A review of Chinese ethnology in the past hundred years and its summary in the new era

Introduction and rudiment period

Ethnology and anthropology were initially imported in China during the period from the late nineteenth century to about 1920, which was also their flourishing period.

The introduction of ethnology is directly related to the political situation of the country at that time. In modern times, the Qing Empire was repeatedly undermined in the encounter with the Western civilization. Having been facing the threat of subjugation and possible annihilation, the Chinese people tasted the pain of isolation from external contact and felt it necessary to learn from the West, ranging from manufacturing technologies to laws and social sciences. To save the nation from doom and strive for survival, many people of insight began to seek a Western approach to transform the country. Zhang Zhidong, leader of the Westernization Movement, stated that "Chinese approaches address physical and psychological issues while Western approaches deal with practice" (Zhang, 1898). Kang Youwei, a leader of the Reform Movement, further held "pursuing a self-strengthening approach by drawing lessons from the result that a strong country always defeats a weak one", and advocated the large-scale translation of Western books. He insisted that "it is better to translate Western books into Chinese, so that the masses can understand Western approaches and build themselves into talents serving for the nation." (Kang, 1987). He also personally opened a school based in Guangzhou, where he taught Western “group studies” (sociology).

After the victory of the 1911 Revolution, a democratic republic was built, which was not only the choice of the Chinese people for salvation, but also the result of the Chinese bourgeoisie politically learning from the West. The new regime had an urgency to build a new social order, a modern code of conduct and new social, national, and ethnic concepts. Both the government and society expected a new system, culture and discourse to replace thousands--year-old and backward feudal institutions, ideas and cultures. In this context, the study of Western cultures, systems and social sciences became an urgent task in shaping a new society. Obviously, Western ethnological theory could provide important implications on how to understand and build a united multi-ethnic country. Hence, Western ethnology was actively introduced into China, driven by the urgent demand of the ruling class and the whole society for Western scientific knowledge.

Against this background, a small number of Chinese scholars, who had initially known or studied ethnology abroad but were not really engaged in ethnological studies, actively translated Western writings and published a series of articles, introducing the discipline to domestic academia and the general public. As the name, definition and interpretation of the discipline were translated from the writings and texts of foreign countries, such as the US, the UK, France, Germany, and even Japan, the Chinese versions were often different and not sufficiently accurate, informative or comprehensive, and in some cases, they contained one-sided or even wrong explanations. First and foremost, the Chinese translators who studied in a certain country or were proficient in a certain language often adopted one of the different connotations and definitions of ethnology in the West, especially in the US, the UK and continental Europe. Secondly, the Chinese translators did not have profound understanding of this discipline due to short contact and inadequate research experiences. Thirdly, the Chinese versions were also inaccurate and hardly unified. For example, the Chinese counterparts of ethnology at the time included renzhongxue, minzhongxue and minzuxue. This is similar to the situation in other colonial and third world countries, where the same discipline imported from the West was defined or named in different ways.

In this early stage, many important Western theoretical works in ethnology and anthropology were translated and published in Chinese. Particularly worth mentioning are Marxist or historical materialist ethnographic works, including Friedrich Engels’ Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State and The Role of Labor in the Transformation from Ape to Man, and Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society, all published in the 1920s. After years of efforts, the social and academic value of ethnology was gradually recognized and accepted by Chinese academia and government, and the conditions for its establishment as a discipline in China had matured.

Inception

From the 1920s to the outbreak of the 1937 Anti-Japanese War, ethnological teaching and research entities were founded and Chinese scholars began to study ethnology independently. The department or specialty of Ethnology and Anthropology was established in many universities during this period, such as the Ethnology Team of the Academia Sinica headed by Cai Yuanpei and the Nanjing-based Chinese Society of Ethnology, created in 1928 and 1934 respectively. It meant that ethnology had been incorporated as an independent discipline in the Chinese academia.

