Discipline Openness and Academic Sharing

——Preface to the Political Anthropology Review

Political Anthropology Review and paradigms it elucidates， such as Neo-Political Anthropology [NPA] and Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-making [APAP]， urgently call for the “spring” of discipline openness and academic sharing！ So far， it has just turned four years old， and it is still an unobtrusive or even inconsiderable “ugly duckling” in the academic world， but it is expected to soar in the sky someday. Political Anthropology Review is the first professional journal of political anthropology in China； there is only several English literatures like this in the whole world.It covers many disciplines and cross-disciplinary fields， for instance， political science， public administration， Marxist anthropology， social anthropology， cultural sociology， thus making it have the characteristics of cross-disciplinary.

It was said in Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra that everything has its laws， but they all are of impermanence.The paradigm of “Neo-Political Anthropology [NPA]” elaborated in Political Anthropology Review is presented in the internal logic of “Scientizing Politics”， “Scientizing Policy-making” and “Refining the ‘mass line’ academically”etc.， and aims to discover “disciplinary matrix” and “ordered elements”. Specifically， it is embodied in the “five processes-four elements” academic framework， which is the dialectical unity of the “five processes” （Scientizing Politics Politicizing Anthropology， Ethnographic Writing Culture， Humanizing Management and Scientizing Policy-making） of “disciplinary matrix”， and the “four elements”（power element， fieldwork element， ethnography element， earth-bounded theory element） of “ordered elements”. In addition， based on the main logic of the “power-right” game， it also deduces the “three-in-one” grounded theory methodology， including fieldwork， ethnography and earth-bounded theory etc.

“Neo-Political Anthropology [NPA]” is bound to evolve in political and administrative practice， then develops into a new context of knowledge， for example， “Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-making [APAP] ”， passing on all the essence and core connotation of policy science and leadership science， adhering to the substance of free development of human beings put forward by classic Marxist writers， and following the H.Lasswell’s thoughts about science serving for democracy.On the one hand， Marxist Anthropology is “living fossil” of “Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-1making [APAP]” and reentry “ethnography” and remolding Marxism Anthropology is the only choice for the innovation paradigm of “Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-making [APAP]”； “the unification of five characters”，academic connotation of “Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-making [APAP]”， is embodied in such factors： “inner problem-oriented research” is the research motivation； “participation-observation for others” is the research method； “otherness for both interviewer and interviewee” is the research attitude； “publicity of interests” is the research purpose； “Scientificalness of policy-making” is a research examination.Besides， it is embedded with intrinsic and holistic logic with features of mutual integration， virtuous circle， spiral rising， which never ends.On the other hand， the “mass line” of the Communist Party of China is “living soul” of “Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-making [APAP]”； refining “mass line” academically will be magic tool on leadership science for the Party and will be universally taught by Chinese discourse.In a nutshell， the “mass line” is the ideology of “Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-making [APAP]”， and “Anthropology for Public Administration on Policy-making [APAP]” is the academic result of “mass line”！

Therefore， Political Anthropology Review colleagues will be interested in the “Beyond Limits” of discipline openness and the “Nirvana” of academic sharing！

“Beyond Limits” of discipline openness.“Beyond Limits” here refers to transcending such limits as height， breadth， amplitude， speed etc.Human knowledge is classified according to certain common characteristics and then form different systems， which are disciplines， but simultaneously， various “knowledge barriers” are erected indiscriminately， and many “knowledge tariffs” are generated， resulting in great amount of “transaction costs.” The openness of disciplines is not simply to open subject knowledge and its systems， but to break “knowledge barriers”， realize “zero tariffs” on knowledge， and reduce “transaction costs” to a minimum or even “zero”.

“Nirvana” of academic sharing.“Nirvana”.“Nirvana” refers to the rebirth from fire.The disciplinary argumentation of existence and its laws are academia， but at the same time it has also spawned a variety of “academic circles”， conducing many “academic hills” and bred astonishing “academic corruption.” Academic itself is carrier of freedom of thought， which nowadays， however， becomes hedge restricting freedom and imprisoning minds.Academic sharing is not simply a matter of “transferring” and “gifting”， but should be the spiritual sublimation from self-proclaimed to self-discipline， from spontaneous to self-conscious， from being-for-itself to being-in-itself， from self-closing to freedom in the process of exploring the truth.

Disciplinary openness and academic sharing are the “Chinese Dreams” of the Political Anthropology Review and its colleagues.

October 18，2018