661–62.Google Scholar

36. Kim, , “China and the world in theory and practice,”Google Scholar in Kim, (ed.), China and the World, p. 29.Google Scholar

37. Johnston, Alastair Iain, “Learning versus adaptation: explaining change in Chinese arms control policy in the 1980s and 1990s,” The China Journal, No. 35 (01 1996), p. 31.Google Scholar

38. Jisi, Wang, “Wenming chongtu lun de lilun jichu yu xianshi yiyi”Google Scholar (“The theoretical foundations and practical implications of the theory on civilizational clashes”), in Jisi, Wang (ed.), Civilizations and international Politics, pp. 189–190.Google Scholar

39. Ibid. See also Jisi, Wang, “‘Wenming chongtu’ lunzhan shuping”Google Scholar (“A Critical Review of the Debate over Civilization Clashes”), in Jisi, Wang (ed.), Civilizations and International Politics.Google Scholar

40. Both Keohane and Nye's views are summarized in Nye, Joseph Jr, “Neorealism and neoliberalism,” World Politics, Vol. 40, No. 2 (01 1988), p. 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Renmin ribao (People's Daily, overseas edition), (16 11 1994), p. 1.Google Scholar

42. Beijing Xinhua Domestic Service in Chinese, (15 11 1994)Google Scholar, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS)-China, (15 11 1994), p. 2.Google Scholar

43. Robinson, Thomas W., “Interdependence in China's foreign relations,”Google Scholar in Kim, (ed.), China and the World.Google Scholar

44. Jacobson, Harold K. and Oksenberg, Michel, China's Participation in the IMF, the World Bank, and GATT: Toward a Global Economic Order (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a detailed discussion regarding how China has “learned” to co-operate in the context of Asia-Pacific regionalism, see Deng, Yong, Promoting Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation: Perspectives from East Asia (London: Macmillan, 1997), Chapter 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. “Tactical learning” involves “change in means but not in ends”; whereas “cognitive learning” involves “a modification of goals as well as means.” For further discussion, see Levy, Jack, “Learning and foreign policy: sweeping a conceptual minefield,” International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring 1994), pp. 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Shenzhi, Li, “Quanqiuhua: ershiyi shiji de daqushi”Google Scholar (“Globalization: grand trend in the 21st century”), Keji daobao (Science and Technology Herald), (3 06 1993), p. 5;Google Scholar “Quanqiuhua yu Zhongguo wenhua”. (“Globalization and Chinese Culture”), Meiguo yanjiu (American Studies), Vol. 1 (1995), pp. 126–138.Google Scholar

47. Yizhou, Wang, Dangdai guoji zhengzhi xilun (Analysis of Contemporary International Politics) (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1995).Google Scholar Another Chinese author also lists ten influences of globalization on world politics and economics: economic interpedendence, technological and information development, the erosion of state sovereignty, the globalization of production, the formation of the global market, transnational activities of multinational corporations, greater global financial risks, mutual international co-ordination, new challenges and opportunities for developing countries, and increasing global problems. See Hexing, Wang, “Quanqiuhua dui shijie zhengzhi, jingji de shida yingxiang” (“Ten influences of globalization on world politics and economics”), International Studies, Vol. 1 (1997), pp. 10–15, 33.Google Scholar

48. Yizhou, Wang, Analysis of Contemporary International Politics, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar

49. Ibid. p. 43.

50. Wenli, Zhu, “Dui dangqian guoji guanxi bianhua de jidian renshi”Google Scholar (“A few thoughts on the changes in contemporary international relations”), in Shoude, Liang (ed.), New Introduction to International Politics, pp. 68–76.Google Scholar

51. Realists are generally concerned with relative gains (how benefits are to be distributed), namely, the question of “who will gain more”; liberals care more about how the state gains in absolute terms. For a summary of the neorealist-neoliberal debate over absolute versus relative gains, see Powell, Robert, “Anarchy in international relations theory: the neorealist-neoliberal debate,” International Organization, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Spring 1994), especially pp. 334–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Jisi, Wang, “The theoretical foundations and practical implications of the theory on civilizational clashes,” pp. 196–99, 205.Google Scholar

53. Bin, Yu, “The China syndrome: rising nationalism and conflict with the West,” Asia Pacific Issues (Analysis from the East-West Center), No. 27 (05 1996).Google Scholar

54. Wang, Jianwei and Lin, Zhimin, “Chinese perceptions in the post-cold war era: three images of the United States,” Asian Survey, Vol. 32, No. 10 (10 1992), pp. 902–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Garrett, Banning N. and Glaser, Bonnie S., “Chinese perspectives on nuclear arms control,” International Security, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Winter 1995/1996), pp. 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Xuetong, Yan, Analysis of China's National Interests, pp. 160–63.Google Scholar

57. Tianri, Tang, “Anquan hezuo de xin moshi” (“New model in security co-operation”), Liaowang (Outlook), Vol. 31 (1997), p. 44.Google Scholar The author also uses the occasion to criticize the revised U.S.-Japan military alliance. This invites questioning of his real motive behind promoting collective security.

