Thankyou Andrew for your insights. I haven't been back to China for over 15 years so it isn't clear to me the extent to which constraints on academics in China are greater than before. As someone who's academic focus is the Middle East, including Palestine studies there are similar real threats faced by US academics. Many colleagues have had their tenure cancelled, funding cut, received multiple threats, or cancelled simply because - like you- their area of expertise is deemed inappropriate. I think the issues you raise are important, but are far broader than Chinese studies.
I would add another layer: even when data and access are available, many outside frameworks still misread China because they look mainly at property, consumption, debt, and headline GDP, while underreading production, industrial upgrading, supply-chain depth, energy systems, state capacity, and manufacturing organization.
That is why “you don’t understand China” should not be used as a slogan to shut down debate. It should be treated as a methodological challenge. China has to be studied as a system: industrial capacity, state capacity, capital allocation, social pressure, political control, technology diffusion, and ordinary people’s lives all have to be analyzed together. Otherwise we only get fragments: either the spectacular China of factories, EVs, robots, and high-speed rail, or the troubled China of debt, unemployment, censorship, and declining expectations.
The hard part is that both Chinas are true. The more important question is how they interact.
Two professors there invited me to discuss their research but insisted on meeting in a noisy beer garden so that government agents could not overhear them.
I fear you are ignoring the constant and rising threat of another US attack on China, the endless harassment of Chinese researchers in America and the vitriolic coverage in our media.
Thanks for this. I was wondering why on a recent visit I was ghosted by someone who had previously talked openly about transportation policy.
I also feel it’s frustrating that we don’t get the detailed looks of the good and bad outside of the whiz bang technology advancements in western media. Visiting many cities in the last two years has been amazing and the people friendly and open. But it’s also a big mystery that there are not enough lifetimes to uncover.
Squelching access, shielding data, paranoia over losing control of the desired narrative, these are indeed hi-level drivers today. They cannot but inhibit and harm needed mutual understanding and connection, let alone awareness and empathy. Fearful self-censorship, moving to greener pastures, I understand it all. Yet, as you write (and as I witnessed during my recent month in China and wrote about in The China Chronicle), the on-the-ground realities in China are not cookie-cutter, do not fit into pre-packaged media assessments, and are generally warm and inquisitive. Most importantly, they should not be feared.
the peculiar things is if you tell some Japanese 'i don't really understand Japan', they would say 'me neither' with a smile and go on with the conversation. based on some Chinese comments, you would think that they are all 100% dialed in.
In all honesty, I never use AI to summarize papers or articles, but this one seems to ramble a bit, and is very long. Sorry! I am an admirer of your work.
The phrase is frequently used by Chinese officials, academics, overseas Chinese commentators, and some Western scholars to dismiss criticism or differing views. It implies outsiders lack the language skills, historical depth, or cultural immersion needed to comment validly. The author argues no one can fully understand a complex country like China (or even their own), and the critique is often deployed defensively to shut down debate.
2. Personal background and humility
Stokols, an American with ~17 years of China engagement (since 2009), shares experiences from studying in Beijing, living there, extensive travel, and later academic work (e.g., Harvard-Peking University collaboration, research on Xiong'an New Area). He uses the Journey to the West Sun Wukong/Buddha story as a metaphor for humility: claims of mastery are illusory, and understanding is an endless, humbling quest.
3. Deteriorating conditions for research and access
China has become much harder to study critically due to increased paranoia, surveillance, self-censorship, and restrictions (e.g., data security laws, state secrets definitions, Foreign NGO law).
Archives have re-closed; collaborations face new hurdles; academics inside China risk trouble for open engagement.
The author recounts a recent case of a journal (with a China-based editor) desk-rejecting critical papers on Xiong'an (including his own on flooding risks) in what appeared to be political censorship, leading to a special issue being pulled.
4. Polarization and barriers to nuanced understanding
Both Western coverage and Chinese systems punish nuance: Western discourse splits into "China threat/hawk" vs. overly optimistic or dismissive camps; algorithms and incentives favor tribal takes.
China showcases tech successes (EVs, robots, infrastructure) while under-discussing problems like youth unemployment, stagnant wages, property issues, and local government debt.
