There is an ambivalence regarding the traditional disciplinary affiliation of Modern Languages, split between Area Studies, with its ori-entation to the social sciences, and an arts wing aligned with literary and cultural studies. The Area Studies contingent has itself been hampered by its struggle to convince social scientists that linguistic expertise is any-thing more than a practical tool enabling them to extend their research agendas to non-English speaking environments. My article will argue that the apparent incoherence highlighted by this double tension provides an impulse for Modern Linguists to renew their discipline by forging a more equal partnership with the social sciences and enhancing their significance within the humanities. It focuses on the renewed social scientific interest in spatio-temporal situatedness, contending that language's critical role in the lives of humans as spatio-temporally embodied beings can transform lin-guistic expertise from a mere facilitating skill into the intellectual core of a reconceived New Area Studies (NAS). It will demonstrate how, freed from Cold War geopolitics and from its attachment to the Great Power as its pri-mary unit of analysis, NAS rejects the very notion of areas as bounded en-tities, privileging what ‘flows through' them )media, artistic forms, images and knowledge, as well as people) over what is ‘in' them. I will discuss what this means for the future of Modern Languages in the academy, con-cluding that the discipline's ability to operate across multiple boundaries in this context gives it the power to reassert itself in the forefront not just of NAS, but of a revitalised humanities more generally.

In 21st century, area studies are undergoing deep transformations. Part of these transformations are occurring in parallel to transformation in disciplines in social sciences, reflecting the discussions around themes of this period, such as uni/multi polarity, globalization and migration. On the other hand, new theoretical and methodological tendencies that are unique to area studies are also emerging. Behind this period of transformations, there lies a painful process of criticism and self-refiection. This study will map out the area studies in this century and present its new approaches. 21st century area studies will be divided into three axes: mainstream area studies; comparative area studies and critical area studies. It will present their solutions to the traditional problems of the field and their interplay with one another. It will examine how that solve the classic tensions such as universal vs. particular; theory vs. empirical data; their knowledge production processes and their ontological approach to the “area”.

This paper is a close reading of anthropologist Rebecca L. Stein's book Screen Shots: State Violence on Camera in Israel and Palestine. The book documents the constant presence of cameras in the context of the Israeli- Palestinian confiict since the 21st century. Technological innovations in digital imaging have changed not only the way state violence is observed, but also the way it is witnessed and assessed in the political sphere. Based on the turn of anthropological research on the “social process of image”, Rebecca L. Stein focuses on the various situations encountered by image as a political tool before its popularization, and takes “image witness” and “political denial” as the two underlying logical lines of the book. These two lines illustrate, respectively, the limitations of image witness in the framework of military occupation and the universality of political denial in the logic of visual occupation. Different individuals and institutions in confiict zones have given the image and its online dissemination the function of political ideals. These images have made the camera a sight for the reality of everyday life, an archival record of real events, and a political placeholder for the Israeli- Palestinian confiict, while the actions of individuals and institutions refiect that “using images as a political tool, dreams can often be dashed”.

2022 年 9 月 14 日，国务院学位委员会、教育部发布《研究生 教育学科专业目录（2022 年）》和《研究生教育学科专业目录管理 办法》。新版学科专业目录中的一级学科“扩员”尤其令人瞩目。其 中，“交叉学科”正式确立，下设 7 个一级学科：集成电路科学与工 程、国家安全学、设计学、遥感科学与技术、智能科学与技术、纳米 科学与工程和区域国别学。教育部研究生学科专业目录的公布意味着 持续数年关于建立“区域国别学”作为一个独立一级学科的讨论在中 国国家教育体系中暂告一段落，从而进入具体实施阶段。本文尝试将 中国近年来推动“区域国别学”作为独立学科的过程本身作为考察和 分析的对象，将这个学科建设的过程作为国家知识体系建设的一部 分，审视这个过程如何嵌入中国政治经济体系内部，以及由此给中国 “区域国别学”赋予的特性。通过分析推动独立学科建设背后的政治 经济过程，我们可以更好地理解中国的“区域国别学”的性质、内在 悖论以及未来发展的可能路径，其结论也可以延伸到更广的中国国家 知识生产体系的性质和未来前景。

编者按：2022 年是“清华大学发展中国家研究博士项目”创立十 周年暨清华大学国际与地区研究院成立五周年。同年，“区域国别学” 被国家增设为交叉学科门类下的一级学科。一级学科的设立为区域国 别研究学人提出了新的挑战，学界亟需就区域国别学的研究对象、研 究方法、研究理论、人才培养、学科方向设置、课程体系建设等方面 问题进行深入讨论，加快完善区域国别学学科建设，提升其水平。 值此之际，清华大学国际与地区研究院邀请对东南亚、拉丁美洲 和加勒比、南亚、欧亚、撒哈拉以南非洲和西亚北非六个地区进行过 深入研究，且具有经济学、法学、文学、历史学等不同学科背景的十 位区域国别研究专家齐聚清华园，就区域国别学的学科建设问题进行 对话与讨论，共同探讨区域国别学一级学科的发展路径和行动方针。

The article discusses the relationship between countries. Generally speaking, whether between two or more countries, the idealized state of affairs is to act in a mutually beneficial manner, i.e., if we do so, we hope that you or your side will do the same, so that everyone can win or win more. However, the reality is often not what we want, and what we are concerned about is not necessarily what the other side is concerned about, and what we think is a win is not necessarily accepted by the other side. Therefore, it is often not possible to work in the same direction. At the time of the establishment of the first-level discipline of area studies, we should change our thinking and act in a way that we understand the other side instead of just moving towards each other. Thus, we can anticipate the other side's reaction, and take the initiative or even act unilaterally to ensure that we win, or even achieve a win-win or multi-win situation.

 

This puts forward new requirements for new disciplines and area studies. First, the new discipline should be defined correctly. I think, area studies is a regional-based field, the region refers to geography, environment, space, and the field refers to the discipline, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary. Secondly, the new discipline comes with new environment. Innovation is the most important, the purpose, mode and method of talent training all need to be innovative; internationalization is also very important, we need to go out and invite in, it is not feasible to close the door for discipline construction. In the context of the two major situations in the new era, it is necessary to have area studies talents with “three perspectives”, namely, global vision, Chinese perspective and the perspective of the other side. Such talents should treat the earth as a whole and humanity as a community of destiny; they should have knowledge of traditional Chinese culture and be patriotic but not narrow-minded; they should have a deep and comprehensive understanding of the target countries and be able to see them from each other's perspective.

 

As can be expected, due to the pluralistic world and different concerns, it is better to understand each other than to move towards each other, it is better to be conscious and active than to be blind and passive. Compared with the ideal state of moving towards each other, understanding the other is a more pragmatic and rational orientation.

Starting from the book Between Nation-States and Area Studies, this dialogue discusses the academic boom and disciplinary construction of Area Studies in China. By analyzing the historical development of country and area studies, Wu Xiao’an points out that Orientalism, colonial studies, and postwar American-led international and Area Studies are three important intellectual sources of country and area studies in China today. Between Nation-States and Area Studies addresses the question of how to do scholarship under new historical conditions and in the midst of new sequence of academic history and paradigm shifts. In particular, Wu emphasizes that, based on international Area Studies findings, area studies with Chinese characteristics need to take into account two important basic points: first, starting from Chinese historical and academic traditions and national interests; second, relating Chinese characteristics to the Global South. To be truly meaningful, interdisciplinary and disciplinary constructions must be based on one disciplinary norm (Discipline) and original deeply researched case studies. During the dialogue, Wu Xiao'an enthusiastically shared his experience of decades of area studies and research with the young scholars.