The United States, China, and Thailand share a long history of connectivity on various levels. In general, International Relations among these nations have primarily focused on state-to-state interactions rather than on non-state actors and their roles in diplomacy. Historically, the relationship between Thailand and the United States during the Cold War was shaped by America’s selection of Thailand as a military base for its anti-communist campaign. This article further argues that Thailand was also chosen as an academic base for the construction of knowledge on China and Overseas Chinese communities. This paper proposes that foreign affairs from below approach is key to understanding contemporary international relations by focusing on academic networks and the particular conceptions of Sinologism held by Sino-Thai and Thai-Chinese scholars. This article illustrates a paradigm shift in Area Studies, which is no longer dominated by Western and Han Chinese scholars’ conceptions of the rest of the world, shaped by academic relationships. This illustrates a case of Cross-Area Studies that extends beyond traditional binary thinking regarding the relations between the West and the East.
Academic diplomacy, or foreign affairs from below, is one aspect of foreign affairs that has received less attention from Thai scholars (see Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2017, Reference Eaksittipong2025). For Area Studies, the idea of China has gradually developed through the work of American, Thai, and Chinese scholars who have focused on China studies in Thailand. As a matter of fact, in the Thai academic field, China studies has a longer history than Thai-China relations, which were re-established in 1975. Importantly, in 2025, the two countries celebrated the golden jubilee of China-Thailand diplomatic relations, making it a suitable time to rethink China studies in the Thai academic field.
One of the main limitations in the existing literature on China studies is its specific “idea of China,” which refers solely to mainland China, and which was originally established by Euro-American scholars (see e.g. Fairbank Reference Fairbank1957, Reference Fairbank1968, Harrison Reference Harrison2001, etc.). Sinology was shaped by European Sinological discourse that predominantly focused on mainland China as an essential entity in both religious and secular terms (Johansson Reference Johansson, Bod, Maat and Weststeijn2014, Weber Reference Weber1951). Later, European-style Classical studies of Chinese history and culture were developed by Western-educated Chinese elites as a form of “national learning” (guoxue 国学) (Dirlik Reference Dirlik2011, Johansson Reference Johansson, Bod, Maat and Weststeijn2014), which emphasised “an idea and intellectual pursuit [that] has a history of roughly a century in China” (Dirlik Reference Dirlik2011, p. 4). However, during this time, Chinese people were already migrating around the globe; thus, Sinology cannot be confined to narratives centred solely on mainland China. China displays great diversity in the cultures and ethnicities that constitute its milieu. In this sense, American-style China studies, constructed by American scholars who study Chinese society through Area Studies – an interdisciplinary approach encompassing politics, economics, society, and culture – have superseded earlier approaches in providing an in-depth understanding of modern and contemporary Chinese society rather than remaining confined to the study of an essentialised ancient Chinese past, as previous European Sinologists did (Zurndorfer Reference Zurndorfer1995, pp. 4–44). Hence, the statement, “Sinology is dead; long live Chinese studies!” (Skinner Reference Skinner1964, p. 517). In other words, the idea of China is not merely a bilateral interpretation between Westerners and Chinese scholars. This has led some Chinese scholars to propose that the origin of the idea of China be discussed by rethinking it through a historical and cultural lens (Chen Reference Chen2016, Ge Reference Ge2011, Reference Ge2017, Wang Reference Wang2014, Reference Wang2023, Xu Reference Xu2014, Reference Xu2018, Reference Xu2026; Yubanmeiqin – bilibili 2021).
Meanwhile in Thailand, China studies, or the study of Chinese history, culture, and language, have included Overseas Chinese studies as well and are often analysed using assimilation theory (see e.g. Skinner Reference Skinner1954, Reference Skinner1957, Reference Skinner1958). Such academic knowledge is crucial for understanding the experiences of Chinese communities residing outside mainland China during the Cold War era. Sino-Thai scholars have also adopted the American-style approach to China studies, as reflected in various Thai academic works. Although this indicates that China studies have extended beyond mainland China, in Thailand it has primarily focused on the history and development of the Overseas Chinese and their role in Thai society rather than viewing them as agents who construct their own narratives through the lens of “Sinologism” (Gu Reference Gu2013). Viewing the Overseas Chinese as active agents constitutes a process of decolonial knowledge production in China studies through academic diplomacy, functioning as a form of “foreign affairs from below” among Thailand, China, and the United States.
In this respect, the early idea of China suggests that Thai scholars have been intellectually influenced – if not colonised – by the American approach to China studies, which significantly shaped the development of China studies in Thailand. In Thai society, the emergence of the idea of China through China studies cannot be separated from foreign affairs – particularly academic diplomacy, in which Thai and American scholars have been engaged within the field of China studies (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2017). Similarly, China-Thailand relations have been shaped by scholarly diplomacy amid the nationalist contest in academic historical discourse (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2019).
This article examines the development of the idea of China (China studies) as perceived in the American and Thai academic landscapes from 1954 to the present. It highlights a turning point in American-Sino-Thai relations through the lens of academic diplomacy, a form of foreign affairs from below. The production of knowledge within China studies has gradually shifted towards Sinologism – an alternative concept aimed at decolonising the idea of China within the Thai academic sphere. This study sheds light on non-state actors (American and Sino-Thai scholars) who play a crucial role in International Relations and have conceived Sinologism as an alternative form of knowledge production concerning the idea of China.
The article’s main argument is that the idea of China is not merely the simplistic conception that it refers solely to mainland China, as American and Chinese scholars have historically conceived it. Sino-Thai/Thai-Chinese scholars with overseas Chinese family backgrounds have played a crucial role in Thai universities as academics in establishing alternative conceptions on this point. They have attempted to conceive Sinologism as an alternative framework with the objective of decolonising the idea of China from American-style approaches to Sinology and China studies. The article adopts the concept of Sinologism as a framework for understanding this paradigm shift as a decolonising idea advanced by Sino-Thai scholars that distinguishes it from American-style China studies.
The article adopts a humanities-based qualitative methodology that employs analytical surveys and historical analysis to grasp the historical phenomena of foreign affairs pursued by Sino-Thai academics who have constructed an alternative idea of China through Sinologism in Thai society. The paper addresses which aspects constitute Sino-Thai Sinologism and how Sinologism helps us rethink the idea of China (China studies), which is distinct – but not unique – from American-style China studies. The article demonstrates that Sinologism represents a decolonising approach to American-style China studies through the non-fictional works of Sino-Thai scholars.
Therefore, in a world characterised by its multipolarity, the idea of China reflects an important dynamism through the application of Sino-Thai Sinologism. The paper contributes to the idea of China in ways that go beyond American and Han Chinese perceptions by adopting a “foreign affairs from below” approach practised by American, Chinese, and Sino-Thai scholars. Globally, the idea of China is not simply a bilateral interpretation derived from American and Han Chinese narratives. In Thailand, American-style Overseas Chinese studies has established an alternative form of China studies, though it remains to be perceived as an American construct. Nationally, within the Thai academic sphere, the Sino-Thai conception of Sinologism reflects a decolonisation of thought from the American-style approach to China studies. This perspective, rooted in Sinologism, illuminates an idea of China that serves as an alternative framework, ontologically, epistemologically, and methodologically, among Sino-Thai scholars.
The article is divided into five parts. It will first provide a brief literature review of China studies in Thailand, which has historically been dominated by the American-style approach. Section Two will then propose a conceptualisation of Sinologism that conveys a decolonial idea of China. This is followed by a presentation of qualitative research in the humanities as a methodological tool for exploring Sinologism, grounded in analytical surveys and content analysis. The fourth section will discuss the research results, which offer an alternative conception of China by proposing Sinologism as a distinct criterion for decolonising the idea of China as reconstructed by Sino-Thai scholars. At this stage, academic diplomacy is framed as a process of “foreign affairs from below.” Sino-Thai scholars have played a crucial role in shifting the trajectory of China studies away from an American-style approach towards Sino-Thai Sinologism. The last section will discuss how Sinologism is positioned as a decolonial conception of China developed by Sino-Thai scholars. This reflects an academic diplomacy that emerges from the ground up, leading us to rethink China studies beyond the bilateral interpretations offered by American and Han Chinese perspectives.
Literature review: The idea of China through American-Sino-Thai relations
Existing Anglo-Thai academic works have contributed considerably to the imagination of Sino-Thai relations across politics, economics, society, history, and culture. In the context of China studies in Thailand, knowledge about China emerged as a new academic discipline institutionalised through the efforts of American and Sino-Thai scholars. Their collaboration operated as a form of “foreign affairs from below,” particularly through academic exchanges and experiences within Thai society, with a focus on International Relations and Overseas Chinese studies. These two disciplines indirectly shaped the development of China studies within the Thai academic sphere. This, in turn, has influenced perceptions of China that extend beyond mainland China’s geographical boundaries, marking the beginning of Thai academic writing that heads towards Sinologism and Cross-Area Studies.
