Yan Xuetong Lu Xin: Realist Scholars Obsessed with Scientific Prediction

Lu Xin (hereinafter referred to as Lu): The family atmosphere has a great shaping effect on a person's growth, and sometimes leaves a distinct imprint.

Yan Xuetong (hereinafter referred to as Yan): Yes, it should be said that I have a relatively obvious imprint of an intellectual family. My mother was a teacher at Hebei University, so I grew up in the dormitory area of Hebei University. In that environment, what people valued was not rank but knowledge. Since I was a child, I naturally felt that only learning was something worthy of admiration. This affects me to this day.

Lu: At that time, were you an excellent and strong child? What kind of vision do you have for the future?

Yan: I am afraid this answer will disappoint you. I'm not a particularly good student, from elementary school to Ph.D. I'm not a very strong character either, and I never thought I'd fight for the first place. In addition, since I was a child, I thought that life was all about going to school and teaching after graduation, as if I could do nothing else.

Lu: You never imagined that your life would change drastically when you were 16 years old - you went to the Heilongjiang Production and Construction Corps, and stayed there for 9 years, right?

Yan: Yes, a huge change. A large number of students suddenly arrived in the Corps, and the local organization was completely unprepared. One connection accepts more than 150 people, and there is no place to live. The company drove the cows out of the shed, swept the cow dung, laid a mat, and we slept in the cow shed. One winter, due to heavy snow blocking the road, we did not eat salt and vegetables for 3 months, only boiled soybeans and cakes. Without firewood, we demolished all the houses around us that could be demolished. In the end, we demolished the house where we lived. Only the last floor of the shed was left, and the seams in the shed were leaking. At that time, the extreme "left" trend of thought was extremely serious. In May in Heilongjiang, the water surface was still frozen. We were not allowed to wear boots when pulling the planting truck. We could only step in the water with our bare feet, and all the blood on our legs was streaked. Carrying the rice seed bag, when it is the heaviest, we have to carry a 160-pound rice seed bag and walk 4 miles on the uneven rice stalks, and it will fall into the water if we are not careful. Then find a way to struggle to climb up, and then carry it. He insisted on reaching his head, and when he lay down, it was pitch black in front of his eyes, and he couldn't stand up at all. Pretty brutal! Let’s put it this way, when I was a child, I couldn’t bear any hardships, but the experience of the Corps made me able to endure all kinds of hardships.

Lu: 16 years old is the age of youth and vigor. In such an environment, boys often swear and swear when they get together?

Yan: Of course. In the Construction Corps, people who don't swear and swear words are easily regarded as aliens, and it will be difficult to live in this circle. It is easy to be accepted by this group only by scolding people, and scolding them in a very ugly and dirty way. This is the Heilongjiang Construction Corps that I have experienced. Of course, comparatively speaking, I am still one of the people who swears less and does less bad things, because the intellectual family education I received as a teenager makes me know that it is not noble to do that. For example, in fights, I usually do the logistics, and rarely do the main force on the front line.

Lu: It sounds a bit like the state of the jungle. Such earth-shaking changes and such a harsh environment have dealt a great blow to you, right?

Yan: All I can say is that people's endurance and survivability are very strong. During the "Cultural Revolution" we saw some people were killed, so we got used to the cruelty of life. My father was also sent to labor as a reactionary academic authority. A lot of people went through this tough environment back then and had to show themselves as brave as possible. Fighting with others, fighting fires, preventing floods, farming, building roads, and doing things every day without knowing what to do. My biggest feeling at the time was that there was no hope for the future, not even a single thought that tomorrow would be slightly better than today. It can be said that in that state, there is no difference between life and death for us, and there is no meaning for human beings to live. At that time, the political requirement was to take root in the frontier, and I was one of the few so-called cadres who clenched their teeth and refused to express their position. As long as I say it, I will fulfill my promise, so I can't open this mouth. This may also be the characteristic of intellectuals, I may not speak, but I cannot tell lies. This may reflect the influence of the intellectual family I had before the age of 16, the so-called Qing Gao.

Lu: Looking back on the unforgettable experience of the Construction Corps, what was the biggest impact on your life?