Even in Singapore (with strong China ties), conversations often emphasize the "ten-foot giant" tech narrative over ground-level realities.
5. Access is essential but eroded
True understanding requires not just language/expertise but open access, honest conversations, reliable data, and archives. These have degraded significantly over the past decade for both foreigners and Chinese scholars. Researchers now face bureaucratic hurdles (e.g., passport checks for meetings) but can still have rewarding, open interactions outside formal settings.
6. Call for continued engagement despite difficulties
The author remains committed to on-the-ground research because China is fascinating and important. More (not less) nuanced understanding is needed amid tensions. Instant online content and disinformation make deep, slow scholarship even more valuable. He encourages return visits despite barriers.
Overall theme: Studying China demands humility and realism about shrinking space for open inquiry. The "you don't understand" line has some merit regarding expertise but often serves as a circular deflection from systemic barriers that China itself has created, harming everyone's knowledge—including its own scholars. Nuance, access, and honest critique are increasingly rare on all sides.
还不错！not bad haha. I enjoyed the process of writing, but it did get a bit long that's true :-) I think I am exploring and reflecting in this piece whereas usually I try to present information on the ground in a rather straightforward manner.
Thankyou Andrew for your insights. I haven't been back to China for over 15 years so it isn't clear to me the extent to which constraints on academics in China are greater than before. As someone who's academic focus is the Middle East, including Palestine studies there are similar real threats faced by US academics. Many colleagues have had their tenure cancelled, funding cut, received multiple threats, or cancelled simply because - like you- their area of expertise is deemed inappropriate. I think the issues you raise are important, but are far broader than Chinese studies.
I would add another layer: even when data and access are available, many outside frameworks still misread China because they look mainly at property, consumption, debt, and headline GDP, while underreading production, industrial upgrading, supply-chain depth, energy systems, state capacity, and manufacturing organization.
That is why “you don’t understand China” should not be used as a slogan to shut down debate. It should be treated as a methodological challenge. China has to be studied as a system: industrial capacity, state capacity, capital allocation, social pressure, political control, technology diffusion, and ordinary people’s lives all have to be analyzed together. Otherwise we only get fragments: either the spectacular China of factories, EVs, robots, and high-speed rail, or the troubled China of debt, unemployment, censorship, and declining expectations.
The hard part is that both Chinas are true. The more important question is how they interact.
Two professors there invited me to discuss their research but insisted on meeting in a noisy beer garden so that government agents could not overhear them.
I fear you are ignoring the constant and rising threat of another US attack on China, the endless harassment of Chinese researchers in America and the vitriolic coverage in our media.
not denying that at all! In fact I acknowledged some of that in the piece, if you read the whole thing :-)
Thanks for this. I was wondering why on a recent visit I was ghosted by someone who had previously talked openly about transportation policy.
I also feel it’s frustrating that we don’t get the detailed looks of the good and bad outside of the whiz bang technology advancements in western media. Visiting many cities in the last two years has been amazing and the people friendly and open. But it’s also a big mystery that there are not enough lifetimes to uncover.
Squelching access, shielding data, paranoia over losing control of the desired narrative, these are indeed hi-level drivers today. They cannot but inhibit and harm needed mutual understanding and connection, let alone awareness and empathy. Fearful self-censorship, moving to greener pastures, I understand it all. Yet, as you write (and as I witnessed during my recent month in China and wrote about in The China Chronicle), the on-the-ground realities in China are not cookie-cutter, do not fit into pre-packaged media assessments, and are generally warm and inquisitive. Most importantly, they should not be feared.
the peculiar things is if you tell some Japanese 'i don't really understand Japan', they would say 'me neither' with a smile and go on with the conversation. based on some Chinese comments, you would think that they are all 100% dialed in.
ya this comment is mostly uttered in media/academic circles honestly; everyday people in China occasionally, but far less so!
