China's exploration of extraterritorial knowledge and its research on countries around the world have always possessed distinct subjective characteristics. This characteristic is closely intertwined with the historical process of the Chinese nation overcoming profound national crises, exploring a unique path of development, and promoting exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations: Since modern times, in the of national crises, patriotic intellectuals sought extraterritorial knowledge with the original intention of acquiring knowledge to save the world and turning the tide of disaster; after the founding of New China, unite countries around the world, especially those in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the Party Central Committee vigorously promoted the study of international issues; at the time of reform and opening, a large influx of thoughts and cultures from various countries became an important content for China to draw lessons from other countries' modernization experiences; entering the new era, we uphold the of promoting the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, creating a new situation of win-win cooperation and exchanges and mutual learning among civilizations. The exploration of extraterrit knowledge over the past nearly two hundred years has laid the practical foundation for the construction of China's area and country studies. To promote the high-quality development of area and country studies a new starting point, we must, on this basis, further clarify and grasp the narrative logic, theoretical foundation, core objects, basic methods, research paradigms, and discourse system of discipline, and continuously broaden our horizons in observing various regions and countries of the world.

The Logical Starting Point of China's Area and Country Studies
The origin of any discipline has a logical starting point, namely a-narrative, which determines the guiding ideology of that discipline. The narrative logic of Western area and country studies can be traced back to the Treaty of Westphalia, which formed thinking pattern of achieving temporary peace triggered by war, aimed at ceasefire, and based on the distribution of interests and the determination of principles. From the imperialist wars at the end of the19th century to World War I, the great powers brutally fought over colonies and spheres of influence. After the war, they continued to apply this logic, gradually making it the-narrative for the West to handle international issues: that the world is divided, mutually opposed, and conflict is inevitable, with its focus being "boundaries".
The logical starting of China's area and country studies is rooted in the Chinese nation's profound ideas of harmony and coexistence, the ideal of Great Unity, and the concept of a community with shared future for mankind advocated by the Communist Party of China, with peace, cooperation, and development as its core themes. Its meta-narrative advocates that the world is an integrated, countries are equal, conflict can be avoided, and peace needs to be actively constructed, with its focus being "bridges", namely connection and communication. China's area and country strive to establish and deepen mutual cognition, understanding, and empathy among countries and regions of the world: first between China and other countries, then expanding to all countries, and finally achieving empathy on the basis of common values of all mankind. Therefore, China's area and country studies cannot simply apply the existing models of area and country studies from other countries, but explore ideological concepts and paths and methods that meet its own development needs, and systematically construct the discourse system of this discipline on this basis

Marxist Theory of the State and Area and Country Studies
The primary object of study in area and country studies the state. Area studies are built upon the foundation of state studies, but they are not a simple superposition of state studies; rather, they are a dialectical integration of the cooperative conflictual relationships among countries within a region. Marx and Engels conducted in-depth research on the relationship between private property and the origin of the state, as well as the nature of capitalist states. From the perspectives of the dialectical relationship between the economic base, the superstructure, and ideology, they elucidated the inherent connection between private property and the nature of the, pointing out that the state is concrete and historical, always represents the fundamental interests of the ruling class, and is ultimately a tool of class struggle. Lenin inherited and developed the views Marx and Engels, proposing the theory of imperialism as capitalism entered the monopoly stage. The research findings of classical Marxist writers on the state have important guiding significance for our understanding of contemporary state.
According to the basic principles of Marxism, the economic base determines the superstructure, and the superstructure reacts back upon the economic base. Accordingly, the study of target countries can be into three levels: the most basic level is the national economic structure, followed by the political system, and the top level is ideology. To understand the nature of a country, should start from its economic structure. Taking a target country as the object of study essentially means prioritizing the study of the economic structure and common interests that constitute its foundation and backbone, including level of productive forces, economic nature, and industrial structure, which together form the country's economic base. Correspondingly, the political systems, political parties, laws, and ideology at the state form level are all constrained by the economic base. However, once state institutions and legal systems are formed, they endow themselves with legal form through means such as design,, and the construction of order, becoming the legal power that constrains the economy and society. The policies, regulations, and systems they formulate regulate production, consumption, exports, trade and taxation across society, and dominate the national economic structure, industrial layout, and financial policies. At the same time, the state utilizes the propaganda and public opinion machinery to strengthen state legal, making it appear as the common will of all members. It should be noted that the reaction of the superstructure, appearing in the form of the state, upon the economic base reflects contradiction between the two. The state acts both as the representative of the common interests of the whole society and as the representative of the interests of the ruling class. This contradictory identity persists the existence of the state and is the fundamental cause of the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure.