International relations
International Relations is a classical academic field that has been utilised by various Anglo-Thai scholars. The relationship between Thailand and China has long been traced back to the ancient kingdoms of Sukhothai and the Yuan dynasty (the Mongol Empire), which was famous for its white-and-blue ceramics that flooded the ancient trade routes at the time. In a sense, Anglo-Thai scholars have generally approached Sino-Thai relations through the lens of international cooperation and the tributary system. This reflects a mainstream academic trend that emphasises Sino-Thai political and economic relations within the global community, particularly through ancient trade routes that flourished during the early Thai kingdoms up to the reign of King Nangklao (Rama III) of Rattanakosin under the tributary system (Chabrowski Reference Chabrowski2022, Cushman Reference Cushman1993, Jory Reference Jory2021, Viraphol Reference Viraphol1977). Generally speaking, these works focused on state-to-state relations rather than those between the state and non-state actors. This type of academic work suggests that China acted as a “big brother,” exerting significant influence on trade before Thailand’s encounter with Western colonialism and capitalism during the early Rattanakosin period (1782–1932). After King Mongkut and the Siamese royal elite and noble clans signed the Bowring Treaty with the British in 1855, the ancient Thai-Chinese tributary system and its associated relations came to an end. This geopolitical shift – from China to Great Britain under Pax Britannica – marked a turning point, leading Thailand to engage with global capitalism and colonialism through British-colonised regions such as Singapore and India (see Chutipongpisit Reference Chutipongpisit2004, Sahai Reference Sahain.d.).
Nonetheless, in the Cold War era, the imagination of China as a communist threat existed beneath the surface of American influence on Thai politics and the economy. However, this period also marked a turning point in the knowledge of China in Thailand. Under Pax Americana, the United States – through both state and non-state actors – contributed to the development of the Thai academic sphere by establishing the humanities and social sciences, and most importantly for this work, Area Studies, e.g. Chinese studies (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2017). However, in 1975, before the United States withdrew its air force and military presence from Thailand (before the end of the Vietnam War), the Thai state reestablished official diplomatic relations with China. This marked another turning point in its geopolitics. The rise of China prompted the Thai state to reposition itself in international politics by rekindling relations with the Beijing government – a move that has continued ever since (Chambers Reference Chambers2005).
In the contemporary period, Benjamin Zawacki has observed that Sino-Thai relations have become increasingly interconnected, particularly in politics and the economy (Zawacki Reference Zawacki2021). This reflects the United States’ declining interest and engagement in Southeast Asia as a partner in the international community. This shift has been especially notable as the Chinese government handed over political power to the fifth generation of leadership and launched international initiatives framed by various key slogans – from Hu Jintao’s Olympic-era motto, “One World, One Dream”, to Xi Jinping’s “China Dream” and “One Belt, One Road.” However, these ambitious projects were significantly disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Due to this geopolitical shift from Washington to Beijing, China’s growing presence in Southeast Asia – particularly in Thailand – has undoubtedly prompted Thai scholars to reconsider China’s role in global contexts. In response, Anglo and Thai scholars have sought to expand research on China studies by adopting various sociological and anthropological perspectives. Several Anglo-Thai academic works have focused on China’s influence on Thailand and mainland Southeast Asia in general through Chinese capital and its associated grey economy, which has contributed to a rise in Sinophobia among the populations of these countries (see Han and Khemanitthathai Reference Han and Khemanitthathai2023, Luo Reference Luo2023, Santasombat Reference Santasombat2015, Reference Santasombat2017, Reference Santasombat2019, Santasombat and Lee Reference Santasombat and Lee2024). This body of literature is critical of International Relations approaches that focus on non-state actors and state development in Southeast Asian nations.
Thus, rather than focusing on International Relations, Overseas Chinese studies presents Sino-Thai relations as an idea of China grounded in the history of political and economic cooperation between the two countries across all historical periods. Sino-Thai interactions have been characterised as an imagination of International Relations that is grounded in the discourse that “China and Thailand are brothers” (Tungkeunkunt and Phuphakdi Reference Tungkeunkunt and Phuphakdi2018) who hold long political, economic, social, historical, and cultural ties between each other.
Overseas Chinese studies
In Thailand, under the influence of American academia in China studies, Overseas Chinese studies have become one of the most prominent academic fields recognised by American scholars. Employing assimilation theory – an approach that examines how ethnic groups live under dominant power structures – George William Skinner became a forerunner in the in-depth study of the Overseas Chinese community in Bangkok, Thailand (Skinner Reference Skinner1954, Reference Skinner1957, Reference Skinner1958). This marks the beginning of Overseas Chinese studies as an academic discipline. Although it is difficult to conclude that Skinner’s academic work had a direct influence on Thai scholarship, Sino-Thai scholars frequently cite his earlier works in their academic writings. This demonstrates that the topic of the Overseas Chinese has gained recognition within Thai academia.
Importantly, dozens of Anglo-Thai academic works emphasise Overseas Chinese studies and their role in Siamese/Thai society across political, economic, social, cultural, and historical dimensions. Thai scholars have studied multiple Sino-Thai communities (originating from the old wave of the Chinese diaspora) in different regions of Thailand, such as central Thailand and Bangkok, which are among the main foci of Overseas Chinese studies. Numerous academic works emphasise their history of migration, economic roles, everyday life practices, and culture, as well as forms of resistance to the Thai state (Buddhabhumbhitak Reference Buddhabhumbhitak2002, Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2010, Ruangrapee Reference Ruangrapee1975, Tungkeunkunt Reference Tungkeunkunt2012, Wongsurawat Reference Wongsurawat2019). There have also been multiple studies of Overseas Chinese communities in Thai provinces outside the Bangkok metropolis. In Northern Thailand, a group of Yunnanese Chinese Muslims migrated to Chiang Mai. They formed a community by assimilating into South Asian Punjabi Muslim communities and adopting the city’s local cultural values (Soonthornpasuch Reference Soonthornpasuch1977). In Southern Thailand, a group of Overseas Chinese communities played a crucial role in the economy, particularly as moneylenders and representatives of the Siamese court, serving as tax collectors and accumulating large amounts of capital over time (Songprasert Reference Songprasert1986). In the Eastern region of Thailand, there is little academic work on the Overseas Chinese, most of which focuses on their migration history and settlement in the eastern coastal and port cities (Ngernchai Reference Ngernchai2014, Ngernchai and Huang Reference Ngernchai and Huang2015, Saetiao Reference Saetiao2018). In Northeastern Thailand, studies of Overseas Chinese communities are limited, with only a few having explored in depth the economic role of Overseas Chinese in the region’s small cities (Poonsawatpong Reference Poonsawatpong2023). These studies are primarily grounded in assimilation theory, an approach commonly applied to understand Sino-Thai communities in various parts of Thailand. These studies remain confined to American-style China studies, despite their attempts to engage with assimilation theory using empirical evidence.
Recently, the new wave of the Chinese diaspora (xinyimin 新移民) has become a popular topic in the Thai academic sphere. This group represents the new Chinese diaspora who sojourn in Thailand and seek alternative lifestyles (Siriphon Reference Siriphon2015, pp. 147–166, Siriphon Reference Siriphon2016, pp. 1–17). Sivarin Lertpusit suggests that these new Chinese migrants can be categorised into five groups: entrepreneurs, employees, students, accompanying family members, and lifestyle migrants (Lertpusit Reference Lertpusit2023). Each of these groups impacts Thai society in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, the rise of China and the influx of Chinese migrants have contributed towards Thailand’s economic growth.
On the other hand, some illegal Chinese migrants are involved in the grey economy and use tactics to conduct business in Thailand without holding the appropriate visas. This reflects the complexity of the new Chinese migrant groups and their diverse impacts on Thai society. For example, on the positive side, Chinese tourism diplomacy was a key driver encouraging Chinese people to visit Thailand, contributing to the Thai economy before the pandemic in late 2019 (Zhu et al. Reference Zhu, Siriphon, Airey and Mei-lan2022). On the negative side, Chinese capital has been involved in the grey economy along the Thai border, contributing towards the rise of gambling, mafia activities, and scam operations (Raymond Reference Raymond2025).
Hence, regardless of whether it is the old or new wave of the Chinese diaspora in Thai society, these themes convey that Overseas Chinese studies is filling in a gap left by the International Relations field, which has often overlooked non-state actors who play a role in foreign affairs from below. Moreover, both International Relations and Overseas Chinese studies reflect imagined ideas of China as perceived by the Thai academia. In Thailand, this reveals the complexity of a Sinologism distinct from China studies influenced by American scholarship. This article argues that Sino-Thai Sinologism, grounded in International Relations and Overseas Chinese studies, presents an alternative idea of China, one that is not merely a bilateral imagination shaped by American and Han Chinese perspectives.
