The Hangzhou branch of the National Archives of Publications and Culture in Zhejiang Province, China. Photo: TUCHONG

Unless generating original theories of its own, Chinese classical studies is unlikely to establish an influential voice within the international humanities. Significant challenges therefore remain if we are to demonstrate the academic and cultural value of Chinese classics on the world stage. In recent years, scholars have advanced the concept of “Chinese classical studies” as one possible way of addressing these concerns.

Chinese classical studies facilitates inter-civilizational dialogue

In March 2024, “Chinese classical studies” was officially recognized as an undergraduate major in Chinese higher education. In November of the same year, the inaugural World Conference of Classics was convened, and the concept of “world classical studies” was formally introduced by the Chinese academic community. One of its central goals is to promote exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations. In this context, “classical studies” refers not merely to philology, but to classical studies in the broader sense. Precisely because its aim is to foster dialogue and mutual learning among civilizations, research confined solely to language, writing, and textual documents cannot fully achieve this objective.

Foundational languages and scripts are among the most indigenous features of any civilization, but they constitute some of the most intractable points of entry for fostering substantive intercivilizational dialogue. Such dialogue more often unfolds through ideas, values, social practices, and material culture. Consequently, many issues addressed by modern disciplines—including linguistics, literature, history, philosophy, art, and archaeology—must be incorporated into this endeavor. Classical studies should therefore be not only foundational and origin-oriented, but also integrative in nature.

What, then, is the significance of “Chinese classical studies”? If the goal were simply to conduct research in philology, literature, intellectual history, or history, there would be little need to introduce a new concept. Its significance, I would argue, lies precisely in the dialogical dimension that emerges from transcending disciplinary boundaries.

As an academic discipline, classical studies originated in the West, encompassing the study and interpretation of ancient Greek and Roman texts as well as the broader body of scholarship in history, philosophy, art, archaeology, and religion that has developed around them. Since the early 20th century, however, China’s disciplinary structure and knowledge system have not included classical studies as a distinct field. Research on antiquity has been divided among literature, history, philosophy, and other disciplines. As a result, Chinese and Western classical scholarship have lacked aligned disciplinary and knowledge systems. Without a shared conceptual framework, meaningful dialogue becomes difficult.

The significance of proposing “Chinese classical studies,” therefore, lies not only in overcoming the increasingly rigid disciplinary boundaries among literature, history, and philosophy, but also in providing a point of departure for sustained engagement between Chinese and international traditions of classical scholarship within a shared intellectual framework. Through this platform, Chinese and Western classical studies can enter into dialogue within a common intellectual framework. Only on this basis can we effectively promote exchange and cooperation in classical scholarship across cultures and, ultimately, enhance the standing of Chinese classical studies within the global humanities.

Fine Chinese tradition fosters global intellectual creation

From this perspective, Chinese classical studies cannot be reduced to a simple repackaging of existing scholarship. Rather, it should become a new intellectual enterprise capable of formulating questions, methods, and theories of broader public significance, actively participating in academic dialogue, and ultimately challenging established frameworks of civilizational understanding. What we need, therefore, is not merely Guoxue (traditional Chinese learning) under a new label, but a new field of inquiry characterized by at least the following features.

First, Chinese classical studies should continuously generate questions that arise organically from its own intellectual traditions. Questions that emerge naturally from close reading and sustained engagement with classical texts possess both sharpness and depth. By contrast, if research remains dependent upon the conceptual frameworks of Western classical studies, the relevance and validity of its questions may be undermined. At the cultural level, interpretations of classical texts should be situated within the distinctive political, cultural, and social contexts of Chinese history rather than forced into abstract explanatory models. At the civilizational level, we need to ground our work in the historical narrative framework of Chinese civilization itself, and employ that framework as a methodological tool for engaging in global civilizational dialogue. By doing so, we can move beyond intellectual discourses largely conditioned by Western cultural assumptions and contribute new perspectives to broader humanistic inquiry.