From the 1920s onwards, a number of state-owned universities, such as Peking University (PKU), Central University and Sun Yat-Sen University, opened up ethnology-related specialties. Christian universities with more links with the West and private universities also set up ethnological and sociological specialties, such as Yenching University, Tsinghua University, Nanking University, Huaxi University, Lingnan University, Fu Jen Catholic University and Sino-French University. At that time, ethnological and anthropological courses were mainly integrated in the department of sociology and offered by scholars returning to China after overseas study, such as Cai Yuanpei from Germany, Ling Chunshen and Yang Chengzhi from France, Li Ji, Wu Zelin and Wu Wenzao from the US. It was these doctors in sociology and ethnology who had studied abroad during the 1910s–1920s who founded the department of ethnology, sociology or anthropology at their respective universities.

In addition, institutions specializing in ethnological research or postgraduate training also sprang up. For example, in 1927, the Institute of History and Language was set up in Sun Yat-sen University by Fu Sinian and Gu Jiegang, targeted at graduate students in anthropology, culture and folklore. The mission of the institute was to foster new systematic knowledge based on understanding folklore through field collection of materials, as it was clearly put in the foreword of its weekly publication. In 1928, the Academia Sinica, the highest-level national scientific institution, was founded by the Nationalist Government, and its President Cai Yuanpei created and led the Ethnology Team under the Institute of Social Sciences. Later, the Ethnology Team was again integrated into the Institute of History and Language.

An important fact that symbolizes the emergence of ethnology as an independent discipline is the ethnological field investigation (fieldwork) conducted from the 1920s onward. Fieldwork is the primary way to collect research materials and follows a set of discipline-recognized norms that form the most important feature of disciplinary methodology. The fieldwork carried out by the Institute of History and Language of Sun Yat-sen University in 1928 opened the prelude to independent, standardized ethnological investigation in China. In the summer of 1928, Yang Chengzhi and other scholars travelled hundreds of kilometers to the mountainous areas at the junction of Sichuan and Yunnan in order to study the Yunnan ethnic minorities. The 18-month investigation focused on social organizations, lifestyles, customs, ideologies, languages and writings of the Yi and Miao ethnicities in more than 200 villages.

In the same summer, the Institute of Social Sciences of Academia Sinica dispatched Yan Fuli and Shang Chengzu to Lingyun, Guangxi, for a six-month investigation to the Yao and Miao ethnicities. In August of the same year, Li Guangming from the Institute of History and Language headed to Songpan and Wenchuan in northern Sichuan for an ethnological survey on the Qiang and Tu, which lasted about 10 months.

The year 1928 marked the beginning of fieldwork made by Chinese ethnologists. Ever since, the field investigation scaled up. Well-known investigations with lasting influence during this period also include a study on the Hezhe ethnicity in the Songhua River by Ling Chunshen in 1929 (The Hezhe Ethnicity in the Downstream Songhua River); dozens of counties in eastern Zhejiang by He Liankui in 1932 (Totem Worship of the She People); visual anthropological investigation to the Miao in western Hunan by Ling Chunshen and Rui Yifu in 1933; the ethnic culture and physical characteristics of the Lahu, Wa and Dai in western Yunnan by Ling Chunshen and Tao Yunkui in 1934 (Investigation Record of Western Yunnan Border); the Tibetan and Qiang by Zhuang Xueben et al. from West China Union University, and the Yi and Qiang in western Sichuan by Ma Changshou et al. from Central Museum (survey reports published); the Yao in Guangxi and Guangdong by Fei Xiaotong and Yang Chengzhi from Yenching University and Sun Yat-sen University respectively in 1935; the Li in Hainan by Shi Tubo, Wu Ruilin and Yang Chengzhi from Lingnan University and the Academia Sinica in 1934 (documentary films). In addition to ethnic minority studies, in-depth investigation and research were carried out on the Han group. The most noticeable works are the investigation to Qinghe Township by Xu Shilian, Wu Wenzao et al. from Yenching University in 1930, the seven-year investigation to Dingxian County, Hebei, presided by Li Jinghan. Also in the 1930s, investigations were conducted respectively by Fei Xiaotong in Kaixiangong Village in Jiangsu, Lin Yaohua in his hometown of Fujian, Yang Maochun in Taitou Village in Shandong. Their reports Peasant Life in China, Golden Wings and One Chinese Village: Taitou in Shandong, based on these surveys, are considered classic works of international ethnology, encouraging ethnologists at home and abroad to conduct follow-up investigation and research in these places. In addition, groundbreaking studies on the Han branches were also conducted, such as the Dan people in Guangdong by Lingnan University and the Hakka people by Sun Yat-sen University and Academia Sinica.