Conceptualisation: Sinologism as decolonising the idea of China and cross-area studies
Sinologism (hanxuezhuyi 汉学主义) was coined as an academic term by Zhou Ning in 2004 (Gu and Zhou Reference Gu and Zhou2017, p. 2). It puts forward a critique of Sinological studies that remain trapped in the Western Orientalist imagination of China (Gu and Zhou Reference Gu and Zhou2018, p. 1). For Zhou Ning, Sinologism is a decolonising ontology, methodology, and epistemology that critiques or writes back against Sinology (hanxue 汉学) – a form of colonial knowledge, ideology, and discipline that shaped the identity and imagination of China as constructed by Western scholars (Zhou Reference Zhou2004). Thus, Sinologism challenges the dominance of Western academic colonialism in the field of China studies, commonly referred to as Sinology or “Orientalism” (Said Reference Said2003). This demonstrates that Sinologism is a critical concept that impacts China studies as well as Sinology and its methodological and epistemological foundations, which are different – but not entirely distinct from – Edward W. Said’s idea of Orientalism (Gu and Zhou Reference Gu and Zhou2017).
Moreover, Sinologism does not merely contribute to the production of critical knowledge of China studies and Sinology as presented by those in mainland China and the Western academic sphere. As Gu Mingdong states:
In the worldwide context, the critical theory of Sinologism may contribute to the global enterprise of intellectual and mental de-colonisation. It may help people of Third World countries become aware of grave consequences of “spiritual colonisation” and “self-colonisation,” overcome intellectual and academic inertia, and produce original and creative work in academic as well as in cultural domains. Ultimately, it may help overcome alienations of Sinology, China knowledge, and knowledge production in cross-cultural studies (Gu Reference Gu2013, p. 223).
For Gu Mingdong, “. . . Sinologism is an unconscious culture with the logic of a cultural unconscious . . . the conception of Sinologism is not a theory of ideological critique but a critical theory of self-conscious reflection” (Gu Reference Gu2013, pp. 224–225). In a sense, “. . . Sinologism is a theory of knowledge production about China, guided by Western-centric ideology, epistemology, methodology, and Western perspectives, and immensely complicated by the responses of the Chinese and non-Western people . . . Thus, Sinologism is a bilateral construction by both Chinese and Westerners. . .” (Gu Reference Gu2013, p. 6). As a result, Sinologism may serve as a decolonising methodology and epistemology of the idea of China, but perhaps not an ontology, as it still relies on Western dialogues. However, this does not mean it isolates the idea of China from Western influence; rather, it undergoes hybridisation with them. This process is similar to the idea of “provincialising Europe” (Chakrabarty Reference Chakrabarty2000), which involves adapting Western ideas to non-Western perceptions and practices in their everyday life. Undoubtedly, “. . . the cultural unconscious of Sinologism refers to the unconscious self-colonised by Western epistemology and methodology in the course of such long-term, paradoxical experiences” (Chen and Gong Reference Chen and Gong2018, p. 32). Or we could deduce that, “. . . the cultural unconscious is, in essence, a reaction against colonialism, while the theory of Sinologism may be, in essence, no more than another form of postcolonialism” (Chen and Gong Reference Chen and Gong2018, p. 33).
Although Sinologism represents a new critical perspective on China studies, it offers a self-conscious reflection of the core of the cultural unconscious (Chen and Gong Reference Chen and Gong2018). Still, the concept of Sinologism has limitations in fully grasping Chinese history, suggesting that we need to reconsider whether Sinologism is truly adequate for understanding Sinological history. This is due to Sinologism often being overlooked as a framework for rethinking philosophical issues in postmodern theory, one that is grounded in Sinologism itself (Zhang Reference Zhang2018). There have been multiple debates concerning the meaning and function of the concept of Sinologism since it was first conceived in China. Here, it is believed that Sinologism should be understood as a form of cross-cultural intersubjectivity, interconnected with both the West and China, rather than being confined to a one-sided interpretation (Zhou Reference Zhou2018).
In this sense, Sinologism reflects a decolonisation of the idea of China by shifting the focus towards International Relations, Overseas Chinese studies, and Chinese Diaspora studies within the global academic context. It goes against any fixed idea of China based on Western or Han Chinese perceptions. As Gu Mingdong suggests:
In the worldwide context, Sinologism is more than a bilateral construction by the Chinese and Westerners. To a certain extent, it is an intellectual enterprise undertaken by the whole world with the participation of intellectuals from many countries and regions, including Third World peoples. Because of worldwide globalisation, Sinologism has become an intellectual commodity with China as its content, produced by intellectuals all over the world for consumption by all people of the world (Gu Reference Gu2013, p. 6).
Therefore, the article proposes that Sinologism is not merely a bilateral interpretation of China studies and its idea of China. Rather, it is an unconscious cultural framework conceived by Sino-Thai scholars who have shaped the knowledge of China studies in the Thai academic sphere by adopting American, Chinese, and Thai theoretical frameworks. Sinologism is a form of foreign affairs from below grounded in the interconnection between American, Chinese, and Thai perspectives on China studies, because “Sinologism is both a system of knowledge and a practical theory of knowledge production” (Gu Reference Gu2013, p. 7). Thus, “Sinologism as an intellectual commodity changes in accordance with the demand for China knowledge in different historical periods and by different geographical areas” (Gu Reference Gu2013, p. 221). It is an ideology of epistemology and methodology, historical critique, intellectual and political unconsciousness, and linguistic critical theory (Gu Reference Gu2013). This conveys that Sinologism is not only a critical theory in Sinology but also a critical theory of cross-cultural studies. Hence, it is a decolonising idea of China. As Gu Mingdong states, “Once freed from the unconscious logic of Sinologism, cross-cultural studies will no longer rely on Western theories as universal paradigms, but use them as reference frameworks to study the historical conditions of non-Western cultures and societies, and there will appear truly scientific and objective approaches to non-Western materials, resulting in bias-free knowledge about non-Western cultures” (Gu Reference Gu2013, pp. 224–225). This conveys that Sinologism is a hybridisation of Sinology and Area Studies, representing a decolonising approach to China as a politico-socio-cultural and academic critical theory. The perception of Sinology and China studies as a dichotomy limits the ability to fully grasp China studies itself. As a result, this article proposes that Sino-Thai Sinologism represents a blurring of Sinology and China studies, constituting a Cross-Area Studies approach.
Nonetheless, Sinologism does not go far enough in relation to a “decolonising of the mind” (wa Thiongʼo Reference wa Thiongʼo2005), which seeks to liberate African literature from colonial, hegemonic languages such as French and English by grounding knowledge formation in African (local) languages. Rather, Chinese and Sino-Thai scholars adopt both English (a colonial language) and local languages, such as Mandarin and Thai, as academic media to represent their Sinologism in both historical and cultural terms. Western languages – especially English – remain the lingua franca among scholars in various parts of the Third World and the Western sphere due to the underlying politico-economic relations with Western nations, as well as Western languages better responding to the knowledge aspirations of Third World scholars than their own mother tongues (Asad Reference Asad1993, pp. 190–191). Thus, there is no doubt that Sinologism is most frequently conducted through English dialogue. The article will further discuss the concept of Sino-Thai Sinologism as a form of Cross-Area Studies, as well as the decolonising idea of China in the following section.
Sino-Thai Sinologism as cross-area studies: Decolonising American-style China studies
China studies is a form of Area Studies, representing a transition in the study of China from Sinological approaches – which focus on Chinese philology and literary analyses of Chinese society – to examining modern and contemporary China in terms of its functional and structural dimensions across political, economic, and socio-cultural-anthropological domains (Zurndorfer Reference Zurndorfer1995, pp. 34–39). American-style Area Studies combines linguistics with historical analysis. It advances Sino-Thai Sinologism beyond literary studies by examining the everyday lives and practices of Overseas Chinese and Sino-Thai communities across the Central, Northern, Southern, Northeastern, and Eastern regions of Thailand, through the ideas and practices of both state and non-state actors. This results in an approach that differs from European Sinology, which is grounded in textual analysis, philology, and archaeological studies of ancient Chinese society. It also differs from the approach of elite, Europeanised Chinese scholars of national studies, who focus on modernising Chinese literary studies through a mimetic framework grounded in Han Chinese and Western virtues. In other words, Whereas Sinology focused on China’s ‘great tradition’ and strove to capture the very ethos of the literati whose works it studied, Chinese studies today attempts to encompass the entire society and cultural products of China, in order to study its regional ‘little traditions’ along with the traditional ‘great’ ones and to empathise for heuristic purposes with the non-elite social groups as well as with the literati” (Skinner Reference Skinner1964, p. 517). Thus, the application of Cross-Area Studies is essential to grasping modern and contemporary China.
