Introduction

At present, China is in the midst of a huge economic and social structural transformation. A series of phenomena and issues that are different from those of the western society have emerged. In this context, it is difficult to truly and effectively address the challenges brought about by China’s urbanization, modernization, and industrialization by borrowing the traditional anthropological and ethnological theories and methods from abroad. Therefore, we believe that Chinese anthropology and ethnology is bound to undergo an all-round exploration and transformation with the changing times to adapt to the development needs of the reform and opening up and of China as a unified multi-ethnic country.

Currently, scholars have conducted overview and thematic studies on the historical evolution and theoretical explorations of Chinese anthropology and ethnology.Footnote 1 Jianmin Wang et al. reviewed and described the history of Chinese anthropology and ethnology by stage in a panoramic way. They believed that the main characteristics of Chinese anthropology and ethnology in the first half of the twentieth century (1903–1949) were focused on ethnic equality, documentation, and multidisciplinary integrated research (Wang et al. 1997); in the second of the twentieth century (1950–1997), Chinese anthropology and ethnology experienced disciplinary adjustments, shifts in research directions, ups and downs of Soviet ethnological influence, setbacks under political movements, and revivals since the reform and opening up. They also pointed out that Chinese anthropology and ethnology began to open up and transform academically (Wang et al. 1997). Shengmin Yang discussed the 60-year history of Chinese anthropology and ethnology (1949-2010) from different aspects such as field survey, basic theory and methodological research, applied and countermeasure research, the Hans and ethnic minorities, cross-border ethnic groups and overseas ethnographic research, and anthropological research in Hong Kong and Chinese Taiwan (Yang and Hu 2013); and further divided the Chinese anthropological and ethnological studies after reform and opening up into three stages: the old China era, the early New China, and the new period since reform and opening up (Yang 2009). Shuhua Song summarized the development course of Chinese anthropology and ethnology from the second half of the twentieth century (1949-1999) to modern times, pointing out that in the course of development of west areas and the modernization of ethnic minority areas in China, the Chineseization of anthropological and ethnological studies would inevitably be further developed and improved, and it would also make greater contributions to the development of the world anthropology and ethnology (Song and Manduertu 2004). Jijiao Zhang elaborates on the 70-year history of Chinese anthropology and ethnology since the founding of the People’s Republic of China from both domestic and international dimensions. He argues that Chinese anthropology has developed greatly in many aspects, including the establishment of institutions, degree setting and talent training, academic groups and conferences (domestic and international), and popular topics, and has gradually become a discipline with Chinese characteristics different from the West (Zhang and Wu 2021). **. 1981. 应该重新探讨摩尔根的原始社会分期法 (Morgan’s method of staging the history of primitive society should be restudied). Historical Research 1: 3–20." href="/article/10.1186/s41257-022-00074-9#ref-CR72" id="ref-link-section-d20379280e549">1981), five-stage method (Qiu and Li 1984), etc. Some scholars discussed the beginning of primitive society, the patrilineal system, and the matrilineal system. (2) On the discussion of parental slavery, Zhiji Luo et al., taking **. 1981. 略论亲属制度研究——纪念摩尔根逝世一百周年 (A brief discussion on kinship system—Commemorating the centenary of Morgan’s death). Journal of Minzu College of China 4: 84–93." href="/article/10.1186/s41257-022-00074-9#ref-CR33" id="ref-link-section-d20379280e602">1981). However, some scholars proposed that the original form of kinship systems was not the classificatory kinship system, but monophyletic kinship system (Yan and Song 1980). **. 1998. 试述汉民族与兄弟民族的关系 (On the relationship between Han people and other nationalities). Guizhou Ethnic Studies 3: 113–117." href="/article/10.1186/s41257-022-00074-9#ref-CR82" id="ref-link-section-d20379280e813">1998), customs (** Western China). Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences Edition) 5: 27–30." href="/article/10.1186/s41257-022-00074-9#ref-CR90" id="ref-link-section-d20379280e861">2003a, b). For example, Jun **g discussed the process of sha** folk memories by “political events” and their dominant influence on folk memories (**g 2013). At the same time, other scholars criticized the use of the thought of postmodernism in China. For example, Jijiao Zhang pointed out that it was not possible to blindly apply postmodernism in anthropology and ethnology, as it did not necessarily fit the Chinese reality, and that we must develop our own studies with Chinese characteristics (Zhang 2015).