Yan: The most important point, it fundamentally changed my character. When I was young, my biggest characteristic was that I was timid, afraid to fight with others, and avoided everything. After arriving in the Corps, people gradually changed, because I had to survive in a difficult environment. In the Construction Corps, the first is hardship and the second is anarchy. Fighting is something that can happen anytime, anywhere, and the educated youth of the Corps is definitely a lawless group. This environment makes people bold, dare to risk death, and do not believe that there are difficulties under the world that they cannot overcome. So sometimes I dare to do those rogue things, take the train without buying a ticket, and run away if the police catch it; if I don’t have money to live in a hotel, I go to the hospital ward to sleep in secret, and the nurse sneaks into another room when the nurse arrives. . This kind of living environment changed the character that I formed in my teenage years, or gave me a new character. So, now my character has two sides. Sometimes I acted very unafraid of death, and sometimes I was so cautious. If I didn't go to the mountains and the countryside, I would be a very cautious person. In my own opinion, on the one hand, the lofty loftiness that I have been influenced by the intellectual family cannot be changed to the bottom of my bones; on the other hand, the adventurous spirit given to me by the Corps makes my loftiness not consistent with other behaviors. For example, compared to my father, he is a real gentleman. Even if there is no one on the road, he will not run a red light. He adheres to the principle of a gentleman with prudence and independence, and will not disdain to violate public rules under any circumstances, and my loftiness cannot reach this level.

Lu: When will this undisturbed life continue to change?

Yan: In 1973, educated youths were allowed to join the army and go to university, and we gradually had some hope of life. I just started to secretly read books and study. This is also influenced by the family. I always feel that people should still go to school, but I never think about what to do after college. At that time, we all thought that after graduating from university, we would be assigned to teach in the countryside, and we could not see the possibility of changes in the country. In 1978, the country implemented reform and opening up. Although we can see from the education reform that the country is undergoing fundamental changes, I did not know that China could undergo qualitative changes at the time.

Lu: Is it because you have become a little numb mentally?

Yan: It's not numbness, it's fear. This fear of mine lasted until 1988 when I was a Ph.D. student in the United States. It's hard for you to imagine that a dream I have been having for more than ten years is that I go back to the farm to go through the formalities for returning to the city. For various reasons, the unit does not allow me to do it. I tried desperately to leave that place, but it was always unsuccessful. . Since 1973, when the educated youth had the hope of returning to the city, this dream has followed me until 1988, a full 15 years. I wake up every night because of this dream.

Lu: You were admitted to the English Department of Heilongjiang University in 1978. Your graduation thesis was about linguistics. This should reflect your interests at that time, right?

Yan: Yes, I was writing about how sounds form meaningful symbols in the brain's response system. To be honest, I like the natural sciences and have little interest in the humanities. I have no hobbies in literature, history, art and other humanistic knowledge. In college, linguistics was my only extracurricular interest. Because I think linguistics is scientific and logical. When I graduated, I was admitted to the postgraduate study of Mr. Lv Shuxiang, Institute of Linguistics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, but I didn't get it. I like to do scientific things, which is in line with my later research preferences.

Lu: After graduating from university, you were assigned to the Institute of Modern International Relations to conduct research on African issues.

Yan: Yes, someone asked me how I got engaged in international relations research. In fact, this is not what I want to do, but what the country assigned me to do. In 1982, in our training class, many people chose to do transactional work, and no one wanted to do research at that time. It used to be the untrusted people (such as the right) who did research work. At that time, I didn't know anything about international relations, but I asked to do research on my own initiative. My whole interest was in being able to do scholarship, and I didn't care what it was useful for. No matter what articles people publish, I am very envious, and I hope that I can also write articles and publish them, so I do my work with gusto.

Lu: In 1984, you went to the School of International Relations to study for a master's degree. Did this stage of study have a great impact on your academic research in the future?

Yan: At that time, the school did not have a better curriculum, and basically they read books by themselves. Academically, I haven't made much progress in this period of time. It should be said that after completing the master's degree in international relations, I still do not understand what the essence of international relations research is.

Lu: In 1987, you were sponsored by the China-Africa Association to study for a Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley. This should be a major opportunity and turning point in your academic career, right?