In the Thai and global contexts, Sinology and China studies are not always clearly differentiated, even though the two terms do not share the same scope of study (see e.g. Lanza Reference Lanza2014). In Thai, both are encompassed by the disciplinary term Chinsuksa (จีนศึกษา), which includes Chinese philology, Chinese literary studies, and the social sciences related to Chinese society across various disciplines, such as history, politics, economics, International Relations, and Overseas Chinese studies. While “Chinvidya” (จีนวิทยา) is a direct Thai translation of Sinology, it has yet to become widely used. Nevertheless, it still encompasses knowledge about China and the Chinese people across various disciplines, including literature, history, Overseas Chinese studies, International Relations, and cultural studies. Some Thai scholars have suggested that Chinese Studies in Thailand originated from American-style Area Studies during the Cold War, rather than developing from European-style Sinology and Han Chinese’s national learning (Jensiripon Reference Jensiripon2024, pp. 3–4). Thus, in the Thai context, both China studies (Chinsuksa จีนศึกษา) and Sinology (Chinvidya จีนวิทยา) have become increasingly intermixed into a Sino-Thai Sinologism, producing a form of Cross-Area Studies and a decolonising approach to China studies.
In this article, Sino-Thai Sinologism can be defined as a form of Cross-Area Studies that transcends the singularity of national entities, whether American, Chinese, or Thai. It represents a decolonising perspective on China, through which Sino-Thai scholars attempt to emancipate their epistemological and methodological frameworks from American influence in China studies. It is characterised by its “in-betweenness” of Overseas Chinese studies and China studies, acting as a critical theory of the idea of China that takes into account relevant history, culture, and international politics. However, in ontological terms, the concept of Sino-Thai Sinologism still appears to be critical of both American and Han Chinese perspectives. In fact, decolonisation involves more than just overcoming American dominance; it also entails resisting Chinese influence. This discussion can be further elaborated on the basis of two key points.
Firstly, in terms of epistemology and methodology, Sino-Thai sinologism serves as a decolonising idea of China against American imperialist knowledge production by fostering Thai scholarly Cross-Area Studies within the fields of Overseas Chinese studies and International Relations. In other words, Sino-Thai Sinologism decolonises the epistemology and methodology of previous university curricula that emerged during the Cold War (1950s–1990s) and post-Cold War (1990s–present) eras. As a result, some diasporic Sino-Anglo scholars originally attempted to interpret how American scholars approached Overseas Chinese studies in Southeast Asia, particularly whether “. . . analysis of diasporic Chinese societies combined a social science approach with sinological knowledge” (Liu Reference Liu, Saw and John2007, p. 150). This reveals that the boundaries between China studies and Sinology have become increasingly blurred, resulting in the creation of Overseas Chinese studies, which encompasses cross-area and cross-cultural perspectives. Although American-style China studies and Overseas Chinese studies serve as a foundation for Thai-Chinese scholars’ perceptions of China, Thai-Chinese and Thai scholars have formed Chinsuksa (จีนศึกษา) as a new discipline that has effectively merged Sinology and China studies. It is a localised production of Thai and Overseas Chinese knowledge within the university curriculum, in both the central and provincial universities of Thailand (Jensiripon Reference Jensiripon2024). This is an example of a decolonising approach to China that challenges American influence on China studies and Overseas Chinese studies in the Thai context.
Secondly, in terms of ontology, Thai-Chinese scholars perceive International Relations, Overseas Chinese studies, and Thai-ified Sinophone literature (Sinophone-Thai literature) as disciplines that reflect a Chinese/Mandarin perception of mainland China. This sort of Sino-Thai Sinologism reflects a glocalised worldview of Sino-Thai/Overseas Chinese communities in Thai society. It is a decolonising conception of China grounded in the historical composition of Overseas Chinese communities and the reinterpretation of their creative writing, which illustrates their lives in Thai society across various academic disciplines. Furthermore, it is a concept that goes beyond the dichotomy between Western and Chinese ethnocentrism (see e.g. Huang Reference Huang2016, Xu Reference Xu2026). Thus, Sino-Thai Sinologism serves as a more suitable decolonising tool than previous American-style China studies, which remain stuck in the traditional dichotomy between the West and China (see e.g. Cohen Reference Cohen1984) in their approaches to China. It represents a “third space” (Bhabha Reference Bhabha1994) that hybridises Western, Chinese, and Thai perspectives – including those of local Thai provinces – through the study of Overseas Chinese communities, and which highlights historical and cultural diversity.
Gu Mingdong’s Sinologism (Reference Gu2013) is a purified concept because it focuses primarily on Sinology conceived by Western scholars, especially within the European tradition of Sinology. It emphasises Han Chinese, Western-educated scholars, and their engagement with Sinology in modern China. This tendency leads Gu’s Sinologism to insist that it is not a political ideology, but rather a purely academic critical theory. However, due to international political interactions, Sino-Thai Sinologism has become a critical concept that bridges Sinology, Overseas Chinese studies, and China studies through the Chinsuksa (จีนศึกษา) approach, representing a decolonising perspective of China within the field of Cross-Area Studies. It discloses a form of foreign affairs from below – academic diplomacy – that represents interactions between cross-cultural and Cross-Area Studies by focusing on both state and non-state actors. Thus, Sino-Thai Sinologism is a decolonising approach to China and China studies, moving away from American-style China studies and Westernised Han Chinese traditions of national learning/Sinology. It does not conceive of Sinologism as a dichotomy between Sinology and China studies; rather, it represents a blurring of the two that constitutes a form of Cross-Area Studies.
Foreign affairs from below and urban anthropology as an analytical medium
This study adopts an approach from urban anthropology that emphasises “studying up” and “studying through” (Jaffe and de Koning Reference Jaffe and de Koning2016, pp. 16–17) particular groups of Sino-Thai scholars who have constructed ideas of China through what is referred to as Sinologism – a concept framed as a decolonial response to American-style China studies. The methodology of “studying up” and “studying through” is employed to examine a group of scholars and non-state actors who function as unofficial diplomats and engage in foreign affairs from below within an urban context. Sinologism has been conceptualised by Sino-Thai scholars who study, teach, and conduct research on China studies in urban universities, operating within cross-cultural settings. Their non-fiction works represent Thai academic Sinologism.
The article adopts humanities-based qualitative methods – such as analytical surveys, historical documentary research, and content analysis – as research tools. These methods are employed to explore the paradigm shift from American-style China studies to Sino-Thai-style Sinologism. Data collection focuses on key texts that emphasise Sinologism and China studies in both Anglophone and Thai academic literature from 1957 to the present. These texts reflect studying up and studying through academic works perceived as important in Sinologism in Thailand. These documents reflect foreign affairs from below, comprising primary and secondary sources that serve as empirical evidence from the real world illustrating how Sino-Thai scholars have perceived Sinologism.
To better grasp American-style China studies in Thailand, the articles selected in this paper are well-known Anglophone academic works by American scholars. They are written in the classical style of China studies and include research on Overseas Chinese communities. Additionally, Sino-Thai scholars’ academic works, both in Thai and English, have been selected to grasp Sinologism as a decolonisation of the idea of China, distinct from American-style China studies in Thailand. Hence, this study relies on empirical evidence derived from the academic works of American and Sino-Thai scholars who have produced non-fictional dissertations, research articles, and similar works.
Thus, this article argues that an understanding of China studies and its idea of China is not solely shaped by American or Han Chinese conceptions but also by Sino-Thai/Thai-Chinese scholars’ interpretation of Sinologism as they seek to decolonise China studies from American influence on the discipline. Although this paper is preliminary, it is still empirical, drawing on both Anglophone and Thai literature. As the statement goes, “literature is a mirror of the society that creates it” (Eoseewong Reference Eoseewong2005, p. 5); therefore, there is no reason to dismiss an analytical survey of literature as a reflection of empirical evidence.
Sino-Thai Sinologism and its challenge to American-style China studies
Diplomatic scholarship can be seen as a case of “foreign affairs from below,” focusing on interactions among non-state actors, particularly American and Sino-Thai scholars. On the one hand, American scholars have played a crucial role in shaping the idea of China through China and Overseas Chinese studies in Thailand. On the other hand, Sino-Thai scholars produce knowledge about China by decolonising American-style China studies and offering an alternative conception through Sinologism. In a sense, “One of the most recognisable features in the changing landscape of Asian studies in this post-Cold War era is the growing importance of Asia not only as the object of studies by the ‘first world’ academia but also as the producer of knowledge” (Winichakul Reference Winichakul2014, p. 881). Thus, the academic gatekeeping of the First World can no longer monopolise knowledge about China studies as it once did. Asians – including Chinese and Thai-Chinese scholars – now speak for themselves in academic discourse, representing a decolonisation of the mind, even though neither China nor Thailand was ever fully colonised by Western powers.
