New Qing History: Dispute, Dialog, and Influence

Abstract

This article studies the New Qing History approach that arose in the US in the 1980s and the ensuing responses to it, and how these responses can be understood in the context of American China studies, twentieth-century historiographical trends, and Chinese nationalism. It argues that the New Qing History approach should be considered in a contextualized and de-politicized way. After examining how Chinese-born scholars responded to the controversial issues (sinicization, the nature of the Qing dynasty/Empire, and the definition of China/Zhongguo) provoked by New Qing History, the article suggests that sinicization should no longer be used as an uncontestable interpretative framework for studies of Chinese history. Instead, it favors a historicized conceptualization of China emphasizing its open, inclusive, and integrative character, as well as the uniqueness of Qing China's expansion. The article also demonstrates the New Qing History approach's positive influences in diversifying primary sources and its contribution in promoting borderland and non-Han studies.

Keywords:

• New Qing History
• Zhongguo
• sinicization
• Qing Empire
• Chinese nationalist historiography

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Jennifer Rudolph, Doug Reynolds, Zhiwei Xiao, and Q. Edward Wang for commenting on the earlier drafts of this article, and thank Pamela Crossley and Ge Zhaoguang for commenting and providing their articles. I also thank Hanchao Lu and the two anonymous reviewers of CHR for thoughtful comments and suggestions for revision. I am solely responsible for the opinions expressed in this article.

Notes

1 Smith, The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture, x.

2 Ding, Ou, “Ershi yi zhiji ruhe shuxie zhongguo lishi: Xin Qing shi yanjiu de yingxiang yu huiying”, in Peng ed., Lishi xue pinglun, 116–46.

3 Dunnell and Millward, “Introduction”, in Millward et al., eds., New Qing Imperial History, 3–4.

4 Crossley, “A Reserved Approach to ‘New Qing History’”.

5 Farquhar, “Emperor as a Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch'ing Empire”.

6 Fletcher, “On Future Trends in Ch'ing Studies—Three Views”.

7 Crossley, Orphan Warriors, iv.

8 For Chinese attitudes toward the debate, see Liu, “‘Xin Qingshi’ yanjiu: butongfanxiang de xueshu zhengming.”

9 Crossley, Orphan Warriors, 149–50.

10 Rhoads, Manchus and Han, 10.

11 Elliott, The Manchu Way, xiv.

12 Ibid., 18, 28.

13 Ibid., 30.

14 Waley-Cohen, “The New Qing History.” Scholars who used the term “New Qing History” include Mark Elliott, James Millward, and Joanna Waley-Cohen, while Waley-Cohen was the first to use the term in the review essay that I cite here. Ruth W. Dunnell and James A. Millward trace the use of the concept to Guy, “Who Were the Manchus? A Review Essay.”

15 Duara, Rescuing History from the Nation, 16.

16 Bol, “‘The Localist Turn’ and ‘Local Identity’ in Late Imperial China.”

17 Xia, “Yibu meiyou ‘jindai’ de zhongguo jindaishi”—“cong ‘Kewen san lun’ kan ‘zhongguo zhongxinguan’ de neizai luoji ji qi kunjing.”

18 For the postmodern attack on the Enlightenment totality and teleology, as the master-narrative, see Jameson, “Forward”, in Leotard, The Post-modern Condition, xiv.

19 Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century, 102.

20 Jean-François Lyotard highlights the character of postmodern condition as “wag(ing) a war on totality,” see Zhang, The Tao and the Logos, preface, xv.

21 Personal correspondence.

22 Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, 138.

23 Zarrow, “Historical Trauma: Anti-Manchurism and Memories of Atrocity in Late Qing China.” For the revolutionary propaganda of the Han Chinese national humiliation to the masses in the late Qing, see Li, Qing mo de xiaceng shehui qimeng yundong, 1901–1911, 160–1.