Since the 20th century, the form of the state has undergone profound changes, presenting new phenomena. Modern Europe formed a system of nation-states, and while major powers consolidated their own nation-states, they imposed colonial rule on other parts of the world, establishing imperial system. After World War II, colonial countries gained independence one after another, and a group of emerging countries emerged, including multi-ethnic states and single-ethnic states; there socialist states, as well as states of a federal or union nature. To this day, some countries are still in the process of construction, and national and ethnic identities are still in state of flux. It can be said that the construction and evolution of the state form have never stopped. By the end of the 20th century, state power became more-dimensional, and the study of the state became increasingly complex: after the establishment of the European Union, a supranational political and economic form appeared, and traditional state power relatively weakened; in addition to internal contradictions, developed capitalist countries faced increasingly severe external contradictions with underdeveloped and economically backward countries, and contradictions among developed countries also became more obvious. At the same, the interdependence between countries has become increasingly close, and the contradictions between state forms, supranational organizations, and international organizations have become increasingly superimposed, all of which are phenomena previous studies have never encountered. But in essence, regardless of the nature of a country, there is always a contradictory relationship of reflection and constraint between its internal economic base and superstructure, between economic interests and political and legal rights. The basic principles of the Marxist theory of the state still possess truth.
Based on the unprecedented changes in the world over the past century China's area and country studies, guided by Marxism, closely pay attention to the new changes in the form of states in today's world, focus on the diversity and specificity the target countries, and deeply understand the differences in the forms of existence and operational laws of various countries. On this basis, the following issues should be studied in depth: first, unique development paths of various countries and the complex contradictions they face; second, how the differences in state forms affect the positions of various countries in participating in international affairs, as well the attitudes they take on major international issues; third, the different choices made by various countries to solve their own survival and development problems. In this process, the historical and cultural and aspects of the target countries should be viewed concretely and dialectically, and the tension between their domestic and international affairs, and between the state and international organizations should be viewed concretely dialectically, taking the specific contradictions faced by the target countries and the specificity of their survival and development as the focus of research.
It is particularly important that China's and country studies emphasize conducting holistic research on the basis of grasping the uniqueness of the target countries, treating the target countries as independent holistic existences, rather than "others". This point a fundamental difference from the Western academic position. European and American scholars are obsessed with modernization theory, and often ignore the holistic and dialectical research on the economic base of specific countries and relationship with the superstructure. This is not a matter of vision, but a matter of position. The key problem lies in denying the characteristics of different regions and countries in terms of culture history, and thus ignoring or even denying the right of various countries to choose their own unique development paths. Area and country studies based on the Marxist theory of the state as a foundation are built on the basis of respecting the unique history, economic models, political systems, and development paths of other countries, and only by adhering to this position can the characteristics of target countries be truly revealed.
Basic Paradigm: Research on Cohesion and Openness
"Paradigm" here refers to the general model of the target country namely from which aspects the knowledge system about the target country is constructed. China's area and country studies take the research of national forms and their operational laws as the main goal, and the "cohesion" and "openness" of the target country as the basic research paradigm, aiming to systematically describe the overall appearance of the target country's economic base,, and ideology, reveal the dialectical relationship between the three, and thereby establish a complete knowledge system of the target country.
Cohesion is a functional description of the basic form operational laws of a country, reflecting the order construction model and construction degree in the fields of politics, economy, society, and culture of the target country, and its essence is operational model of national political power. Cohesion involves several levels such as national system, legal system, values, and cultural traditions, as well as their interrelationships. A country' cohesion is reflected in the degree of fit between the national system, government power, and economic structure, and is closely related to the identification status of various classes, which is an allround and overall manifestation of national functions.
Openness refers to the policy orientation, path choice, coverage, and implementation degree of the target country's opening up to the outside, mainly reflected in the fields of politics, economy, finance, and social development. Taking the China Regional Opening-up Index System proposed by the academic community as an example, this covers six major indicators: trade, investment, finance, service industry, institutional environment, and cultural exchanges, which basically reflects the overall level of a country's opening up to the world. Due to differences in development history, environment, ideology, and other aspects of different countries, their openness shows significant differences. Overall, the higher the openness, the richer opportunities for international exchange, and the development is often faster, which has been proven by practical experience.