Yan: Yes. The subsidy I received was half fee, so I was very financially tight and had to work part-time during the summer vacation. The hardships in life are nothing, the real hardships are not understanding in class. I listened to the recording repeatedly after class, but I still couldn't hear what the teacher said. For example, when the teacher talks about "realism", I don't know what the school is; when he talks about "Keohan", I don't know what this person does, let alone what school of international relations theory he represents. The education I received when I was a graduate student in China was completely different from that in the United States, and the knowledge structure was too different, so I could only make up for it by reading more books when I came to the United States. Berkeley's doctoral system is very strict, and students face the danger of being eliminated at every pass. On average, 1/3 of students cannot get a degree. My wife was ready at the time that I couldn't read and go back to China. But for me, if I don't get a degree, I don't have the face to go back to China. It's really hard to ride a tiger! After the training of the Corps, I thought I was very strong, but in the first semester, I still cried a lot. At that time, I really regretted studying in the United States, because I didn't know what the result would be. For me, there is no other stage in my life where the intellectual gain is as great as at Berkeley. After a semester, I have to read dozens of books, and I hate to have to sleep to read.

Lu: So, can it be said that after the rigorous training at Berkeley, you understood the essence of international relations research and entered the field of national customs.

Yan: I was confused at first. In the first semester, I couldn't understand it, and I swallowed it whole; in the second semester, I understood it, but I couldn't take notes; in the fourth semester, I felt comfortable. When I feel comfortable, the course is over. The qualification exam played a big role in my understanding of what international relations studies are. For the exam, I sorted out what I had learned in the past two years, and then I suddenly understood what international relations research is and what political science is. It should be said that I didn't really enter the field until I passed the qualifying exam, and I had already completed 3 years of study at Berkeley. After that, he did his doctoral dissertation for two years.

Lu: It was very hard to get a doctorate. Now that I think about it, what is the biggest influence on you in this process?

Yan: The biggest impact of the training during this period was that I embarked on the path of scientific research, which is also the main reason for my later academic achievements. The scientific method taught me what it is to do research. This is a fundamental problem in terms of learning. In my opinion, doing a PhD is a process of alienation. The same goes for a PhD in China. A person who has received a real doctoral education, his academic inclination will change his attitude towards life. Just like going to the mountains and going to the countryside has transformed me once, and the five years of studying for a doctorate in the United States have transformed me again. First, it strengthened the intellectual mentality that I formed when I was a child, valuing knowledge rather than power and wealth. Second, the joy of my life has changed. I no longer just advocating reading, but reading as entertainment. This PhD education has made my academic pleasure very clear. Before, I just wanted to read, but I didn't know why. After finishing my Ph.D., the purpose of my reading became clear. I only read books related to international relations, and my research scope became narrower and narrower. I only study security issues related to China. In the past, I could do any research, but I didn't have a professional orientation. One of the reasons was that I didn't know what international relations research was.

Lu: During this period, which book impressed you the most?

Yan: It must be Waltz's International Political Theory. This book had a big impact on me because it was on fire when I was reading it. It wasn't the book that transformed me, it was the process of reading. After reading so much, I naturally form a kind of understanding, I think this set is easy to use, I think it makes sense, and it is not the occurrence of a certain thing.

Lu: From personal experience, how do you evaluate the impact of different educational backgrounds in China and the United States on Chinese scholars?

Yan: I think that social science education in Chinese universities has not yet achieved a high degree of science. The most important point of scientific education is to emphasize methodological education, which is relatively weak in China. In the academic circle of Chinese customs, the returnees from North America put more emphasis on scientific research methods, because they have learned them, so they know that these methods are indeed useful. Some people deny the role of the scientific method without studying methodology. This is not a scientific attitude. Negation should be based on knowing what you know, not on what you don't know.

Lu: Many people chose to stay in the United States, and your whole family was there at the time.

Yan: I also thought about it. But in the United States, it is difficult for Chinese scholars to achieve success in the social sciences. After all, the study of international relations cannot completely escape the national position of the individual. Back in China, I was able to do research in government research institutes. At the time I thought it was worth doing. In addition, my ethnic complex may be heavier. It's not something I just came to America. All people naturally have national feelings, that is, a sense of group identity. The reason why I chose to return to China is not because national sentiments play a key role, but mainly because of my low material desire. One of the things that sets me apart from a lot of people is that I enjoy my work more than my life.