American-style China studies: The emergence of the idea of China in Thailand
Historically, when Thai scholars adopted the Cornell school of thought, they were already questioning how this would impact Thai studies. In 1947, John Fee Embree, an American anthropologist, became the cultural attaché of the United States to Thailand. Cornell University established the Cornell Research Centre for the Study of Thai Society, conducting in-depth research on how technology impacts social change in Thai society in Bang Chan, Nonthaburi. At the time, the Research Centre was led by Lauriston Sharp, who served as the first director (Santasombat Reference Santasombat2016, p. 265). This marked the beginning of Thai studies under American influence, a development that would last for decades.
Furthermore, academia and politics could not be separated. During the Cold War, the American state effectively crypto-neo-colonised Thailand through its anti-communism campaigns, which extended beyond the construction of military air bases in various Thai provinces. It also included the establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency to monitor hill tribes and ethnic groups in Chiang Mai and Northern Thailand in general. The American state would also create the Academic Advisory Council for Thailand, which it aimed to use to promote and fund research initiatives in the country, with Lauriston Sharp serving as the committee’s chairman (Santasombat Reference Santasombat2016, p. 266).
However, China studies were also undergoing hybridisation with Thai studies, driven by its proximity to and collaboration with Overseas Chinese studies in Thailand. The Cornell school of thought established connections among scholars, including both state and non-state actors in Thai society and beyond. In the case of Cornell, the academic writings and the biography of George William Skinner illustrate a strong association with this intellectual tradition. Skinner earned his doctoral degree in cultural anthropology from Cornell University and would later serve as a field director of the Cornell Southeast Asia Program. Additionally, he administered the Cornell Research Centre in Bangkok until 1953. George William Skinner’s connection with state and non-state actors is emphasised through his own words:
. . . the writer acknowledges cooperation from the staff of the following organisations and agencies in Thailand: the Central Statistical Office, the Krungthep Municipal Office, B.C.A.F.E., the American Embassy, the United States Information Service (now U.S.I.E.), and the British Information Service. . . Special thanks are also due to the many Thai alumni of Cornell University for their loyal support of the Cornell Research Center and for their encouragement and advice pertinent to the writer’s research project. The writer’s sincere gratitude to the Chinese leaders interviewed and to his Chinese informants in Bangkok goes without saying, for without their cooperation this study could not have been made. . . The writer’s indebtedness to Professor Lauriston Sharp and Professor Knight Biggerstaff extends far beyond their invaluable advice and guidance regarding the present study (Skinner Reference Skinner1954, pp. iv–v).
This illustrates the personal network of George William Skinner, which is relevant to the Cornell school of thought, and includes both state and non-state actors who assisted him during his research on the Overseas Chinese in Bangkok, Thailand. In terms of foreign affairs, this type of connection has never been classified as International Relations even though it clearly reflects academic diplomacy or a type of foreign affairs from below.
For George William Skinner (Reference Skinner1954, Reference Skinner1957, Reference Skinner1958), assimilation was a key process that included Overseas Chinese as Thai citizens who played a crucial role in politics, the economy, and socio-cultural networks within Thai society. This was especially the case with a group of Overseas Chinese leaders in Bangkok who would later establish themselves as a new elite. He studied the leadership of Overseas Chinese in Bangkok because few studies in the Western academic world focused on Oriental societies, and the study of minority leadership in Bangkok offered an alternative perspective for understanding something distinct from the West (Skinner Reference Skinner1954, p. ii).
Meanwhile, Richard J. Coughlin, who conducted research on the Overseas Chinese community in Thai society from 1951 to 1952, sought to understand how the Overseas Chinese adopted the host country’s cultural values in political, economic, and social spheres (Coughlin Reference Coughlin1953). The cultural values of the host country and the background of migration were key factors that drove Overseas Chinese to become part of Thai society while also maintaining their own distinct cultural ties and identity. As a result, the term “double identities” was coined to describe the hybridised identities of the Overseas Chinese in Thai society (Coughlin Reference Coughlin1960).
Collectively, both George William Skinner and Richard J. Coughlin primarily focused on their key Overseas Chinese interlocutors in Bangkok. However, this resulted in a severely limited perspective, as it presented a Bangkok-centric reference point that may not have fully represented all Overseas Chinese in Thai society. Nonetheless, there are differences in their theoretical standpoints. George William Skinner believed that later generations of Overseas Chinese would fully assimilate into Thai culture rather than maintain their own cultural identity. In contrast, Richard J. Coughlin viewed assimilation as a dynamic process, suggesting a form of double identities. According to Richard J. Coughlin, Overseas Chinese do not entirely assimilate into the host culture but instead maintain or adapt aspects of it alongside those of their native culture (Bao Reference Bao1995, p. 59).
Nonetheless, the influence of George William Skinner and Richard J. Coughlin on Thai-Chinese scholarship is indirect. Academic trends in China and Overseas Chinese studies tend to be shaped by Thai-Chinese, Thai, and Western scholars. As one academic observed:
Students and researchers will find this annotated bibliography a valuable introduction to the existing literature on the Chinese in Thailand. The 20 theses, 13 articles, and 22 books presented are grouped according to the following areas of concern: General; Social Assimilation; Social; Economic; Political; and Law and Regulation. The bibliography shows that there are a number of scholarly works on the Thai-Chinese written in English (Sukhum Reference Sukhum1976, p. 63).
This observation reveals that assimilation theory was a core reference point for Thai-Chinese scholars in the fields of China and Overseas Chinese studies in Thai society. Alongside this, the humanities and social sciences were to become key disciplines for recording the stories of the Overseas Chinese in Thailand across various periods. Boonsanong Punyodyana reveals that research on Chinese people in Thailand was grounded in eight categories: general descriptive information, historical studies, studies on Thai legal restrictions on the Chinese, international relations, economic roles, Thai and Chinese nationalism and integration, aspects of Chinese culture and behaviour, and social assimilation (Punyodyana Reference Punyodyana1976). As can be seen, assimilation was one of the key research lenses adopted to understand the Overseas Chinese communities living in Thai society (ibid.).
Therefore, this article aligns with Sittithep Eaksittipong’s argument regarding the emergence of the idea of China in Thailand. As he points out:
Emerging as “an intellectual field” by the initiation of American social scientists at the onset of the Cold War, the study of the Chinese in Thailand as a part of Thai studies was closely related to the United States’ anti-communist strategy. Conditioned by Cold War politics, the production of knowledge was dominated by Skinner’s assimilation paradigm portraying the Chinese as “the Other” that needed to be assimilated into Thai society. It played a pivotal role in solidifying the academic identification of the Chinese in relation to the Thai identity in Thailand and served as a guideline for Bangkok and Washington in formulating policies towards the Chinese (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2017, p. ix).
In a sense, we could say that Thai society is distinct, but not unique, compared to other Southeast Asian nations where Overseas Chinese settled. However, Thai society has been particularly effective in assimilating Overseas Chinese into its cultural fabric and way of life. As one academic states, “While assimilation has continued – Thai society having assimilated more Chinese than any other society in South-East Asia – there is still a tendency among Chinese to identify with their ethnic group as a body of superior ability to the Thai” (Marks Reference Marks1974, p. 308).
This phenomenon conveys that, “with the rise of Thai intellectual nationalism in the 1970s, American academic involvement with Thailand came to be seen as an act of neo-colonialism” (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2017, p. x). In Thai society, this illustrates how American-style China studies are reflected in the work of state and non-state actors, who have informally developed Overseas Chinese studies through academic networks. It appears to be an attempt by American scholars to represent the Overseas Chinese community, rather than allowing the community to represent itself – a characteristic of the traditional school of Overseas Chinese studies in Thailand. In this sense, early American scholars of China studies, such as George William Skinner and Richard J. Coughlin, did not confine themselves to a Western-centric paradigm or a China-centred approach. Instead, they developed the concept of an Overseas Chinese-centred approach as an alternative framework for understanding Chinese people living outside mainland China. This shift led China studies to become more diverse in terms of the number of disciplines, extending beyond Sinology and Han Chinese-centric perceptions of Chinese identity.
Sino-Thai Sinologism: A cross-area studies within American-style China studies in Thailand
“Sino-Thai” or “Thai-Chinese” scholars refer to a group of Thai individuals of Chinese descent, often second-, third-, fourth-, or even fifth-generation descendants of the Overseas Chinese. Generally, Thai-Chinese individuals are known for their involvement in business, including both established wealthy families and self-made entrepreneurs. They represent a segment of the new elite in Thai society that exerts strong influence across the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres (see Sng and Bisalputra Reference Sng and Bisalputra2015). However, one subgroup that is often overlooked in research on Thailand-China relations is the Thai-Chinese academics who serve as university lecturers. This group plays a crucial role in shaping academic and intellectual discourse. In fact, they are an active intellectual community that offers alternative perspectives grounded in Sinologism, China, and Thailand.