Remarkable progress had also been achieved in discipline construction during this period. The normative construction of research methodology and the absorptive application of theory became more mature. This was mainly embodied in continued intensive efforts of first generation scholars to translate and teach Western theory and knowledge in ethnology. At that time, many of the scholars had been directly under the tutelage of ethnological and anthropological maestros. For example, Cai Yuanpei’s mentor was the first German ethnology professor when he was studying at the University of Leipzig; Pan Guangdan was mentored by the founder of the historical school Franz Boas in Columbia University, and greatly affected by the renowned master of the evolutionary school Lewis Henry Morgan; the Department of Anthropology of Columbia University where Wu Wenzao studied gathered almost the most famous elites in the US anthropological and sociological community, such as internationally reputed anthropology professors Franz Boas, Ruth Fulton Benedict and Margaret Mead; Yang Chengzhi obtained a PhD in ethnology at the University of Paris, France, and accepted the theoretical approach of the Functional School.

Cai Yuanpei, Pan Guangdan, Wu Wenzao, and Yang Chengzhi completely mastered state-of-art theory and methodology of Western ethnology, anthropology and sociology. Wu Wenzao also won an award for the most outstanding foreign student in nearly a decade for his PhD dissertation at Columbia University. After returning to their home country, they made active efforts by preparing papers, translating works and providing lectures, to systematically introduce the theories of different schools of ethnology, including evolutionary, diffusionist, historical, functional and annales schools, such as Wu Wenzao’s introduction and popularization of the British functional school, Yang Kun’s analysis of the French annales school and Dai Yixuan’s introduction to the American historical school. Thanks to this, the main schools in the international ethnology were disseminated and applied in China. At the same time, well-known Western scholars were hired to give lectures in China and students were sent abroad for study, such as Fei Xiaotong and Lin Yaohua sent by Wu Wenzao to the UK and the US. It is worth noting that some Marxist ethnological works were also partially translated and disseminated. In short, the fledgling Chinese ethnology community comprehensively grasped Western theories and methodologies during this period. The original English textbooks and writings were often used in ethnological and sociological courses in universities, and Chinese scholars often wrote or translated their works into English and published them in foreign journals. Despite the problem of localizing Western words, Chinese scholars did maintain close contact and interaction with the mainstream of international academia. For example, once Bronislaw Malinowski had just completed and not yet published his masterpiece Culture in 1936, Wu Wenzao borrowed the manuscript and asked Fei Xiaotong to translate it into Chinese for publication in China. Hence, Chinese ethnology had been built into an independent and full-fledged discipline with the establishment of research entities, implementation of independent research and teaching activities, and the complete mastery of leading theories.

Early prosperity

From 1937 to 1949, Chinese ethnology entered its early prosperity period, characterized by rapid development and a boom of practical applications. By applying Western ethnology to the in-depth investigation and research of Chinese society, it achieved innovations and development in both theory and methodology. With its own features and style, the Chinese school rose as a striking new force in the field of international ethnology..