Second, Chinese classical studies should possess the capacity for historical generalization. After the Han Dynasty (202 BCE-220 CE), the dominant mode of classical interpretation in China was exegetical scholarship centered on annotations and commentaries. While rich in textual detail, this tradition generally lacked the capacities for broader abstraction and generalization, without which it is impossible to construct new theoretical paradigms. We therefore need to situate Chinese classical texts and cultural traditions within the long-term trajectory of civilizational development, tracing the rise, transformation, and decline of classical culture across history and revealing the role that cultural factors have played in shaping historical change. At the same time, phenomena and problems drawn from other civilizations should remain part of the comparative background of our inquiries. Only through such comparison can we accurately identify the distinctive characteristics of Chinese classical culture.

Third, Chinese classical studies should possess explanatory power, as the study of classical traditions ought to be capable of explaining the underlying dynamics of civilizational development. In his research on the Homeric epics, the British scholar Eric Havelock argued, through an analysis of the differences between oral and written forms of expression, that the emergence of rational thought and philosophical reflection was closely connected to the practice of writing. In his view, writing helped shape human thought and facilitated the transition of Western civilization toward philosophy and rationality. Whether this interpretation is ultimately correct remains open to debate, but it at least provides a plausible explanation for why ancient Greek philosophers emerged in such remarkable concentration.

By comparison, how should we explain the rise of the Hundred Schools of Thought in China? To this day, many scholars continue to rely on an explanation formulated more than two millennia ago—the collapse of ritual and musical systems—without fully exploring the myriad historical factors that may have contributed to the flourishing of Chinese thought during the Warring States period (475–221 BCE). We are accustomed to introducing and reiterating the ideas of Confucius and Mencius, yet often pay insufficient attention to the historical conditions and deeper causes that gave rise to those ideas. If Chinese classical studies remains confined to the repetition of classical thought rather than the explanation of its emergence and development, it will be difficult to establish an influential Chinese paradigm, regardless of how extensive the scholarship may be.

Fourth, Chinese classical studies should possess global significance. The theoretical construction of Chinese classical studies cannot proceed in intellectual isolation; it must actively engage in worldwide conversations of ideas. Comparison with other civilizations helps illuminate the distinctive characteristics, values, and significance of Chinese culture more fully. An academic discourse system should be both public and open, making effective use of internationally intelligible scholarly language so that readers from other civilizations can understand and appreciate Chinese culture. If scholars remain confined to highly specialized terminology comprehensible only to experts within a narrow field, Chinese classical studies will be unable to demonstrate its broader global relevance.

One of the central missions of Chinese classical studies, therefore, is to bring locally grounded questions into the field of global classical scholarship while simultaneously using the classical traditions of other civilizations as points of comparison and reflection. Through such engagement, we can test the explanatory boundaries and possibilities of Chinese classical culture. In this way, Chinese classical studies may become both a bridge connecting diverse civilizational traditions and a catalyst for new forms of knowledge production.

Fifth, Chinese classical studies should possess the capacity for intellectual and cultural creation. Viewed through the lens of dominant modes of cultural transmission, human history can be divided into three stages: the age of orality, the age of writing, and the age of artificial intelligence (AI). The transition from oral culture to written culture was one of the forces that made the Axial Age possible; indeed, it may be regarded as one of its most important catalysts. Writing brought about fundamental changes in cognition and modes of thought, enabling a profound leap in culture and civilization.

This raises an important question: Will the emergence of AI bring about a transformation of comparable magnitude? If writing systems are increasingly superseded by AI, humanity will likely experience a second major evolution in its dominant cultural medium. The familiar ways in which we learn, think, communicate, and interact socially may undergo dramatic change, giving rise to entirely new cultural forms. Human civilization may well be approaching a second Axial Age, one characterized by unprecedented creativity in thought and culture. Against this backdrop, Chinese classical studies should aspire to more than the interpretation of inherited ideas; it should serve as a rich source of intellectual innovation for humanity’s next era.

Xu Jianwei is a professor from the School of Liberal Arts at Renmin University of China.