I had the same experience in Singapore
你文章中提到的很多体制内的学者和知识分子的确愈发保守和小心，不过我认为在这个自媒体时代之中，研究和讨论已经可以拓展泛化到更深入的具体个人之中。有不少自媒体博主他们做的内容和见闻也不弱于专门的学者，甚至在部分高校和领域，出现很多无法适应传统体系的知识分子，进行独立研究
确实你说的很对！ 当然全球有很多自媒体家所以不需要靠官方/主流媒体的看法...在一方面自媒体带来你提到的良好沟通的可能性 但是从系统效应角度来看 我不知道自媒体的效应是更好的理解或者更差--更多消息不一定造成更深的了解--自媒体家还需要靠平台，这个平台算法可能会影响那个媒体家的看法受欢迎还是不受欢迎。。。挺大的问题！
官媒或者主流媒体本身也是平台，也有其既定立场，我觉得这不是重点。唯一区别是官媒和主流媒体信源更为可靠且会进行一定的FACT CHECK。而自媒体先不说平台，只论自媒体博主本身的确良莠不齐，需要自行筛选和关注，这也是现在的一个新概念：内容策展，不生产内容本身而是精选整理。未来我认为信息茧房效应会更明显，高质信源和一些非正式消息变得更重要且只在小圈子内部流转，人脉变得更重要
In all honesty, I never use AI to summarize papers or articles, but this one seems to ramble a bit, and is very long. Sorry! I am an admirer of your work.
1. The "You Don't Understand China" trope
The phrase is frequently used by Chinese officials, academics, overseas Chinese commentators, and some Western scholars to dismiss criticism or differing views. It implies outsiders lack the language skills, historical depth, or cultural immersion needed to comment validly. The author argues no one can fully understand a complex country like China (or even their own), and the critique is often deployed defensively to shut down debate.
2. Personal background and humility
Stokols, an American with ~17 years of China engagement (since 2009), shares experiences from studying in Beijing, living there, extensive travel, and later academic work (e.g., Harvard-Peking University collaboration, research on Xiong'an New Area). He uses the Journey to the West Sun Wukong/Buddha story as a metaphor for humility: claims of mastery are illusory, and understanding is an endless, humbling quest.
3. Deteriorating conditions for research and access
China has become much harder to study critically due to increased paranoia, surveillance, self-censorship, and restrictions (e.g., data security laws, state secrets definitions, Foreign NGO law).
Archives have re-closed; collaborations face new hurdles; academics inside China risk trouble for open engagement.
The author recounts a recent case of a journal (with a China-based editor) desk-rejecting critical papers on Xiong'an (including his own on flooding risks) in what appeared to be political censorship, leading to a special issue being pulled.
4. Polarization and barriers to nuanced understanding
Both Western coverage and Chinese systems punish nuance: Western discourse splits into "China threat/hawk" vs. overly optimistic or dismissive camps; algorithms and incentives favor tribal takes.
China showcases tech successes (EVs, robots, infrastructure) while under-discussing problems like youth unemployment, stagnant wages, property issues, and local government debt.
Even in Singapore (with strong China ties), conversations often emphasize the "ten-foot giant" tech narrative over ground-level realities.
5. Access is essential but eroded
True understanding requires not just language/expertise but open access, honest conversations, reliable data, and archives. These have degraded significantly over the past decade for both foreigners and Chinese scholars. Researchers now face bureaucratic hurdles (e.g., passport checks for meetings) but can still have rewarding, open interactions outside formal settings.
6. Call for continued engagement despite difficulties
The author remains committed to on-the-ground research because China is fascinating and important. More (not less) nuanced understanding is needed amid tensions. Instant online content and disinformation make deep, slow scholarship even more valuable. He encourages return visits despite barriers.
Overall theme: Studying China demands humility and realism about shrinking space for open inquiry. The "you don't understand" line has some merit regarding expertise but often serves as a circular deflection from systemic barriers that China itself has created, harming everyone's knowledge—including its own scholars. Nuance, access, and honest critique are increasingly rare on all sides.
Grok's summary. I think it's well done.
还不错！not bad haha. I enjoyed the process of writing, but it did get a bit long that's true :-) I think I am exploring and reflecting in this piece whereas usually I try to present information on the ground in a rather straightforward manner.
Thanks and understand. Grok left out Princeton-in-Asia, which is inexcusable.