Introduction: Africa and China: New Engagements, New Research

Overview

The idea to put together this African Studies Review Forum was sparked more than two years ago when a group of interdisciplinary researchers prepared double panel sessions for the fifty-second Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association (ASA) in 2009. The panels brought together a broad spectrum of regional and topical issues that fall under the larger umbrella of China–Africa relations. Although the articles that form this issue have changed substantially since that ASA meeting, our primary intention has not. Our aim is to provide a close-up and dynamic look—particularly from historical and ethnographic perspectives—at the various forces that constitute interrelations between Chinese and Africans. In this respect, our analytical approach differs from that of the existing published literature. Rather than focusing our lens at the national level, we hope to sharpen the view of China–Africa relations by moving our analysis to the community and individual levels. The contributors to this volume have therefore looked at interactions that take place in marketplaces; in the social spaces of work; in households affected by power outages; in Pentacostal African congregations in southern China; and among Chinese of different generations in South Africa.

This project has raised a number of critical questions regarding the state of the field of “China–Africa” studies, and indeed queries whether this area of research has yet emerged as a legitimate field in its own right. In this introduction we therefore begin by taking a look at the historical context of research on China–Africa relations, considering differences in focus and approach from earlier scholarship to more recent research. We then examine the connections between China–Africa research and area studies, arguing that research on the interrelationships between Chinese and Africans has the potential to build on the empirical strengths of area studies scholarship while contributing insight to contemporary questions of engagement and pressing issues of globalization. Third, we wish to emphasize the fundamental importance of both fine-grained, empirical research into the dynamic interactions between people and communities that constitute China–Africa relations, and also the critical function of disciplinary theory in analyzing this data. Fourth, this introduction highlights the critical role of interdisciplinary collaboration in research, writing, publishing, and application. And finally, we discuss the challenges and opportunities of the diverse research methods and collaborative partnerships that are emerging in China–Africa studies.

“China–Africa” Studies, African Studies, and Area Studies

At the outset of this discussion, the use of the terms “China–Africa” and “China–Africa relations,” especially the way these phrases have come to designate a field of scholarly inquiry, demands analytical attention. Of course we are not the first to take up this question, but as Africanist scholars presenting this material in an African studies journal, we feel that several important issues warrant reflection. One of the most critical questions for this journal may be the relationship between area studies and China–Africa studies: in what ways does an area studies approach constitute a particular kind of intervention into the study of relationships across regional boundaries, in this case boundaries that straddle “East” and “South”? And in turn, how might the study of Africa’s engagement with China offer new vantage points for scholarship in African studies, in Asian studies, and in area studies more generally?

Debates over area studies are not new, but they continue to be reformulated as global contexts reshape the boundaries and categories of human engagement. In compiling this collection of articles we have benefited from the long and deep reflection among scholars about what constitutes area studies today, as well as the contribution that these interdisciplinary fields may offer to global studies (see Bates 1997; Karp 1997). We believe that the fine-grained and historically grounded articles in this issue reflect the priority that area studies research has placed upon “a long-term commitment to place” that provides “empirical grounding and accountability.” As Jane Guyer has said (2004:501), area studies research requires that we move beyond abstract analysis to understand the diversity of “experiences in...