Secondly, as far as domestic studies were concerned, some new issues arising in social development gradually gained attention. Among others, what was closely related to anthropology and ethnology was the “Comprehensive Survey of Economic and Social Development in Ethnic Minority Areas in China in the Early 21st Century Project Launched” organized by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Za and Sun 2013). It was also a contemporary summary study on various new phenomena emerging in the process of China’s development. By the end of the project in 2018, the final research results covered various aspects such as research monographs, special reports, and research papers (Wang 2015). During the ethnic surveys and other field surveys, visual anthropology was further developed. Scholars went to various places to do shooting. While a number of important results were obtained, some scholars also raised the issues on applied research in visual anthropology. For example, useful applied research attempts were made in cultural transitions, education, tourism, regional economic development, and other aspects.

Thirdly, studies on multi-ethnic groups in the world were strengthened, and two major sections were formed: “comprehensive basic theoretical studies” and “studies on country-specific ethnic issues and ethnic policies.” In the field of world anthropological and ethnological studies, it had been the purpose of its construction and development: “based on China and from a global vision: provide theoretical reference and case support for Chinese anthropological and ethnological studies” (Liu 2003a, b). Other scholars proposed the development of a “characteristic economy” for the ethnic groups in the western region (Li and Zhang 2001); and proposed to boost the development of western ethnic minorities through the construction of ethnic ecological museums (Du 2001). Other scholars studied cross-border ethnic groups along the Belt and Road. Guoqing Ma put forward inter-regional social systems to interpret national policies such as the Belt and Road initiative (Ma 2016). Overseas ethnography had been developed gradually. Scholars believed that overseas ethnography contributed to a kind of knowledge construction in China (Gao 2010); especially in the globalized world, people, events, and resources flowing around the world should be examined from a fluid perspective (Zhou and Gong 2018), so as to build a theory of anthropological and ethnological studies with Chinese characteristics and strengthen in-depth academic dialogues with international academic communities. As influenced by the international communities, overseas ethnography is flourishing gradually, and overseas studies are increasingly expanding. In the early years, Chinese overseas ethnography accounted for a relatively small proportion of all anthropological and ethnological studies, and systematic research results, such as America and Americans, emerged until the period of the Republic of China (1912-1949) (Fei 1985). After the reform and opening up, due to the influence of anthropological and ethnological studies in developed countries, overseas studies in China gradually flourished and started to become one of the hot issues of research today. In practice, since Bingzhong Gao started to support and guide students to do ethnography overseas in 2002, many universities and colleges in China had also started to send scholars to conduct overseas ethnography practice around the world. The regions of overseas ethnography practice can be classified as follows: firstly, overseas ethnographical studies in neighboring countries such as Thailand, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, India, Malaysia, and Japan; secondly, studies on overseas ethnography of cross-border ethnic groups around China-Laos, China-Vietnam, and China-Myanmar borders; thirdly, studies on overseas ethnography of Western developed countries. However, apart from Australian Ethnography, Canadian Ethnography, etc. by **hu Ruan, there were few practices in this area (Fang and Zhang 2021). In general, regions for China’s overseas ethnographical studies were relatively concentrated, and themes of studies were basically the interpretation and understanding of the localization of Chinese societies, and there was still a lot of room for expansion.

The fourth was theoretical explorations summarized by Chinese scholars. Shengmin Yang called for using multidisciplinary theories and approaches and strengthening issue orientation were important ways to achieve theoretical innovation and progress in anthropology and ethnology (Yang 2016). Mingming Wang put forward the theory of “Three Circles,” namely rural communities, ethnic minority communities, and overseas communities (Wang 2008a, b). Jian Qiao proposed “marginalized society” to describe the general underclass (Qiao 2002). Xudong Zhao analyzed the breakthrough of WeChat ethnography for the transformation of anthropological culture (Zhao 2017). Jijiao Zhang put forward the neoclassical “structural–functional theory” (Zhang and Zhang 2018) in the studies on urban transformation and cultural heritage, and also put forward the concepts of “umbrella society” (Zhang 2014) and “beehive society” (Zhang 2018) for observation of China’s social-economic transformation.

Fifthly, with the holding of a large number of international conferences, the international influence of Chinese anthropological and ethnological studies has been strengthened, and overseas ethnographic studies have been launched. In July 2000, an Interim meeting of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences was held in Bei**g. **aotong Fei put forward the idea of “harmony in diversity” in his keynote speech, which was widely recognized by scholars (Wang 2000). In July 2009, the 16th World Congress of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences was held in Kunming (Zhang 2016a, b). At the closing ceremony, the Kunming Declaration was drafted by the China Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (CASES) according to the academic consensus reached during the summit, and approved smoothly, which marked a consensus on some hot issues reached by scholars at home and abroad.