58. The earliest book introducing Western (mostly realist) international relations theories is Hanwen, Chen, Zai guoji wutai shang: Xifang guoji guanxi xuejianjie (On the International Stage: A Brief Introduction to Western IR Theory) (Chengdu: Sichuan renmin chubanshe, 1985).Google Scholar Other major introductory books include Shixiong, Ni and Yinzhong, Jin (eds,), Dangdai Meiguo guoji guanxi lilun liupai wenxuan (Selected Readings in Contemporary American International Relations Theory) (Shanghai: Xuelin chubanshe, 1987)Google Scholar; Yinzhong, Jin and Shixiong, Ni, Comparative Study of International Relations TheoryGoogle Scholar; Xinning, Song, Guoji zhengzhi jingji yu Zhongguo duiwai guanxi (International Political Economy and Chinese Foreign Relations) (Beijing: Xianggang shehui kexue chubanshe, 1997).Google Scholar

59. See, for example, Yong, Wang, “Lun xianghu yicun dui woguo guojia anquan de yingxiang”Google Scholar (“On the impact of interdependence on our national security”), in Shoude, Liang (ed.), New Introduction to International Politics.Google Scholar

60. Shoude, Liang, “Maixiang ershiyi shiji de shijie yu Zhongguo de waijiao zhanlüe”Google Scholar (“The world forging ahead toward the twenty-first century and China's diplomatic strategy”), in ibid. p. 33.

61. ibid. See also articles in the special section on globalization in Fudan Journal, Vol. 6 (1996), pp. 23–39.Google Scholar

62. Renmin ribao (People's Daily) (Overseas Edition) (22 09 1997), p. 2.Google Scholar

63. Yizhou, Wang, Analysis of Contemporary International Politics, especially, p. 13.Google Scholar

64. Ibid, the preface.

65. Ibid. p. 41.

66. My categorization draws on Legro, Jeffery W., “Conceptual revolutions in foreign policy: America after the world wars,”Google Scholar paper presented at the the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco (28 August-1 September 1996); Yee, Albert, “The causal effects of ideas on policies,” International Organization, Vol. 50 (1996), pp. 69–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldstein, Judith, Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Sikkink, Kathryn, Ideas and Institutions: Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

67. Rosenberg, Justin, “What's the matter with realism?” Review of International Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (10 1990), pp. 290–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. Ibid. p. 292. For E. H. Carr's view, see The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939, p. 14.Google Scholar

69. Shirk, Susan, “Internationalization and China's economic reforms,” in Keohane, Robert and Milner, Helen (eds.), Internationalization and Domestic Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

70. Xuetong, Yan, Analysis of China's National Interests, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

71. Ibid. p. 101. Xiangqian, Li, “Dangdai Zhongguo waijiao xingxiang lun”Google Scholar (“On the diplomatic images of contemporary China”), in Taiping, Wang (ed.), A Collection of Research Papers on Deng Xiaoping's Thoughts on Diplomacy, p. 66.Google Scholar

72. Professor Liang Shoude is the most ardent advocate of an IR theory with “Chinese characteristics.” See his Introduction to International Politics; “Lun guoji zhengzhi xue de Zhongguo tese” (“On the theory of international politics with Chinese characteristics”), Guoji zhengzhi yanjiu (Studies on International Politics), Vol. 1 (1994), pp. 15–21;Google Scholar and “The study of international politics in China.” Many younger Chinese scholars disagree with Liang and others. For a summary of the debate over the issue of “Chinese characteristics in IR theory,” see Xinning, Song, “The IR theory-building in China: tradition, function, and characteristics,” manuscript (Department of International Politics, People's University of China, 1997), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

73. Legro, , “Conceptual revolutions in foreign policy,” pp. 12–13Google Scholar; Goldstein, , Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy, pp. 12–15.Google Scholar

74. Kim, Samuel S., “Thinking globally in post-Mao China,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No. 2 (1990), pp. 191–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also his “International organizations in Chinese foreign policy,” in Whiting, Allen S. (ed.), The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 519 (01 1992), pp. 140–157.Google Scholar

75. Xin, He, China's Revival and the World's Future, pp. 22–27.Google Scholar

76. Dittmer, Lowell and Kim, Samuel (ed.), China's Quest for National Identity (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

77. Florini, Ann, “The evolution of international norms,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3 (09 1996), pp. 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78. Author's interviews in Beijing in May-June 1997. The source of the quote must remain anonymous.

79. Goldstein, , Ideas, Interests, and American Trade Policy.Google Scholar

80. For two succinct analyses of how Deng Xiaoping's views on “seeking truth from facts” won the debate over truth and the power struggle with Hua Guofeng and other dogmatic Maoist followers, see Harding, Harry, China's Second Revolution (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1987), Chapter 3Google Scholar; Baum, Richard, Burying Mao: Chinese Politics in the Age of Deng Xiaoping (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), Chapter 2.Google Scholar

81. There is a growing body of literature produced mostly from the British school of international relations that explicates and criticizes realism's positivist assumptions; see Buzan, Barry, Little, Richard and Jones, Charles, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism and Structural Realism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)Google Scholar; Buzan, Barry, “From international system to international society: structural realism and regime theory meet the English school”, International Organization, Vol. 47 (1993), pp. 327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ashley, Richard, “The poverty of neorealism,” International Organization, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1984), pp. 225–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tooze, Roger, “The unwritten preface: international political economy and epistemology,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1988), pp. 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82. Shambaugh, David, “Containment or engagement of China? Calculating Beijing's responses,” International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996), pp. 180–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. White, Lynn and Cheng, Li, “China's coast identities: regional, national, and global,”Google Scholar in Dittmer, and Kim, (eds.), China's Quest for National Identity.Google Scholar

84. Wendt, Alexander, “Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46 (1992), pp. 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also his “Collective identity formation and the international state,” pp. 384–396.Google Scholar

85. For the best treatment of this subject, see Dittmer, and Kim, (ed.), China's Quest for National Identity.Google Scholar

86. Both Western and Chinese scholars agree on China's lack of stable national identity. See Shenzhi, Li, “Globalization and Chinese culture,”Google Scholar in Dittmer, and Kim, (ed.), China's Quest for National IdentityGoogle Scholar; Hughes, , “Globalization and nationalism.”Google Scholar