| As a recognized expert in Chinese issues, Owen Lattimore was also an authority on the study of Inner Asia in American academics. People, such as historians, geographers, sociologists and anthropologists, were deeply shocked by his views and points. He lived in China for many years, taking full advantage of a variety of opportunities to travel in China and Inner Asia, and for this reason, he was known as a "hiking historian". The beginning of his academic career was the frontier study, especially the study of Inner Asian Frontiers of China. The geopolitical thoughts of Asia, on the one hand, was based on his early academic research, on the other hand, it was related to his concern for the Times trend and the reality of the vivid Asia. After World War II, He applied geopolitics, together with his early theories, to analyze the International situation. And then, he gained this new achievement. This paper attempts to analyze his geopolitical thoughts of Asia, showing the features of his research methods and academic efforts.The basis of Lattimore’s geopolitical thoughts of Asia encompassed three aspects. First, it was not only related to the development of his early views and points, but also related to the influence of traditional geopolitical theories. Part of his theories linked closely to the relationship between sea and land powers and he also regarded Inner Asia as "heartland". Second, it was a result of the development of China Study in the US in20th century. The third was related to the importance of Asia after the war.With the development of the situation, Lattimore applied his early theories to research the international politics and geopolitics in Asia. And with the help of his political practice, his geopolitical thoughts of Asia were gradually formed, which were consisted by two parts: Part one:Lattimore advised western powers to pay close attention to the important role of Asia when he analyzed it from the view of geopolitics. In this part, He proposed and explained some unique points, such as "Asia is out of control","A freedom bloc","The politics of attraction" and so on.Part two:in order to display the important position and role of "modern frontiers" in the relationship between different countries and societies, he analyzed the geopolitical value of the Inner Asian frontiers between China and Russia in details. And in this part, According to his views, Manchuria was a cradle of conflict of three civilizations, Mongolia was a Sino-Soviet bridge and Sinkiang was the pivot of Inner Asia. Furthermore, he attributed the Japanese invasion of Manchuria to the expansion of western civilization.There were reasons for all of his academic efforts. On the one hand, he paid so much more attention to the situation in Asia, and on the other hand, he aimed to point out problems in present American policy in Asia. He advised that America needed a new policy in Asia to adapt to the new situation.Lattimore’s geopolitical thoughts of Asia had both characteristics and limitations. Firstly, he chose "empathetic method" which was a challenge to "Eurocentrism", advocated "to study China into the interior of China","to view Asia in the side of Asian", which was also a challenge to "Sinocentrism". Secondly, he was proficient in Mongolian, Chinese and other foreign languages. Well, he was also skilled at a mixture use of research methods of various disciplines, including sociology, geography, politics and anthropology and so on. Thirdly, he was very skilled in using comparative method, and this could be proved by various examples in his works. Fourthly, with important practical significance, many of his geopolitical thoughts of Asia were proposed to serve the interests of the US. In addition, the fact that he studied China and Asia in various ways showed us his unique global-historical perspective. Meanwhile, he placed too much emphasis on the importance of frontier; exaggerated the role of industrialization and applied the frontier theory to observe the international politics. |
PDF Full Text Request