Lu: After returning to China, your academic research has changed a lot. How did you design it yourself?

Yan: The academic purpose of my return to China at that time was to promote my country's foreign policy research. In the United States, there are many people who study China's foreign policy, but there are almost zero scholars who study China's foreign policy in China, only the research of functional departments and the study of China's diplomatic history. So far, there has not been a textbook on China's foreign policy written by Chinese scholars, all of which are textbooks on the history of Chinese diplomacy. At that time, no one in China did research on the motives of my country's foreign policy formulation, the mechanism of foreign policy formulation, the rationality of foreign policy-making institutions, and the relationship between domestic politics and foreign policy. I haven't been able to do this yet, but I've been working hard to open the door. I wrote "China's Security Environment" in 1993, and "China's Security Strategy" in 1995. This has not been the case in published articles before this. I have always believed that Chinese scholars should evaluate the success or failure of China's own policies and summarize the reasons for success or failure, otherwise the probability of wrong decisions cannot be reduced.

Lu: What do you think is your biggest gain from working at the Institute of Modern International Relations for so long?

Yan: The most important point is that the particularity of that environment made me combine academic research with foreign policy research. At this stage, I proposed that national interests are the starting point of foreign policy. When I wrote "An Analysis of China's National Interests," the word "national interest" was still very taboo. I have been engaged in research on China's participation in multilateral security cooperation; I have criticized the US security concept as a "Cold War mentality"; I have also studied the Taiwan issue for a long time; since 1994, I have questioned the efficiency of "promoting government through economy" and have always emphasized separation of Taiwan. ism must adopt a policy of containment. In addition, in 1990, I argued that the post-Cold War international pattern had been finalized, a pattern of "one superpower, many powers". This view was recognized by the society, but it was still controversial politically. Furthermore, I pointed out that there is a structural contradiction between China and the United States. Later I wrote about the rise of China, and in 1998 I published "The Rise of China: An International Environmental Assessment."

Lu: Some people call you an expert on forecasting international issues. Which of these forecasts do you think you are most proud of?

Yan: In 1997, the Clinton administration did not agree to resume the state visit of the leaders of China and the United States. In 1998, Pakistan would inevitably conduct a nuclear test to respond to India. In 2000, the Kuomintang stepped down and Chen Shui-bian was elected. In 2004, Chen Shui-bian was re-elected. In 2004, Sino-Japanese relations will deteriorate for a long time. After arriving at Tsinghua University, I set up a group to make quantitative predictions, and the accuracy of the predictions has been further improved. Now we publish a monthly forecast of the direction of China's relations with the great powers in "Globe" magazine. I think forecasting is a very enjoyable process, very exciting. Forecasters have to keep an eye on the changing situation, worry about what to do if they are wrong, and analyze why they are wrong, which makes people always excited. Kind of like playing stocks, but more like weather forecasting, a psychological treat. We make predictions with scientific methods, which can continuously improve the accuracy of predictions. The quantitative predictive analysis we do now is at the advanced level in the world, especially the quantitative measurement of bilateral relations.

Lu: You are very excited when you talk about this. Is it because you personally prefer challenges, or are there other reasons?

Yan: This may be due to the characteristics of international relations research. The study of international relations is to predict the development trend of the international situation and to predict the right or wrong of the results. The predicted result is the most objective and convincing evidence. Making public predictions requires taking risks, and taking risks is exciting. It's a bit like an adult's game, real and fun. In particular, we use scientific methods to forecast, and based on the results, we can also summarize methodological experience and improve the forecasting method. Inventing research methods is also particularly interesting, as is inventing a weapon.

Lu: But at the same time, there are many voices of refutation and disapproval.