24 Jiang, Zhongguo jindaishi dagang, 72.

25 Shi, Jiawu zhanzheng qianhou de zhi wanqing zhengju, 25–8.

26 Li, Reinventing Modern China, 89.

27 Mullaney, Coming to Terms with the Nation, 28–30.

28 Liu, Recast All Under Heaven, 123–4.

29 Liu, “Guannian yu redian de zhuanhuan.”

30 Ibid., 49.

31 Perdue, China Marches West, 508, 510.

32 For the two main frameworks of “revolution” and “modernization”, see Li, Reinventing Modern China.

33 Liu, “‘Xin Qingshi’ yanjiu: butongfanxiang de xueshu zhengming.”

34  Elliott, “The Case of the Missing Indigene: Debate over a ‘Second-Generation’ Ethnic Policy.”

35 Wang, “Wei xin Qingshi bianhu bixu xian dongde xin Qingshi.”

36 Li, “‘Xin Qingshi’: Xin diguo zhuyi shixue biaoben.”

37 Fogel, Politics and Sinology: The Case of Naitō Konan (1866–1934), xvii.

38 Wang, Inventing China through History, 171.

39 Ge, “Paihuai dao jiujie: Gu Jiegang guanyu ‘zhongguo'he ‘zhongguo minzu'de jianjie.”

40 Li, Inventing Modern China, 132.

41 Ma, “Research Trends in Asia: ‘Writing History during a Prosperous Age: The New Qing History Project.”

42 Ibid.

43 Yang, “Xin Qingshi yu nanbei wenhua guan,” in Wang ed., Qing diguo xingzhi de zai shangque.

44 Crossley, “A Reserved Approach to ‘New Qing History’.”

45 Rawski, “Reenvisioning the Qing: The Significance of the Qing Period in Chinese History.”

46 Ho, “In Defense of Sinicization, A Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski's ‘Reenvisioning the Qing’.”

47 Ibid., 149.

48 By adopting the term Hua-hua, Ho attempted to avoid the ethnic connotation of Han-hua, because Hua is a fluid and inclusive politico-cultural term. For Mark Elliott, Hua implies “all who participated in the same politico-cultural ecumene.” Han-hua for Elliott is the Chinese equivalent of sinicization, i.e. assimilation, which is more psychological than institutional. See Elliott, The Manchu Way, 22.

49 Perdue, China Marches West, 338.

50 Crossley et al., Empire at the Margins, 6.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Chang, A Court on Horseback, 137, 181.

54 Yang, “Schedules of Work and Rest in Imperial China,” in Lien-Sheng Yang, Studies in Chinese Institutional History, 25.

55 Lü, Lü Simian dushi zhaiji, 1114, 1134–5.

56 Fairbank, “Synarchy under the Treaties,” in John K. Fairbank ed., Chinese Thought and Institutions, 205–9.

57 Bartlett, Monarchs and Ministers, 35. For the study of the institutional renovation of the Qing government in the 19th century, see Rudolph, Negotiated Power in Late Imperial China, which was largely inspired by Bartlett's study and considered another fruit of NQH.

58 Kahn, Monarchy in the Emperor's Eyes: Image and Reality in the Chi'en-lung Reign, 232.

59 Ding, “Reflections on the ‘New Qing History’ School in the United States.”

60 Guo, “Ye tan Manzu hanhua.”

61 Ibid.

62 Farquhar, “Emperor as a Bodhisattva in the Governance of the Ch'ing Empire,” 20.

63 Qianlong's suspicion of the Buddhist clergy despite his patronage of Buddhism was discussed in Kuhn, Soul Stealers, 45.

64 Esherick, “How the Qing Became China,” in Esherick et al., eds., Empire to Nation: Historical Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World, 229–59.

65 Weinstein, Empire and Identity in Guizhou, 5, 81–2.

66 Ibid., 130.

67 Yang, Between Wind and Clouds, 162–71.

68 Wang, Fansi shixue yu shixue fansi, 300–1.

69 Struve, “Introduction,” The Qing Formation of World Historical Time, 11.

70 Millward, Euroasian Crossroads, 107.

71 Smith, The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Culture, ix.

72 For a Chinese leading scholar's discussion of the issue, see Ge, “Chongjian Zhongguo de lishi lunshu.”

73 Huang, “Qingchao manren de zhongguo rentong—dui meiguo xing qingshi de yizhong huiying”, in Liu et al., eds., Qingdai zhengzhi yu guojia rentong, 16–34.

74 In a recent article entitled “Born in Translation: ‘China’ in the Making of ‘Zhongguo’”, Arif Dirlik insists that China/Zhongguo and Chinese/Zhongguoren were two sets of politically constructed and ambiguous concepts in the 19th century and early 20th century, see Dirlik, “Born in Translation: ‘China’ in the Making of ‘Zhongguo’.”

