Rejoinder

Abstract

First, let me clarify: social science of the kind I described—“American social science” if you like—is not monolithic. Foreign policy scholars working in this tradition do, more than occasionally, disagree with each other on particular issues as on more fundamental questions of approach. I can only therefore give a personal reaction to what seem to me to be some of the features of the Chinese foreign policy literature. I would hope, though clearly I could not guarantee, that others working in the same tradition would find some common ground in my argument. By “others working in the same tradition” I refer not so much to the tightly in-bred field of China studies as to scholars working to develop the social science of International Relations, including foreign policy analysis. Friedman's comments on some of the quantitative studies that have appeared are in my view perfectly justified: my point was that the field of Chinese foreign policy studies has still to make effective contact with the world outside. Perhaps I could group my responses under four headings.