Yan: Because China's international relations research is still in the period of great debate in the 1960s in the United States, that is, the debate between scientism and traditionalism. Traditionalism is still the mainstream, and scientism is still a tributary in China. There are very few people who can do quantitative analysis, and even fewer people can make quantitative predictions. However, I believe that the development of Chinese academic circles will be the same as that of the United States. The scientization of international relations research will be inevitable, and scientism will eventually become the mainstream. Whether it has predictive power is an important criterion for testing whether a science is scientific. Poor predictive power means that the scientificity of the subject is not strong enough. We do not make predictions by tapping our heads. We're hearing some criticism at the moment, but mostly it's not insider criticism. For example, some people say that even if the probability is 99%, the other possibility of 1% cannot be ruled out, which is still two possibilities, which is not qualitatively different from the two possible predictions. The probability does not reach 100%, and it is the law that reaches 100%. The prediction accuracy rate has risen from 65% to 75%, which is the progress of our human knowledge and the improvement of our prediction ability. The use of scientific methods also has a very important social significance. It makes people know what kind of professional science international relations are. International relations research needs methods, and not everyone can do international relations research. International relations are complex, and it is difficult to draw very precise conclusions. Using the scientific method is also difficult to be very precise, but can increase our knowledge more effectively than not using it. For example, we call a country's trade volume with another country accounting for 10% to 30% of its total trade volume as trade dependence. 10%~30% is an imprecise concept, but it helps us know the upper and lower limits of dependence, that is, more than 30% dependence will definitely form, and less than 10% will definitely not constitute dependence. This is an improvement over the concept of dependency without quantitative criteria. Using scientific methods, it is not necessarily possible to discover the critical point of changes in things, but it is possible to summarize the critical area, which is stronger than the situation where you don't even know the critical area.

Lu: You are a great advocate of the scientific method, but, given China's profound humanistic tradition, have you tried to find a juncture between science and humanities?

Yan: I thought about it, but it was difficult. If you want to combine scientific methods with traditional Chinese thought, you must have a good foundation in ancient texts. There are very few scholars of my age who are good in ancient writing, and their ability to read ancient writing has deteriorated. It is impossible to combine ancient Chinese thought with modern social science research methods. My knowledge structure does not support this idea. I've tried to combine gossip with scientific predictions, but found that I couldn't understand the principles of gossip at all.

Lu: How do you evaluate the development of China's international relations research in recent years?

Yan: If we take 20 years as the boundary, China has indeed made great progress. But unfortunately, our progress is slow, basically the same as the United States 50 years ago. It took America 20 years to go from traditionalism to scientism, and we should not take another 20 years. Abstractly speaking, our academic environment is not good, and concretely speaking, we lack academic criticism in the true sense. This is an institutional problem. International relations research is inevitably related to political issues, and it is difficult to express opinions that are inconsistent with current politics. There is also the influence of official standards. Authorities are mostly leaders of various units. Criticizing leaders is always politically dangerous. In addition, a truly meaningful academic criticism must be based on the critic's full understanding of the other's point of view and logic. The premise of criticizing other people's academic views should be that the critic knows how the criticized view came to be, otherwise it will not have any promotion effect on academic research.

Lu: You have always held a very distinct position of realism. What factors do you think contributed to it?

Yan: The logic of realism is clear, the expression is rigorous, and it is easy to understand. Personally speaking, this simple scientific beauty is very attractive to me. I don't like the style of writing that is very complicated, but no one knows what to say. Dialectics has premises. The dialectics in which any interpretation is correct is meaningless. Take constructivism, for example. Constructivism says that the environment and human behavior are interactive. The explanation of this interaction makes us still not know under what conditions people change the environment, and under what conditions the environment changes people.

Lu: Can it be said that you are more concerned with the test of theoretical explanations in real life?

Yan: I don't like untestable things, because I can't know whether their conclusions are reliable. For example, when I forecast, I like to specify time, I don't like the kind of long-term, medium-term, short-term, too vague. I think there is a witchcraft in this prediction. There is a lot of witchcraft in our international relations studies. When someone judges the development trend of a certain international situation, they will name three or five possibilities, and say that these possibilities cannot be ruled out, which is actually the same as not saying anything. Recently, there was a best-selling book "On Bullshit" in the United States. The author Frankfurt said that bullshit can't keep up with lying, because people who tell lies still know that facts exist, while people who talk bullshit ignore the existence of facts, and they don't at all. Acknowledging the existence of facts. Less bullshit in international relations research will help this discipline to be respected by society, otherwise people don't think our international relations research is knowledge.