75 Yang, “Chaoyue ‘hanhua lun’ yu ‘manzhou texinglun’ qingshi yanjiu nengfou zouchu di san tiao daolu?”

76 Guo, “Qingchao Huangdi de Zhongguo guan.”

77 Ge, “Chongjian Zhongguo de lishi lunshu.”

78 Zhao, “Reinventing China.”

79 Wang, “Yi gongxin lun xin Qingshi”, in Wang ed.,Qing diguo xingzhi de zai shangque, 41–42. In my conversation with Professor Wang in January 2015, he reconfirmed to me that his main challenges to NQH was mainly a about Western misunderstanding of the concepts Zhongguo and Zhongguoren.

80 Ibid., 48.

81 Zheng, Zheng Xiaoxu riji, 681, 1361.

82 Yun, Yun Yuding chengzhai zou gao, 15, 31, 39. When Yun mentioned the Qing dynasty in the historical context, he usually used the terms “wochao” (our dynasty); “benchao” (this dynasty), and “guochao” (national dynasty).

83 Chinese historian Qian Mu used the term “state-nation”, guojia minzu to capture the character of China after the Qin unification, which acknowledged and legitimated the constructive role of the state in forging the nation. Qian also argued that China was not a conquering empire, but a centralized empire that engaged the excellent elements from the peripheries. See Qian, Guoshi dagang, 14, 116.

84 Crossley, “A Reserved Approach to ‘New Qing History’.”

85 Ibid.

86 Hardt, Hegri, Empire, 339–43. The authors of this book also differentiated traditional empires and modern colonial empires, and point out that the correlation between capitalism, expansion, and modern imperialism was a central argument of Marxism.

87 Wang, Renewal, 29–30.

88 Hosteller, Qing Colonial Enterprise, 1.

89 Giersch, Asian Borderlands, 3.

90 Perdue, China Marches West, 1–4.

91 Ibid., 4.

92 Wang, “Introduction”, White Lotus Rebels and South China Pirates, 1–9. For an interest in the Jiaqing Reign, also see Rowe, “The Significance of the Qianlong-Jiaqing Transition in Qing History.”

93 Harrell, “Introduction: Civilizing Projects and the Reaction to Them”, in Harrell ed., Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers, 7. Dai, The Sichuan Frontier and Tibet.

94 Weinstein, Empire and Identity in Guizhou, 128–9.

95 Wu, “Qingchao de zhanlue fangyu youyiyu jindai diguo de zhimin kuozhang”, in Wang ed., Qing diguo xingzhi de zai shangque, 41–2, 106.

96 Goldstein, The Snow Lion and The Dragon, 14. One historical source material may help us better understand the boundary of Qing/China in the eyes of Westerners. In December 1890, Swedish geographer and explorer Sven Anders Hedin arrived at Kashgar, a westernmost city of Xinjiang, and in the following years, he crossed the Taklimakan desert, discovered the long-deserted Loulan Kingdom, and visited Tibet several times. In 1897, Hedin met with Li Hongzhang in Beijing. In their conversation, Li Hongzhang referred to “East Turkestan, northern Tibet, Tsaidam, and southern Mongolia”, which Hedin had visited, as all “vassal states of ours.” This means that China enjoyed suzerainty over these territories, not provincialization nor European-style colonialism, see Hedin, My Life as an Explorer, 71, 80, 84, 102, 323.

97 Yun Yuding mentioned in a memorial that the Qing government provided several hundred thousand taels of silver to subsidize Xinjiang, a “screen” to protect Gansu, while did not at all profit from the province. See Yun, Yun Yunding chengzhai zougao, 63.

98 Leibold, Reconfiguring Chinese Nationalism, 19.

99 Schlesinger, “The Qing Invention of the Nature”, 11.

100 Smith, The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture, xi.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Guo Wu

Guo Wu is associate professor of history at Allegheny College. His research interests include Qing intellectual history and PRC history. He is the author of Zheng Guanying: Merchant Reformer of Late Qing China and his Influence on Economics, Politics, and Society (2010) and several journal articles on the Qing history and Chinese socialist cultural politics.