Thus, we see that Sinologism is a decolonising concept of China that Sino-Thai scholars have applied in their attempt to construct a new perspective on the idea of China through academic diplomacy involving multiple exchanges with both American and Chinese scholars. Additionally, Sino-Thai scholars have formulated their own conceptions of China and the Overseas Chinese community within Thai society. This article selects several academic works by Thai-Chinese scholars who have attempted to analyse the creative and non-fictional oeuvres of Sino-Thai authors.
Sino-Thai academic works: Decolonising Thai-American-style China studies from within
During the Cold War period, the female scholar Prapin Manomaivibool suggested that the first generation of Sino-Thai scholars played a critical role in shaping China studies in Thailand, establishing an important intellectual foundation for the field. She highlights the contributions of Khien Theeravit and Sarasin Viraphol, noting their international connections with the prominent American China scholar, John K. Fairbank. Fairbank – Dean of the Harvard-Yenching Institute and Professor of East Asian Studies at Harvard University – was a visiting scholar at Chulalongkorn University and played a key role in encouraging both Khien and Sarasin to pursue studies in Far Eastern languages at Harvard (Manomaivibool Reference Manomaivibool2015). These two influential Sino-Thai scholars, influenced by American approaches to China studies and known for their expertise in the field, would later become leading figures in the Thai academic community. As Prapin Manomaivibool points out:
In 1985, the Institute of Asian Studies, which was set up in 1967 under CU (Chulalongkorn University) Political Science Faculty’s Department of International Relations and had played the leading role in Asian studies, especially of China and Japan since the late 1960s, with two energetic young lecturers, Mr Khien Theeravit and Mr Sarasin Viraphol (hereafter Khien and Sarasin, respectively) specialised in East Asian studies, was promoted to be a research centre with the same name under the University. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary celebration of the establishment of Thai-Chinese diplomatic relations, a Chinese Studies Center was set up under the Institute’s umbrella on 1 July 1995 (Manomaivibool Reference Manomaivibool2015, p. 59).
Interestingly, during that time, the Thai government was allied with the United States government as they fought against the rise of Communist China. The Thai government blacklisted and suspected many Sino-Thais of espionage in the name of national security. However, the Americans wanted a deeper understanding of their enemy. As a result, Khien Theeravit received a scholarship to study China studies in the United States. Later, he returned to Thailand to teach and write a book on government and politics in China (see Theeravit Reference Theeravit1966). For him, Thai people needed to understand China (Theeravit Reference Theeravit1966, pp. ก–ข). As one scholar notes:
Khien said in the Preface of the book that Thailand was one of the Asian countries which would be affected by the confrontation between the free world led by the United States and the spectre of Communism led by China. Therefore, Thailand must understand China’s politics, and to understand the current politics in China, one must study about the background of China’s political history because China’s politics had its own unique nature unlike any other country (Manomaivibool Reference Manomaivibool2015, p. 63).
Although “the United States and the Asia Foundation supported Asian studies and China studies in Thai universities” (ibid., p. 64), this form of diplomatic academia represents foreign affairs from below, characterised by its academic relations between the United States and Thai non-state actors – in particular, educational institutions and Sino-Thai scholars. Although Sino-Thai scholars such as Khien Theeravit, Sarasin Viraphol, and Prapin Manomaivibool were influenced by American intellectual traditions, they developed a China studies that was grounded in Thai-Chinese relations – particularly in terms of political, economic, social, and cultural cooperation – as well as in the knowledge of Chinese history and literature, rather than confining themselves to American-style China studies, which mainly focused on Overseas Chinese studies and assimilation theory.
For example, during the Cold War era (1960s–1980s), Khien Theeravit’s book วิวัฒนาการการเมืองการปกครองจีน Vivattanakarn Karnmueang Karnpokkrong Chin [Development of Chinese Government] (1966) attempts to construct knowledge about China through the social sciences. Later, Prapin Manomaivibool’s research, A Study of Sino-Thai Lexical Correspondences (Reference Manomaivibool1975), applies a philological and humanistic approach, grounding Thai–Chinese interaction in the localisation and mimicry of language. Meanwhile, Sarasin Viraphol’s book Tribute and Profit: Sino-Siamese Trade, 1652–1853 (1977) analyses Sino-Thai relations within the framework of International Relations, drawing on the ancient world system dominated by the Chinese-style tributary system across Southeast Asia. Thus, these Thai-Chinese American-educated scholars illustrate that Chinsuksa is a discipline that blends Sinology with various knowledges from the humanities and social sciences, rather than creating a dichotomy between Sinology and China studies, as is commonly done in global China studies. These Americanised returning scholars had a significant impact on Chinsuksa in Thailand. In particular, they contributed to the China studies and Asian studies curricula in the Faculty of Political Science and the Institute of Asian Studies at Chulalongkorn University, one of Thailand’s main leading institutions.
In terms of Area Studies, Thai universities have been more successful in decolonising their China studies curricula. In the post-Cold War era (1990–present), Thai universities that offer China studies at both the undergraduate and graduate levels have localised the field by adopting and adapting Overseas Chinese narratives grounded in the perspectives of Thai-Chinese scholars (Jensiripon Reference Jensiripon2024). Since the 1990s, Thai universities appear to have become Sinologised due to the rise of China as a global power, as evidenced by the establishment of the first Confucius Institute at Khon Kaen University to promote Sino-Thai academic and cultural cooperation (ibid., p. 7). This demonstrates that the Chinese government has implemented cultural policies to promote Chinese influence through foreign affairs by constructing academic diplomacy within the Thai scholarly sphere (Liu Reference Liu2019, Fan, Jutaviriya and Punndhanamahakarune Reference Fan, Jutaviriya and Punndhanamahakarune2021, Li and Xv Reference Li and Xv2023). Meanwhile, this phenomenon is close to what a Thai-Chinese (Teochew-origin) scholar described as “the Sino-Thais” right turn towards China (Tejapira Reference Tejapira2017).
However, Overseas Chinese studies has also developed through the localisation of Thai and provincial cultures (Jensiripon Reference Jensiripon2024). This represents a particular form of Sino-Thai Sinologism that reflects a decolonising perspective on Han Chinese domination in the academic sphere. For example, Thai-ified Sinophone literature, or Sinophone-Thai literature, is produced by Sino-Thai communities who localise Thai culture while maintaining their Sinological cultural origins. This body of work forms part of Overseas Chinese and China studies that liberate Sino-Thai Sinologism from Han Chinese frameworks through the blurring of the boundaries of Sinological studies within cross-area literary studies (see e.g. Eaksittipong and Sattayanurak Reference Eaksittipong and Sattayanurak2022, Tungkeunkunt Reference Tungkeunkunt2014, Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan Reference Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan2015). This rightward turn toward China does not imply a pro-Beijing agenda or subordination to Mandarin dominance; rather, it reflects a complex set of interactions driven by non-state actors that constitutes a “foreign affairs from below.”
Therefore, in the academic sphere, Thai scholars have adopted China studies from both American and Chinese knowledge traditions. This reflects the process of Sinologism as perceived by Thai scholars who specialise in China studies. Sinologism has developed into an epistemology and methodology that shifts Thai-Chinese scholars away from the American-style of China studies towards their own formation of China studies, even if it remains influenced by Chinese approaches. Again, this does not mean that Sino-Thai Sinologism is under Chinese domination; rather, it is a particular methodology and epistemology grounded in Thai localisation. Since the Cold War era, Sino-Thai Sinologism – such as Chinsuksa (จีนศึกษา), Thai-ified Sinophone literature (or Sinophone-Thai literature), and Overseas Chinese studies – illustrates a decolonising conception of China, as it blurs the boundaries between China studies and Sinology through cross-area approaches.
‘Thai-ified sinophone literature’: Thai-Chinese academic writings and analyses of Sino-Thai historical creative writing
Concerning creative writing, some Thai-Chinese scholars have focused on Sino-Thai novelists, viewing them as key agents through their fictional works. The writings of Sino-Thai novelists reflect a subcultural path that challenges the Thai national identity, which has, at various times, perceived the Chinese as problematic. This section presents selected academic works by Thai-Chinese scholars who have emphasised literary criticism. It illustrates Sinologism and its expansion beyond the geographical boundaries of mainland China and the American perspective in China studies. The focus is not limited to International Relations or Overseas Chinese studies, as was previously the case. There are some Thai-language academic analyses of Sino-Thai creative writing that interpret the idea of China as dynamic in overseas and diasporic contexts.