Lu: Many of the generation who experienced the "Cultural Revolution" are staunch realists like you. Some scholars reflect on this phenomenon and believe that one of the important factors is that the pessimism of this generation is too high, and if the pessimism exceeds a certain limit, they will feel that only pragmatism is the most reasonable. What do you think of this statement?

Yan: In my opinion, the experience of the "Cultural Revolution" is different from the experience of going to the mountains and the countryside. Those who have the experience of going to the mountains and the countryside are not pessimistic, but have strong self-confidence in overcoming difficulties. And, this confidence is based on fully estimating the difficulty. Therefore, most people who have the experience of going to the mountains and the countryside have a realistic attitude towards life. People who have not experienced a hard life are more likely to be optimistic about international politics. I think the life experience from the school gate to the research institute is different from the experience of hard physical labor in the Laogai farm. Young people who learn constructivism in Chinese classrooms will never be able to reach a consensus on terrorism with Palestinian youth who are fighting armed struggle. When I was in Berkeley, I privately asked an auditor from Palestine why they engaged in terrorist activities, and he asked me why the Chinese were engaged in guerrilla warfare when Japan invaded China. I was very impressed by this incident, which is "don't work, don't know low back pain". Academically I stick to the scientific method, so I think theory should be grounded in reality. Theories that are divorced from reality can be morally beautiful, but they are not objective, cannot help us understand the world in depth, and sometimes mislead us. If we do a statistical analysis of the international situation judgments made by Chinese scholars in the past, we may be able to observe which theory is used as the basis for the judgment with higher accuracy. If scholars can constantly review and summarize their past experiences of misjudging the international situation, it will contribute to the progress of China's international relations research. Since there is no need to take any responsibility for wrong judgments of the situation, many people take an optimistic judgment on the international situation. This judgment sounds noble, progressive, civilized, and moral, but it does not correspond to reality. In my opinion, it is not the character of a scholar to make a situation judgment that does not conform to the actual situation, and not to test it afterwards.

Lu: Can you be classified as a nationalist? Some scholars will refrain from discussing this.

Yan: I am a typical nationalist. Some people think "nationalism" is a bad word. I disagree. Nationalism and patriotism are just like when we say "profit" and "surplus value", they are just two appellations for the same thing. Patriotism and nationalism are actually the same thing.

Lu: A scholar's strong nationalist tendencies will inevitably have an impact on his academic research, right?

Yan: Yes, it has a great impact. For example, the issue of hegemony is one of the main topics in the study of international relations. American scholars mainly study how to maintain the stability of hegemony, and many Chinese scholars also study the issue of hegemony from this perspective. I take my PhD students to study how hegemony declines and how hegemony is replaced. Ethnic identity influences my choice of research questions, as well as aspects of my research questions. I will choose research on international issues that are strongly related to China, and among these related issues, I will choose research on issues related to China's major interests. I don't think national sentiment drives me to tell lies. My principle is that I don't have to tell the truth, and I can do so, but I will never tell lies or things that go against my heart.

Lu: How do you see the influence of scholars' personalities and preferences on their academic research?

Yan: Everyone's personality is different, their interests are different, and their research tendencies are different, which contributes to the diversity of research. For example, I like hard issues like power, war, peace, and security, but some people like soft issues like culture, ethics, cooperation, and economics. I am relatively straightforward, so my style of writing is also straightforward, and I don't like to be around the corner. I prefer things that are logically tight. Some people say that I only advocate formal logic, not dialectical logic. I know more about formal logic and less about dialectical logic, so I don't know much about dialectical logic. With formal logic I know how to test objectively, with dialectical logic I don't know how to test objectively.

Lu: It is one of your characteristics that you have a clear point of view. Is it because of your personality?