Renewal: acceptance of the soviet model

Winning Glory: Ethnic identification and social and historical surveys

In the early 1950s, the involvement of ethnologists was necessary to the ethnic work of the new government of this multi-ethnic country, covering ethnic policy development, theory establishment, basic situation survey, and information collection and accumulation. Chinese ethnologists who had initially mastered Marxist and Soviet school theories turned to border and ethnic minority research. Despite the constraints to discipline construction, the scholars involved in national ethnic surveys and research were highly valued by the government and society, and even received the government’s support. They provided assistance in the 14-year ethnic identification work and 8-year ethnic minority social and historical survey launched nationwide in 1950, which came to some preliminary conclusions on the social nature of ethnic minorities based on a comprehensive study. Totally over 400 series books on the history and languages of ethnic groups, totaling over 60 million words, were published by provincial and regional investigation teams. The unpublished survey materials were far more, mainly carried out by research institutions and scholars. Ethnic identification and social and historical surveys contributed significantly by paving a solid foundation for ethnic policy development and subsequent ethnic research in the New China.

Ethnic studies in substitution of ethnology

In 1957, the nationwide “anti-rightist” campaign began. Most of the leading ethnologists were stricken. For example, Pan Guangdan, Wu Wenzao, Chen Da, Yang Chengzhi, Fei Xiaotong and Wu Zelin were judged as rightists and deprived of the right to engage in research and publish works, as their findings were considered as “poisonous weeds” of “bourgeois ethnology”. Among the 200 or so scholars engaged in the social and historical survey of ethnic minorities, 22 were classified as rightists and many others publicly criticized for “bourgeois speeches”, such as Yang Kun, Li Youyi and Cen Wu, and their research and publications were silenced. All these people were defined as “bourgeois ethnologists”. In June 1958, a meeting on ethnic studies was jointly held by the Ethnic Committee of National People’s Congress (NPC), CAS and MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA. With class struggle as the background theme, the meeting depreciated the influence of bourgeois ethnology and sociology on social surveys, announcing the plan to "pull out the white flag of capitalism and plant the red flag of socialism", and criticizing a number of old ethnologists. It adopted the “leap forward plan” for ethnic studies, emphasizing the" political leadership and value of the present over the past" in ethnological surveys and studies.

“The national meeting on scientific ethnic work, recently held by the CAS Institute of Ethnic Studies and MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA, summed up the experience of social and historical surveys of ethnic minorities over the last two years and thoroughly criticized reactionary bourgeois views, methods and erroneous tendencies towards bourgeois nationalism,” as was noted in a CEAC report to the CPC in 1958.

Prior to 1957, ethnic identification and social and historical surveys followed to a large extent the fieldwork standards under the guidance of ethnologists. After 1957, however, most of these norms were criticized for having bourgeois characteristics and the ethnic work was changed into a movement of the masses like the “Great Leap Forward”. Not only did social and historical surveys suffer losses, but the popularity and prestige of ethnology were also damaged.

After 1958, there was an escalation in the criticism of well-known ethnologists or the so-called “bourgeois scholars” and Western traditional ethnological theories. Despite continued ethnic studies, ethnology was further weakened as a discipline with the stagnation of theoretic and methodological research. The Soviet characteristics in its research model, framework and priorities were maintained till the discipline reconstruction in 1978.

“The principal contradiction in the current society is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In the field of ethnic studies, the principal contradiction is between the proletarian ideology and reactionary bourgeois ethnology. As the bourgeois ethnology serves for imperialism, bourgeois ethnologists in Old China were actually cultural compradors providing intelligence for imperialism. The Chinese people have always been negative about bourgeois ethnology in principle and of course, shall not tolerate the poison after the liberation of the country. Practice is the only fundamental source of scientific knowledge in ethnology,” as it was written by a major MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA leader after the “anti-rightist” campaign in 1958. When Fei Xiaotong and other scholars explained why they adopted the methodology of Western ethnology, this leader said “the functional school uses functional analysis instead of Marxist-Leninist class analysis to achieve the purpose of service of imperialism. They believe the methodology of bourgeois ethnology is useful except for its reactionary characteristic. We believe that bourgeois ethnology is downright reactionary pseudo-science that should be resolutely opposed no matter what attempt to revive it.” He added in the end, “Soviet ethnology is a valuable reference for us.” (Su, 1958).