Sittithep Eaksittipong’s academic work, เป็นจีนเพราะรู้สึก: ประวัติศาสตร์เสื่อผืนหมอนใบที่เพิ่งสร้าง Pen Chin Phroer Rusuek: Prawatisart Suea Phue Mon Bai Thi Pheung Srang [I Am Chinese Because I Feel: The history of the newly created mat and pillow], is a pioneering study in the field of emotional history, examining the various impacts on Thai-Chinese communities in Thailand through documentary research using sources in Thai, English, and Chinese (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2023). For Sittithep Eaksittipong and Saichol Sattayanurak, “The Chinese . . . found emotional refuge and liberation from the regime in transnational Chinese media and Thai-ified Sinophone literature, which played a significant role in identity politics of Chinese self-identification as neither Thai nor Chinese, but Chinese of Thailand” (Eaksittipong and Sattayanurak Reference Eaksittipong and Sattayanurak2022, p. 398). For Sittithep Eaksittipong, Thai-ified Sinophone literature serves as an emotional refuge that Thai-Chinese novelists create to liberate themselves from their personal resentment at the pressures imposed by the Thai state, resolving it through hard work and the pursuit of socio-economic mobility (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2023, pp. 108–109). This reflects that Sino-Thai or Thai scholars have adopted Chinese-language primary and secondary sources to better understand Thai history (Tungkeunkunt, Han and Zhao Reference Tungkeunkunt, Han and Zhao2024).
Importantly, Kornphanat Tungkeunkunt and Sorapong Ladsuan (Reference Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan2015) argue that Thai-ified Sinophone literature, or Sinophone-Thai literature, emerged during the developmental era or the Cold War period as a genre of Sino-Thai creative writing that came to be recognised as part of Sino-Thai literature. Emotionally, this genre represents the process of composing Chinese literature by Sino-Thai novelists of Chinese origin who write creatively in Chinese and use Thai society as the main background and/or plot (Eaksittipong Reference Eaksittipong2023, pp. 103–109). This conveys the relationship between Thai social change and literature. As a result, studying Sinophone-Thai literature will help us better understand the dynamics of Thai Chinese societies (Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan Reference Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan2015, p. 124). For example, Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan (Reference Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan2015) attempt to interpret Sinophone-Thai literature by focusing on the everyday lives of overseas Chinese during the Cold War or development era in Thailand. Their interpretation of creative works – namely, the two novels “เยาวราชในพายุฝน Yaowarat Nai Phayufon⟪风雨耀华力⟫” and “ซอยเถื่อน Soi Thuen⟪陋巷⟫,” as well as the two short stories “จากเหมยถึงพลับพลึง Jak Mei Tueng Phlabphlung” and “ถนนโลกีย์ Thanon Lokiy⟪花街⟫” – reflects how the previous generation of overseas Chinese, who were not part of the old-money elite from mainland China, migrated and then lived in Thai society in poverty while encountering discrimination from the Thai people (Tungkeunkunt Reference Tungkeunkunt2014, pp. 92–112; Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan Reference Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan2015, pp. 105–111). These works thus present a bottom-up perspective on the lives of overseas Chinese in Thai society. This genre can be seen as a localised form of literature that exists between Thai and Chinese cultures, serving as a medium for self-reflection between the two worlds. Thus, Sinophone-Thai literature was a critical response to the Thai state’s development policies, which exacerbated social and economic inequality, especially in the densely populated metropolis of Bangkok (Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan Reference Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan2015, pp. 97, 124).
These selected Thai historical works by Sino-Thai scholars reveal the process by which Sinologism serves as a methodology for liberating Thai-Chinese scholars and Sino-Thai novelists from identity crises. Thai-Chinese scholars are no longer constrained by assimilation theories, which have dominated American-style China studies and Overseas Chinese studies for decades. They connect with Chinese sources and literary styles, translating their Chineseness within Thai society through novels and academic writing. This aspect of Thai-ified Sinophone/Sinophone-Thai literature is evident not only in creative writing but also in the academic works of Thai-Chinese scholars in China studies in Thailand, particularly within the disciplines of history and Overseas Chinese studies. This aspect of Thai-ified Sinophone/Sinophone-Thai literature reveals a hybridity of Sino-Thai identities, blending Chinese and Thai elements in ways that go beyond assimilation theory (Tungkeunkunt Reference Tungkeunkunt2025). Although Thai-ified Sinophone/Sinophone-Thai literature is grounded in Thai and Mandarin (putonghua 普通话), its plots and content reflect the diversity of overseas and diasporic Chinese communities in Thailand, including those from Fujian, Guangdong, Hainan, Yunnan, and other regions, which determine their mother tongues, such as Hakka, Teochew, Cantonese, and Hainanese. Nonetheless, Thai-ified Sinophone/Sinophone-Thai literature is not composed in Chinese dialects; rather, it is grounded in Thai and Mandarin, which function as the lingua francas among overseas/diasporic Chinese communities in Thai society.
The diversity of overseas Chinese and Chinese diaspora studies as cross-area studies of Sino-Thai-Anglo Sinologism
The article not only argues that China studies (Chinsuksa จีนศึกษา) and Thai-ified Sinophone/Sinophone-Thai literature constitute a critical response to American-style China studies but also shows that several Sino-Thai-Anglo scholars have challenged American-style China studies through their academic oeuvres. Sino-Thai-Anglo Sinologism is an extension of Sino-Thai Sinologism, encompassing both westernised Sino-Thai-educated scholars and foreign Anglophone scholars who have focused on overseas and diasporic Chinese communities within Thai society.
Concerning Sino-Thai Sinologism in Overseas Chinese and Chinese Diaspora studies in Thailand, Thai and Sino-Thai scholars usually emphasised a group of overseas/diasporic Chinese communities in Bangkok as the main actor for decades. This is a trap in Bangkok-centric research as they often ignore many provinces outside central Thailand where the overseas/diasporic Chinese expanded to settle down. Sino-Thai Sinologism is critical of this limitation, with some Thai and Sino-Thai scholars attempting to grasp the everyday lives of overseas/diasporic Chinese in the Thai provinces that shed light on the local context rather than remaining ontologically, epistemologically, and methodologically stuck within a form of Bangkok-centrism (Ngernchai Reference Ngernchai2014, Ngernchai and Huang Reference Ngernchai and Huang2015, Poonsawatpong Reference Poonsawatpong2023, Saetiao Reference Saetiao2018, Songprasert Reference Songprasert1986, Soonthornpasuch Reference Soonthornpasuch1977). This sort of Sino-Thai Sinologism illustrates an actor-network approach to intra- and inter-community relations among overseas/diasporic Chinese communities, reflecting the diversity of the overseas/diasporic Chinese population and local peoples in the Thai and Chinese contexts.
For Anglo-Thai Sinologism in Overseas and Diasporic Chinese studies in Thailand, the post-Cold War period refers to a group of Anglicised scholars who have studied the overseas Chinese, the Chinese diaspora, and China-related topics in Thailand. Some scholars have attempted to rethink Skinnerian assimilation theory in Overseas Chinese studies by proposing the concept of “double identity,” drawing on Coughlin’s idea that, in the Thai context, overseas Chinese are Thai in legal terms but Chinese in cultural terms. In other words, they have never been completely assimilated into the mainstream Thai culture (Bun and Kiong Reference Bun and Kiong1993).
Meanwhile, other scholars have proposed an International Relations perspective that conceptualises cosmopolitanism and nationalism in China and Thailand as dynamic processes. This perspective views the overseas/diasporic Chinese as pivotal actors who drive the complexity of both cosmopolitanism and nationalism (Callahan Reference Callahan2003). As William A. Callahan notes, this approach focuses on “. . . the dynamic interaction between Chinese, Thai, and Sino-Thai identity construction, and the mutual production of domestic and international politics – not just according to shared norms, but in relations of difference” (Callahan Reference Callahan2003, p. 482). This conveys that “Diasporas, thus, are not just an economic resource, but a symbolic resource in the economic cultures of cosmopolitanism, nationalism, and localism” (ibid., p. 511). As a result, “Diaspora thus both constructs and deconstructs the dynamic of nationalism and cosmopolitanism. Rather than assimilating to Thai nationalism, diasporic Chinese are involved in colonising the prevailing economic culture, be it national, transnational, or provincial” (ibid.).
Moreover, some native Chinese scholars who studied in Thailand have emphasised the new waves of Chinese migration and the influence of Chinese communities on Thai society in various respects (see e.g. Li Reference Li2020, Niu Reference Niu2025, Niu and Siriphon Reference Niu and Siriphon2025). This has made Chinese Diaspora studies, Overseas Chinese studies, and China studies in Thailand more complex in terms of politico-socio-cultural and economic mobility in the contemporary context.