Yan: This is a personality issue. I dare to admit academic mistakes. We have published publicly in World Knowledge acknowledging that predictions were wrong. In my opinion, there are two reasons why scholars have no inclination: one is that they are objectively unsure of their own knowledge, which is not enough to make judgments about a specific thing; I'm not afraid of being wrong, it has something to do with my scientism. All scientists know that the process of research is a process of making mistakes. Research is all about finding out what's wrong and analyzing why. As long as a person adheres to scientism, his position and point of view must be clear; for a person who believes that the study of international relations is not science but politics, his position is not easy to clarify.

Lu: What kind of leisure do you like, listening to music?

Yan: To be honest, I don't know how to appreciate music, not at all. I like things that make people laugh easily, like light comedy, it's a no-brainer, and you can't remember anything after laughing. If it is watching TV, I like sketches and cross talk.

Lu: How do you evaluate your knowledge structure?

Yan: I have two serious knowledge deficiencies: First, I have no formal secondary education, so my knowledge base of natural sciences is too poor. I don't understand mathematics, physics, and chemistry, which severely restricts the scope and depth of my research. Second, due to the simplified Chinese characters and the reform of the education system in the 1950s, the education of ancient Chinese in our generation is very poor, and it is too difficult to read ancient classics. The lack of knowledge of natural sciences and traditional Chinese culture makes my academic foundation narrow, so it is impossible to achieve major academic achievements.

Lu: Major historical events will leave an indelible mark on a generation. For scholars, it will naturally have an impact on his academic research. In my opinion, scholars of your generation generally have a strong sense of social responsibility. How do you view this issue?

Yan: The "Cultural Revolution" is undoubtedly the most significant and influential historical event that our generation has experienced. This is the shared experience of our generation. The "Cultural Revolution" seriously destroyed Chinese traditional culture. I think the biggest social harm in China right now is hypocrisy. The "Cultural Revolution" destroyed China's traditional morality for thousands of years - integrity. There is still a little integrity in our generation because our generation lived in traditional Chinese culture before the "Cultural Revolution" and advocated honesty in various fields. From the beginning of the "Cultural Revolution", it was no longer possible. In many cases, people had to tell lies. Obviously no one wants to be in the countryside, but every educated youth is required to express their willingness to take root in the frontier; obviously there is a serious shortage of daily necessities, but each unit is asked to recall how happy life was at that time. The government forces people to tell lies, and those who don't lie are punished. When I didn't express my willingness to take root in the frontier, the camp instructor disqualified me from being recommended for college. The political atmosphere of lying left over from the "Cultural Revolution" has a very bad influence on the study of China's international relations. The main reason why witchcraft and lying is so serious in the international relations academic circle is the lack of a large environment for honesty. Now lying is not only not punished, but even respected by society.

Lu: How do you understand the word "scholar"? What is your positioning for yourself?

Yan: First of all, scholars are different from literati. A literati expresses his thoughts with articles, and a scholar uses scientific methods to demonstrate a logic and an idea. Literati dare to comment on all things, while scholars only dare to comment on their own majors. Also, scholars are different from experts. An expert refers to a person who has considerable original opinions in a certain field of knowledge, whose professional level has far exceeded that of ordinary scholars. In my opinion, scholars are the standard of personality, such as seriousness, rigor, and not jumping to conclusions; experts are the standard of knowledge. I feel like I'm a scholar, an expert only on very individual issues.

Lu: Due to the particularity of the discipline of Guoguan, some scholars in this field are called think tanks. What do you think of this issue?

Yan: The think tank plays a full-time policy advice function. I don't think I have any direct staff role for Chinese policy makers. I think my article has only had some influence on some people in the functional department. (These) may have an indirect effect on decision-making, but not directly. Academic influence is achieved through published articles. As far as China's political system is concerned, China does not have a think-tank system in the actual sense, nor a think-tank organization in the strict sense. For example, in France, the state gives officials above the deputy ministers a sum of money, and they can use the money to hire people to be their own policy advisers. This is similar to our previous master system, and these advisers can be called think tanks. After the founding of New China, China did not allow senior officials to have personal think tanks or institutions. Scholars can say that they have participated in some conferences, discussed some opinions, and some of their thoughts have influenced the thinking of others, but they cannot be called think tanks. The function of the think tank must have a clear and fixed institutional channel. Non-professional advisors are not really think tanks. Policy advice is the social responsibility of intellectuals. I think that if China restores the old master system, that is, establishes a think tank system, it will be conducive to scientific decision-making. In me, I am both an academic and a policy advocate. Intellectuals mainly refer to those who have a sense of social responsibility and criticize government policies. People who have won the Nobel Prize are not necessarily intellectuals. Also, real intellectuals don't just criticize the government, but tell the government what to do and how to do it. The criteria for good or bad policy recommendations should be feasible, effective and low-cost.