The first 20 years of the twenty-first century is a period in which the pursuit of theoretical exploration in Chinese anthropological and ethnological studies and construction of the Chinese School was increasingly intensified. In the third major ethnic minority survey, two tendencies of problem orientation and theoretical orientation stood out, and Chinese anthropological and ethnological studies were more closely integrated with a series of national policies and practical development, showing the need to serve the people and social development. With the improvement of internationalization, the study of Chinese anthropology and ethnology, which integrates Marxist ethnology, Soviet ethnology, and Western anthropological and ethnological theories, has also made great strides in the international arena. Chinese anthropology and ethnography are also entering the world academic arena by participating in domestic and international conferences and holding international symposia, drawing relevant concepts from Chinese empirical research and enriching the theories of Chinese and world academic research.

Conclusion: the road to construct the Chinese School of anthropology and ethnology

In the process of economic and social restructuring, scholars also explored the Sinicization of theories of Western studies and the innovation in Chinese theories. They put forward new Chinese concepts and theories in respect of different social issues that we were faced with in different times (Zhou 2019). As shown in Fig. 2, before the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Chinese anthropological and ethnological studies mainly relied on the Western school and applied Western anthropological and ethnological theories to Chinese studies. In the 30 years after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, Chinese anthropology and ethnology research pursued Soviet ethnology, guided by the Marxist ethnology, and mainly studied social forms and stages of social development, economic and cultural types, ethnic concepts and definitions, etc., and has successively carried out ethnic identification and ethnic minority social and historical investigations, practicing the theoretical assumption of “direct transition”. In the first decade since the reform and opening up in 1978, Chinese anthropology and ethnology mainly learnt from Soviet Union, which mainly focused on the classification of marriage and family history, social forms, history of marriage and family, etc. Meanwhile, Chinese anthropology and ethnology also put forward theoretical innovations such as the pattern of diversity in unity of the Chinese nation and the Tibetan–Yi corridor. In the second decade, as mainly influenced by the West, concepts such as ethnic groups and acculturation became hot topics for scholars to discuss, and cultural transitions and modernization in ethnic areas were new theoretical exploration. The first two decades of the twenty-first century witnessed critical reflections on Western postmodernism and other theoretical trends, deepening of Chinese empirical studies and theoretical explorations, and the emergence of various new sub-disciplines and methodologies. Chinese anthropology and ethnology gradually formed Chinese characteristics in academic research, and the Chinese School of anthropological and ethnological studies was taking shape.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Diagram of the forces influencing anthropological and ethnological research in China in different periods

Full size image

Shengmin Yang pointed out that the Chinese anthropology and ethnology had initially formed Chinese characteristics, that is, Chinese scholars conducted comprehensive multidisciplinary studies by combining theories with practice; however, the real Chinese School of anthropological and ethnological studies still needed to sum up new theories and methods in practice and in social issue solution (Yang 2012). Although the Chinese School of anthropological and ethnological studies is not yet fully mature, it begins to emerge; especially in the current criticism of Western thought of postmodernism, when Chinese anthropology and ethnology researchers can see the limitations of Western anthropology and ethnology, it is the right time for us to establish the Chinese School upon reflections on foreign theories.

Due to the influence of Western anthropological and ethnological studies, Chinese own experience and theory are also impacting traditional Chinese anthropology and ethnology. The Chinese School of anthropology and ethnology has gradually taken shape with localized characteristics. Firstly, because of the different national conditions, Chinese anthropology and ethnology, unlike Western anthropology, mainly focuses on Chinese people. Secondly, the importance of Marxist theory and the tradition of Soviet studies is very prominent. Thirdly, history and anthropology and ethnology are combined. From the Southern and Northern schools in the early anthropological and ethnological studies to several stages of development after the reform and opening up, it has always been an important feature to use historiography and historical literature for anthropological and ethnological studies. Fourthly, traditional theories of international anthropology and ethnology communities are impacted, and theories of western anthropological and ethnological studies are reflected on. Anthropology and ethnology have been introduced into China for just more than a century, so there is a gap with the West in theoretical explorations and other aspects. However, since the reform and opening up, with the deepening and expansion of Chinese anthropology and ethnology, the Chinese anthropology and ethnology community has also put forward innovative theories in various aspects, which have impacted the theories of Western anthropology and ethnology. Fifthly, the urban school of anthropological and ethnological studies and the rural school keep pace with each other. Sub-disciplines have been established successively. The “primitive society” of anthropological and ethnological studies is gradually expanding to “urban society,” and the research fields are further expanded. With the development of disciplines, more and more sub-disciplines of anthropological and ethnological studies are emerging. Interdisciplinary research has become an important feature of Chinese anthropological and ethnological research. Moreover, different disciplinary research theories have been put forward.