Thus, Sino-Thai-Anglo Sinologism reflects a critical theoretical approach that bridges Area Studies with Overseas Chinese studies, Chinese Diaspora studies, and International Relations in the Thai context, constituting a decolonising perspective of China that departs from American and Han Chinese-centric China studies. Sino-Thai-Anglo Sinologism within Overseas and Diasporic Chinese studies also highlights the diversity among overseas and diasporic Han Chinese, who differ linguistically, culturally, and historically. However, one limitation is the relative lack of studies on other overseas and diasporic Chinese ethnic groups – such as the Tai and Chinese Muslims/Hui – in the contemporary Thai context. Moreover, there is little research on overseas and diasporic Chinese communities in Thai provinces, underscoring the need to move beyond the Bangkok-centric orientation of such studies.
Therefore, these Sino-Thai-Anglo academic works not only illustrate the complexity of Overseas/Diasporic Chinese studies in Thailand – which overlaps with literary studies – but also highlight the complexity of the idea of China, as understood through the diversity of Chinese diasporic and overseas communities in Thailand and their everyday historical and cultural lives. As Kornphanat Tungkeunkunt and Sorapong Ladsuan (Reference Tungkeunkunt and Ladsuan2015, p. 103) note, drawing on Wong Yoon-wah’s argument, Chinese literature should be approached through a pluralistic lens. Because Chinese people have migrated to and lived in various parts of the world, mainland China cannot be regarded as a singular centre of the Chinese people; rather, the notion of the centre must be understood as fragmented and diverse (Wong Reference Wong2002, p. 5).
The decolonising of China studies through Sinologism in Thailand
For Gu Mingdong, “. . . the theory of Sinologism should not become a theory of ideological criticism, but should strive to be a theory of critical reflection on how to do scholarship and how to produce knowledge in ways relatively free from the interferences of politics and ideology” (Gu Reference Gu2013, p. 222). We should differentiate between Orientalism and postcolonialism on the one hand, and Sinologism on the other. While the former two aim to engage in international political criticism, Sinologism is not concerned with any kind of political or ideological critique (ibid., pp. 221–222). It is an unconscious cultural consciousness and a self-conscious reflection, i.e. purely academic criticism (ibid., pp. 218–220; pp. 222–225). This represents the depoliticisation of Sinologism.
However, in Thailand’s case, academic diplomacy or foreign affairs from below between the United States and Thailand has fostered an academic network through the knowledge production of American-style China studies within the Thai academic sphere. International Relations and Overseas Chinese studies – beneath the level of both state-to-state and non-state-to-non-state relations and assimilation theory – have significantly influenced the development of China studies in Thailand. This historical phenomenon illustrates that we cannot separate politics and ideology from critical theory, as Gu Mingdong attempts to achieve in his concept of China through Sinologism (Gu Reference Gu2013).
According to the research results, both American and Sino-Thai/Thai-Chinese scholars have adopted assimilation theory as a methodological framework, reflecting the American influence and the neo-colonialisation of knowledge production of China and Overseas Chinese studies in Thailand. However, Sino-Thai/Thai-Chinese scholars have shifted their paradigm towards alternative epistemologies and methodologies in these fields by reinterpreting Thai-ified Sinophone literature. This genre represents a decolonising approach to understanding China and Thai-Chinese history/literature, distinct from American-style China studies. It embodies a form of Sinologism – a self-reflective exploration of the cultural unconsciousness among Thai-Chinese novelists and scholars. They seek to trace and reinterpret the Chinese legacy within the Thai cultural and historical context by contemplating themselves and their role in Thai society.
Nonetheless, even though Thai-Chinese Sinologism has broken new ground in interpreting Sino-Thai novelists’ creative writing, it remains confined to a central Thai-centric worldview. This discloses that “Sinologism is an unconscious culture with the logic of a cultural unconscious” (Gu Reference Gu2013, p. 224). Somehow, this has led Sinologism to overlap with the concept of “re-Orientalism” (Lau Reference Lau2009) – a process of rewriting and re-narrating Western knowledge about Oriental societies, overseas Chinese communities, and assimilation theory by the Thai-Chinese scholars themselves. This has created novel barriers to the decolonisation of the mind from American-style China studies; in other words, although it may seem that a decolonisation process is occurring, it has not yet been achieved in practice.
Thus, although Sinologism appears to be a form of decolonising the idea of China, grounded in American-style China studies and Overseas Chinese studies, it is not truly decolonising in itself. It cannot be separated from Orientalism because “orientalism was a product of the circulation of Euro-American and Asian intellectuals in these contact zones, or borderlands” (Dirlik Reference Dirlik1996, p. 96). Indeed, Sinologism cannot be separated from politics and ideology, both of which encompass it, as it represents a scholarly self-reflection on disciplinary criticism relevant to both the domestic and international political spheres. For example, the results reveal that Thai-Chinese scholars have attempted to decolonise the idea of China and Overseas Chinese studies from the American-style approach, both theoretically and empirically, by shifting their epistemology and methodology (but not ontology, which would be the most fundamental) towards Sino-Thai novelists’ creative writings that speak for and of themselves. As a result, “The concept of ‘Sinologism’ challenges the legitimisation of knowledge of Sinology. . . The critiques of ‘Sinologism’ aim to analyse the lineage of Sinology and ‘write back to resist the ‘academic colonialism’ in the post-modernist context” (Zhou Reference Zhou2004, p. 13).
Sino-Thai Sinologism as an internationally-politicised phenomenon
The article has utilised a humanities-based approach to conduct a historical and literary analysis of foreign affairs from below, exploring an intellectual network connecting American and Sino-Thai/Thai-Chinese scholars. These scholars are non-state actors who play a critical role in the production of knowledge in China and in Overseas Chinese studies within the Thai academic sphere. Assimilation theory and central Thai-centric perceptions of the Chinese community are juxtaposed with American neo-colonial knowledge, which purports to speak of and for the rest of the Chinese communities in Thailand. Even Overseas Chinese studies has developed an alternative imagination of China, which differentiates itself from European and Han Chinese perceptions of China through Sinology/classical China studies. However, in the Thai academic field, the cornerstone of Overseas Chinese studies was established by American scholars, whose assimilation theory continues to exert a significant influence. This reflects the intersection of American and Thai academic relations in Thai and China studies.
This demonstrates that the United States did not choose Thailand primarily as a military stronghold, as previously perceived; rather, Thailand served as an academic and intellectual base for understanding the enemy during the anti-communist era. Moreover, this study illustrates that Sino-Thai and Thai-Chinese scholars have adopted an American-style approach to China studies, through the lens of assimilation theory, to understand the overseas Chinese community in central Thai society over the past several decades. However, this perspective has been shifting towards Sinologism, a decolonising approach to China conceived by Euro-American and Han Chinese scholars. These scholars have coined the academic term “Thai-ified Sinophone literature,” or “Sinophone-Thai literature,” as a form of emotional resistance that manifests in various epistemological and methodological ways.
In the Thai academic sphere, this shift encourages a rethinking of China studies – not as a field confined to International Relations or traditional Sinology/classical Chinese language studies – but as one that now expands to include Overseas Chinese studies conducted by Sino-Thai and Thai-Chinese scholars themselves. This evolution also reveals an overlap in the production of knowledge within China studies, linking it with re-Orientalism and the re-narration of overseas Chinese experience(s) in Thai society, both historically and culturally.
Therefore, Thai-Chinese scholars’ conception of Sinologism helps us rethink China studies in Thailand in two important ways. Theoretically, this article contributes to global China studies by utilising Sinologism as an alternative mode of knowledge production for decolonising the idea of China. However, the concept of Sinologism cannot be considered without reference to the political identity and ideology that is held by Sino-Thai or Thai-Chinese scholars. Empirically, this article reveals that the Sino-Thai/Thai-Chinese academic network, through foreign affairs from below, has led to the decolonisation of China and Overseas Chinese studies by shifting the paradigm from assimilation theory to literary criticism and Chinsuksa (จีนศึกษา). This shift conveys an idea of Sinologism – an emotional refuge sought by Sino-Thai novelists through Thai-ified Sinophone literature and Overseas Chinese studies – which, as a form of self-reflection, reveals a particular aspect of Sino-Thai Sinologism. Thus, a Cross-Area Studies that seeks to decolonise traditional Area Studies is required.
Acknowledgements
As the first author, I would like to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aranya Siriphon for agreeing to serve as the corresponding author of the article. Special thanks to Yu Wanjiao (玉万叫) for attempting to provide Chinese textbooks that were unavailable in Thailand. We also thank Alejandro Alfredo Huete for his enthusiasm in editing and proofreading, which helped minimise English grammatical errors. Additionally, we extend our gratitude to the journal’s editorial team and anonymous reviewers, whose efforts made the publication of this article possible.
Author contributions
CRediT: Pittikorn Panyamanee: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
CRediT: Aranya Siriphon: Supervision.
Open access