In this tense atmosphere, scholars free from criticism were also involved in the anti-rightist campaign, ushering in another round of criticism of Western theory in ethnology. For example, famous scholars carried out comprehensive critique of various Western schools of ethnology, anthropology and sociology, and referred to the theories they had learnt in the West as “bourgeois school for the service of imperialism” and “reactionary theories for the service of bourgeois” (Liang, 1964). Inside the academia, there was criticism of the rightists and so-called “bourgeois scholars”. Fei Xiaotong was called “a lackey of imperialism” and “traitor of the peasant class” for his book entitled Peasant Life in China (Maurice Freedman, 1962).

At this time, all Western theories and methodologies in ethnology were known as “reactionary pseudo-science”. The development of ethnology was not primarily reliant on the strength of these scholars. “The fundamental forces of ethnic studies are party organizations and party-led agencies and people engaged in ethnic work,” according to the aforementioned MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA leader (Su, 1958).

In 1958, Sino-Soviet relations began to deteriorate. The next year, with the Soviet Union’s unilateral abrogation of hundreds of assistance and cooperation agreements, all Soviet experts including ethnologists were withdrawn from China, and bilateral academic exchanges, including the ethnological aspect, came to an end. The plans for the joint compilation of an East Asian and Soviet publication to commemorate Chinese ethnology were also canceled. The Sino-Soviet split became fully open in Chinese society with the CPC’s open letter titled Nine Commentaries on SCP Central Committee. The originally exemplary Soviet ethnology was immediately criticized as “revisionist ethnology”, which implicated the scholars engaged in Soviet ethnological research. The adjacent criticism of rightists, bourgeois ethnology and revisionist ethnology actually left Chinese ethnology homeless. It was suggested that Marxist ethnology did not exist and ethnology in itself was a bourgeois discipline (Song et al., 2004).

In 1958, the Institute of Ethnic Studies was formally set up under CAS, rather than the planned Institute of Ethnology. In the 1960s, “ethnic studies” completely replaced ethnology.

After 1963, the academic criticism of modern revisionism and bourgeois views was magnified as the whole country gave priority to “class struggle”, disqualifying ethnology from the status of discipline. There were articles by famous old ethnologists criticizing “bourgeois and revisionist ethnology” (Wang et al., 1998). The most representative was an article by Shi Jin in 1964, which questioned whether ethnology was science. “In nominal terms, there are a variety of ethnologies, such as Western ethnology, Soviet ethnology and old Chinese ethnology; practically speaking, they are all bourgeois ethnology. The bourgeois ethnology is not science at all, and neither are bourgeois social sciences. Socialist China only needs to criticize instead of carrying forward bourgeois social sciences ... there should be no room for the continued existence of old Chinese ethnology in socialist new China. For us, the only ethnology should be based on Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. It is the most fundamental and complete science for studying all ethnic issues. Therefore, we believe it unnecessary to develop Marxist ethnology other than the above-mentioned one. If there is such ethnology, it is nothing more than bourgeois ethnology labeled Marxism-Leninism or disguised under a red coat, and in essence, it is the same as bourgeois ethnology.” (Shi, 1964; Wang, 1998).

At the time, the Ethnological Section of the Department of History in MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA was the only ethnological Chinese teaching institution, but it was renamed the Ethnographical Section in 1964. Ethnology was replaced by “studies of ethnic issues” and actually came to an end in the mainland. Its death would be justified by a formal official sentence.

Cultural revolution period

During the period of the Cultural Revolution, from 1966 to 1976, ethnology was very emphatically pronounced a “bourgeois discipline”, and teaching and research activities originally in the name of studies on ethnic issues were also completely halted.

The MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA Research Department, the only camp for higher education in ethnology, also suffered from stagnation. The scholars under the department, including Wu Wenzao, Yang Chengzhi, Fei Xiaotong and Lin Yaohua, were sent to the May 7 Cadre School for training. For the purpose of compiling profiles of ethnic minorities and preparing materials on boundaries and ethnic studies, the Research Office was established under MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA, comprising scholars transferred from the cadre school. More specifically, Wu Wenzao, Fei Xiaotong, Xie Bingxin, Kuang Pingzhuang and Li Wenjin were responsible for compilation and translation, while Song Shuhua, Shi Lianzhu, Wang Furen, Wu Heng, Chen Fengxian, Zhu Ning and Huang Shuping were responsible for preparing profiles of ethnic minorities. In December 1974, the Research Office printed the Brief Introduction to Chinese Ethnic Minorities (Draft, 12 volumes in total), edited the internal publication Translated Excerpts on Ethnic Issues, and translated materials (13 issues in total) about foreign nationalities, the history of Russian aggression against China, and Chinese nationals abroad. It also contributed to the country’s diplomacy and border negotiations by providing a wealth of information about border areas and ethnic groups.

Major changes

Development stages

Progress overview

The progress made in the last 30 years is briefed below:

Research on the theory and methodology of ethnology (anthropology)

“Our scholars need ‘catch-up work’ to make up for the weak disciplinary foundation. In a changing world, can the methodology we have mastered adapt to the object of research? If yes, can we put forward in-depth historical views?” commented Fei Xiaotong while talking about the status of Chinese sociology, ethnology and anthropology (Fei, 2000).

The weak disciplinary foundation mentioned by Fei mainly refers to the lack of accumulation in theory and methodology over the years, lack of comprehension and absorption of the relevant outcomes of international academia, and lack of theoretical innovation. From a theoretical point of view, what we are doing now is “catch-up” work. Domestic ethnologists mainly study, introduce and follow up the theories of international ethnology (anthropology) in a variety of ways. In terms of teaching and research, the work is mostly concentrated on the presentation, translation and review of foreign classic theories and writings, dynamic research and post-modern theoretical trends (Ember, et al., 1988).

During the early restoration of ethnology and anthropology in the 1980s, the translation work was focused on general theoretical works and textbooks, such as the People and Culture series published by Liaoning People’s Publishing House, and on introductory articles, such as Collection of Translated Papers on Ethnology complied by the Institute of Ethnic Studies of CASS and MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA MINZU UNIVERSITY OF CHINA Ethnic Research Institute. In the 1990s, Chinese scholars began to write and publish professional textbooks, while shifting the focus of translation to classic works of the 1950s, such as the first five books of the Modern Anthropological Classics series published by Huaxia Publishing House in 2002 (Malinowski, 2002). In recent years, Chinese scholars have tended to update foreign contemporary works, mainly books and papers published in the past decade. The papers in Western journals of ethnology and anthropology and their Chinese versions are almost simultaneously available, owning to more frequent and in-depth academic exchanges. There are also reviews of Western ethnological works (Bao, 1995; Dai, 2001; Xia, 1997; Liu, 2001).

These efforts in the last three decades represent the large-scale systematic introduction of Western ethnology (cultural anthropology) in both theory and methodology, following the upsurge of translations in the early twentieth century. Meanwhile, progress has been made in the localization of theory and methodology, by combining ethnology with China’s national conditions and the history and characteristics of Chinese ethnology. For example, in-depth discussions were carried out on the definition of “ethnic group” and “ethnic” identification and relations, of which an influential view is the theory from culturalization to politicization, from A New Perspective to Examine Ethnic Relations: Depoliticization of Ethnic Minority Issues (Ma, 2004a, b ). New interpretations on the definition of “ethnic” and “ethnic group” have been put forward based on the comparison of theories of Chinese and Western scholars. With respect to methodology, field surveys are integrated into history and ethnology, such as contemporary social and cultural studies of ethnic groups through oral history (Ding and Hu, 2003), historical and ethnological combination, and qualitative analysis in ethnology combined with quantitative analysis in sociology (Yang, 2003a, b, c, d). In recent years, a number of writings on the methodology of ethnology and anthropology, as well as fieldwork were published (Rong, 1999; Song and Bai, 1998; Wang, 2004; Ye, 2002).