Different countries exhibit significant differences in terms of cohesion and openness. Evaluating a country's existence and operational patterns is essentially making a assessment of its cohesion and openness. Although a country's cohesion and openness are closely linked, they are not always perfectly aligned. Theoretically, against the backdrop of economic globalization, if country possesses sound economic, institutional, and social systems, and its citizens have a high degree of national identity, its cohesion will be strong, which is conducive to conducting foreign exchanges; the various data in its openness indicator system perform well, its openness will also be high. Conversely, if there is a lack of coordination among the economy, institutions, and society, conflicts are intense, the country will lose stability, its cohesion will weaken, and its openness will decrease accordingly. In reality, however, the relationship between cohesion and openness is complex and. For example, some countries have strong cohesion but lack exchanges and interactions with other countries due to various subjective and objective reasons, resulting in a narrow scope of openness and very low; other countries have an extreme political ecology, causing severe fluctuations in both cohesion and openness, with both indicators showing unconventional levels.
Taking cohesion and openness as the paradigm to study target aims to reveal the internal essence and operational patterns of the target countries, and to clarify their basic positions, interests, and paths to consensus on the world situation and major issues. With "bridge" as the logical starting point, the fundamental purpose of this research is to explore feasible paths for achieving win-win cooperation between China and the target countries and regions. It be said that the study of cohesion and openness ultimately serves cooperation. This is precisely one of the purposes of building China's regional and country studies
Methodological Debate: Transcending Disciplinary Limitations through Holistic Research
Area and Country Studies adopts cohesion and openness its research paradigm, emphasizing a holistic grasp of the dialectical relationship between the economic base, superstructure, and ideology of the target country. The choice of this research object dictates that it methodologically transcend single disciplines or even simple interdisciplinary approaches, manifesting the characteristics of holistic research.
Studying the contemporary form and operational mode of a country aims to construct aized knowledge system about that country. If interdisciplinary approaches are taken as the sole methodological feature, it will be difficult to capture the richness and complexity of countries in reality, and impossible accurately understand the diversity of current interdependent relationships between countries. The evolution from single disciplines to interdisciplinary approaches has broken through single perspectives and formed multiple perspectives, marking an important advancement in20th-century academic thought. However, there is an essential difference between interdisciplinary research and holistic research in terms of object setting: the former emphasizes crossing disciplinary boundaries and seeking in boundary fusion, while the latter directly points to a holistic grasp of the target country.
Clarifying the relationship between holistic research and single or interdisciplinary research has significant practical guiding. From the perspective of academic norms, any research object set by traditional humanities and social science disciplines is situated within a specific time and space, and its research conclusions ultimately point to innovation within that discipline. Even if the research object is a specific country or region, its research conclusions are limited to knowledge discovery and breakthroughs within that discipline. In contrast, Area and Studies does not stop there; it poses questions based on a country or region and ultimately returns to a holistic understanding of that country or region. Specifically, Area and Country Studies differs significantly traditional disciplines in the following aspects: First, the research object is different. It takes the overall appearance and mutual relationships of the target country's politics, economy, society, and as its starting point, rather than posing questions from the field of a single discipline (such as literature, economics, political science, or history). Second, the way of thinking is. It requires researchers to possess comprehensive thinking, taking into account all social factors and their interactions to pose questions, analyze problems, and seek solutions. This is precisely why Area and Studies emphasizes field research, conducting sociological and anthropological studies by delving into the target country's ethnicity, religion, ethnic groups, and communities. Third, the research outcomes are different. research emphasizes constructing a comprehensive, objective, and authentic knowledge system, and proposing specific, actionable paths and implementation plans
However, holistic research is not isolated from traditional disciplines, but is based on their academic accumulation and maintains close ties with them. Marx Engels critically inherited the rational elements of German classical philosophy, British classical political economy, and French and British utopian socialism, extensively absorbed the achievements of multiple disciplines such as philosophy, economics, science, history, and sociology, and established a state theory based on the doctrines of dialectical materialism, historical materialism, political economy, and scientific socialism. It is precisely because they focused the entire state and society, rather than being confined to a single discipline, that the writings of the classical Marxist authors exhibit a holistic character. For area and country studies to strive transcend the limitations of single disciplines through holistic research and conduct systematic research on contemporary countries and regions, it must fully absorb the existing achievements of various disciplines, leverage the multi-perspective advantages holistic research, break through the inertia of single-discipline thinking, form comprehensive thinking, and pose and solve problems.
Currently, China's area and country studies are still in infancy. We should adhere to the basic principles of Marxism, uphold the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind, stand on China's position, pay close attention to particularities of various countries and regions in the world, conduct down-to-earth field investigations, and closely integrate the research of regional countries, communities, and history and culture, that area and country studies can truly become a discipline that promotes enhanced understanding, consensus, and deepened cooperation between China and other countries in the world