Lu: According to your definition, China does not yet have such a mechanism as a think tank. If so, are you willing to do it, even considering the impact on personal academics?

Yan: If there is, I would like to do it. Research institutions in China's functional departments are not think tanks in the strict sense, their main job is to do things, not to give ideas. To me, doing think tank work is a social responsibility that affects individual academic research, but it has greater social significance. Academic research cannot have such a direct social impact.

Lu: On the one hand, you are very intellectual, and you only advocate knowledge and do not care about politics; on the other hand, you attach great importance to the influence of your knowledge at the policy level, and you want to be a think tank. Are there any contradictions in this?

Yan: Someone asked Confucius the same question, and Confucius replied: "The book says: 'filial piety is only filial piety, friends are friends with brothers, and there is government.' The Book of Shang influences society through the ideas it promotes. This is also participation in politics. Why is it only an official to participate in politics? I think this answer can be applied to the thinking of many unofficial intellectuals. Not being an official does not mean that you don't want to change the government's policies. As academics, you can influence policy by influencing society. For example, since the mid-1990s, I have been talking about the necessity of containing "Taiwan independence" by force, and I have been in the minority for a long time. After Chen Shui-bian was re-elected in 2004 and proposed a timetable for "Taiwan independence" in 2008, my views were generally accepted by the society and became the mainstream and the government's policy toward Taiwan. In the "May 17 Statement" in 2004, the central government first put forward the policy of containing "Taiwan independence" as the top priority. Ma Yinchu's family planning views were criticized by the government from the 1950s to the 1970s, and he was persecuted for it. But after the "Cultural Revolution" ended, family planning became China's national policy. The responsibility of the scholar is to stick to what he thinks is correct, and whether it becomes the policy of the government depends on history. Academics are powerless to change politics, but academics' political stances should not go with the flow.

Lu: International relations is a subject with a strong policy orientation. How do you view and handle the relationship between academics and politics?

Yan: Academic research involving policy is sometimes related to political issues, and I will not give up my views because they are inconsistent with the official position of the government. I don't do fake research to demonstrate the wisdom and greatness of government decision-making. Since the early 1990s, I have been insisting on the formation of an international pattern with one superpower and multiple powers after the Cold War. I have always believed that the current international political knowledge of mankind cannot predict the changes in the next 20 years. History may prove me wrong in the end, but I do not accept any assertion without objective, scientific evidence.

Interviewer's postscript: In Yan Xuetong, I have seen how amazing the influence of the environment on a person - it can almost change his character; how limited the influence of the environment on a person - still can't shake his childhood feelings. The cruel life of the Construction Corps washed away his weakness and timidity, but failed to shake his yearning for knowledge and the loftyness in his bones, and gave him a profound and unique understanding of human nature and power. Not surprisingly, what is a scholar, what is an intellectual, and what is a think tank has clear definitions in his dictionary. In my opinion, whether he is a man or a scholar, he is so colorful: he sticks to his own position and defends his beliefs. However, is this intensity derived from the growth experience before the age of 16, the baptism of the former Corps, or the gift of studying at Berkeley? It seems hard to tell. Special times and special experiences jointly shaped his special emotions and psychology. As the saying goes, the country is easy to change, but the nature is hard to change. That self-confidence, that toughness, and that rare persistence must be said to be due to his nature. A clear realist position, a strong nationalist sentiment, a firm scientist path - he always has to exert his persistence to the extreme. Never content with ambiguity, he pursues scientific predictions; never following the crowd, he is obsessed with methodological preaching. Therefore, for China's international political research, he can be regarded as a realist scholar who is obsessed with scientific prediction.

Selected from "World Economics and Politics", 2005, No. 7, with changes.