Applied research in ethnology

The fundamental way to develop Chinese ethnology is closely linked with Chinese society. It is supposed to correctly explain the social reality of all ethnic groups from the perspective of ethnology and anthropology and serve for China’s social development. In this combination, theory and methodology can be innovatively localized through the analysis of a large number of first-hand information. Compared with theory and methodology, Chinese ethnology has witnessed more remarkable results in applied research, mainly on issues concerning development, environment and ethnic relations. Among them, the most influential is the Investigative Study on Economic and Social Development of Small-Population Ethnic Groups in China, jointly launched by MUC, PKU and SEAC in 2000. Its Phase I Report was completed and submitted to the State Council in 2002, based on which the State Council issued the No. 44 Document, granting billions of yuan to support the development of 22 small ethnic groups.

With regard to ethnic development, it is worth noting that in recent years, scholars have begun to re-examine the “development” we need, and to explore the pathways in the context of modernization and western development (Yu, 2003; Gao, 2004; Shi, 2004). Intensively discussed topics also include development sustainability, economic development in harmony with traditional culture, and environmental protection in the process of modernization and western development (Li, 2003; Yang, 2003a, b, c, d; Liang, 2005). These studies have significant implications for society, government and local communities, as well as ethnic groups.

The research on ethnic relations has also resulted in an abundance of published outcomes, covering conflicts between different peoples and cultures on a global scale (Fan, 2003), conflicts between globalization and multi-ethnic culture (Wang, 2004), and the impact of intermarriage and language on ethnic relations (Ma, 2004a, b).

Gradual formation of branches

Through many years of research efforts and data accumulation, a number of branches of ethnology and anthropology have been established. This is reflected in the publication of a series of textbooks and books, as well as the provision of corresponding courses in ethnology and anthropology by colleges and universities. Specifically, the increasingly evident and different perspectives in theory and methodology not only facilitate in-depth research, but also stimulate the establishment of societies and academic conferences dedicated to different discipline branches.

The teaching materials, newsletters and books published in recent years mainly cover the following branches: economic anthropology (Shi, 2002), visual anthropology (Society of Visual Anthropology. Introduction to Visual Anthropology 2003; Society of Visual Anthropology. Introduction to Visual Anthropology, 1996-2004; Yang, 2003a, b, c, d) physical anthropology (Zhu, 2004), urban anthropology (Zhou, 1997; Ruan, 1991; Zhou, 1991; China Society of Urban Anthropology edited, 1990-2004), anthropology of religion(Jin, 2001; Mou, 2003), applied anthropology (Shi, 1996; Xie, 1990), youth anthropology, and ecological anthropology (Cao et al., 1991). There are also published works and translations on legal anthropology and feminist anthropology (Donald. L. Hardesty, 2002; Liu, 1998; Xiao et al., 1998; Zhou, 2002; Liu, 2001). Influential research findings can also be found in the historical, aesthetic, educational, migrant, rural and medical fields of anthropology.

Impact on the traditional theories of international ethnology

Chinese ethnology and anthropology are Western “imports” that have experienced ups and downs in their short time of development. They do not have adequate academic achievements and research teams, or occupy a high position in the international academic community. However, with a significant improvement of their level of research, the research findings have increasingly drawn international attention in recent years, some of which impact international ethnology and anthropology by shaking traditional theories. Noteworthy is the study of the marriage system (Cai, 1997), which aroused the interest of European and American circles of ethnology and anthropology. The works of Cai Hua, once published, have been highly commented and concerned by world famous anthropologists, such as Claude Lévi-Strauss (France), Rodney Needham (UK), and Clifford Geertz (US) (Clifford Geertz, 2002).

The research achievements of Chinese scholars in the study of the marriage system and the Mosuo people in Yunnan are the result of decades of data accumulation. In the 1950s and 1960s, the old generation of Chinese ethnologists conducted an investigation on the Mosuo people and published a number of monographs. (Yan and Song, 1981) Despite different interpretations of this problem at home and abroad, (Han, 2003) this study itself demonstrates that the Chinese ethnological academia has increasingly delivered world-class outcomes after decades of accumulation, and contributed to the development of theories in international ethnology.

Outstanding application results in combination with practices

Practical applications highlight the traditional feature of Chinese ethnology, which gives priority to applied research on social issues over basic research. Especially in the past 30 years, the research has extended into almost all social and ethnic issues arising from the country’s great development and change. The research topics include the relationship between economic globalization and local ethnic cultural diversity, ethnic relations and conflicts, religious trends in the context of modernization, ethnic minority areas in western development, traditional culture and coordinated economic development of ethnic groups, nationalism and ethnic schisms, urban floating minority population, ethnic education, ethnic languages and the relationship with standard Chinese, and ethnic policies.

The research findings are published in the form of monographs, papers and reports, and in most cases, integrated into internal government reports at all levels as reference for policy adjustment and formulation. A typical case is the aforementioned Investigative Report on Economic and Social Development of Small-Population Ethnic Groups in China, which was promptly adopted by the State Council.

Emergence of the Chinese ethnological school

As it enters the twenty-first century, Chinese ethnology is significantly accelerating its pace and embracing the golden age of its development. First, society and the government are giving more attention and support to ethnology. Two Chinese ethnologists were invited to deliver a speech at the 16th collective study session of the CPC Central Committee Politburo on October 22, 2004. After that, General Secretary Hu Jintao delivered a speech requiring the whole Party to study ethnology, anthropology and ethnic theory. It was the first time in the last five decades that China’s top leaders attached such importance to ethnology. This important event in the development of Chinese ethnology symbolized the achievement of an elevated status for the discipline.

Meanwhile, Chinese ethnology and anthropology have further improved their impact on the international academic community. In July 2000, hundreds of ethnologists and anthropologists from more than 40 countries around the world attended the mid-term congress of the International Union of Anthropology and Ethnology (IUAE) in Beijing. This represented a milestone of Chinese ethnology and anthropology in their process towards their full participation in international academic activities. In order to further strengthen international exchanges and enhance its international influence, the China Union of Anthropology and Ethnology (CUAE) joined the competition with the Italian Society for Ethnology and Anthropology. In 2002, the IUAE Board decided that the 16^th World Congress would be held in China by CUAE in 2009. This meant that Chinese ethnology and anthropology had evolved into an important force within the international community.

To showcase research findings, the Preparatory Committee comprising of universities and academic organizations was set up by CEAC and CUAE in 2004, and through its coordination, the meeting agenda and branch-specific topics were confirmed in 2005. While scholars were actively engaged in the preparation of relevant topics, the Preparatory Committee organized the translation of domestic representative papers and monographs into English, to help the international community understand Chinese ethnology and anthropology. At present, the World Congress is scheduled for July 2009 in Kunming, Yunnan Province, and has over 2000 registered foreign participants. Yunnan Provincial Government and Yunnan University are currently making active preparations for this event.

Based on the research achievements accumulated over the past century, especially the last three decades, a Chinese ethnological school has emerged, referred to as historical functionalism by Qiao Jian, and represented by Fei Xiaotong (Qiao, 2008). It is believed that adherence to and application of Marxism is another feature of Chinese ethnological school.