URGENT! Debate paper

Tian !1

Zhen Tian

Professor Zheng

HIST 185A

Oct 21 2020

The Success of the Qing: A Product of Sinicization Or Not

The Qing dynasty, from 1644 to 1912, was an important period of time in Chinese

history. During more than two centuries of its reign, the Qing stabilized the economy and the

civil bureaucracy, achieved unprecedented territorial expansion, incorporated multiethnic and

multifaith cultures, and confronted the first clash with the rising Western civilizations. Being the

last imperial state that lay the foundation for modern China, the historical significance the Qing

bears put it under the spotlight for scholars to scrutinize.

One of the major controversies among scholars is that whether the success of the Qing

was a product of sinicization. Ping-Ti Ho provided a glimpse into the great Qing empire in his

1967 paper, under the title “The Significance of the Ch’ing Period in Chinese History.” One of

Ho’s claims in his paper—sinicization helped to actualize the Qing’s success (Ho 1967, 191) —

was criticized by Evelyn Rawski in “Reenvisioning the Qing: The Significance of the Qing

Period in Chinese History” in 1996. This paper offers a close examination on Ho and Rawski’s

works to show the understandings of the role sinicization played in the Qing’s empire-building

from both sides of the debate. There will also be a short paragraph expressing the author’s

opinion on the debate at the end of the article. The presentation of ideas from multiple

perspectives meant to show that all arguments are biased to some extent, thus to encourage the

readers to think on themselves and develop their own interpretations of this matter.

Tian !2

Evelyn Rawski’s paper concurs with the Qing’s success, yet contradicts Ping-Ti Ho’s

claim that the success of the Qing empire was a result of systematic sinicization. Rawski denies

Ho’s presumed superiority of Chinese influence, and attributes the success to the Qing’s

application of divide and rule in Inner and East Asia. Rawski argues that instead of relied on

systematic sinicization to assimilate all ethnicities to Han Chinese, the Qing empire maintained

its cultural links with the non-Han peoples of Inner Asia and differentiated the administrations by

ethnicity (Rawski, 831). Rawski lists out a group of secondary literature, newly produced from a

Manchu-centered perspective, to emphasize the military, political, and diplomatic significance of

the conquest elite as pillars to consolidate the power of the empire. To enhance the military

organization, the Qing emperors staffed the administrative posts in the strategic regions with

banner nobles. Although the Han Chinese dominated the civil service bureaucracy, the Qing

rulers repressed their power to the provincial administrations while filling the highest state

council’s inner circle predominantly with imperial kinsman to monopolize the decision-making

process. Unlike what Ho suggests in his 1967 essay, Rawski points out that Manchu language

was very much alive, especially in court—only they “frequently bypassed Han Chinese officials”

(Rawski, 829). Along with Mongol allies and Tibetan prelates, the conquest elite served

important roles in extending the Qing’s control beyond the Great Wall to non-Han territories,

including Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang, and eventually set up a non-Han model of rulership.

Rawski further draws information from the new series of Manchu-centered research to

indicate that not only the Qing’s state council, but also its successful expansion as well as its

emperorship had a multiethnic foundation. In the early Qing periods, Manchus formed allies with

the Mongols through marriage, borrowed from them to create the banner system, and utilized

Tian !3

warriors from various cultural backgrounds for their own benefit. Rawski concludes that “the

most important factor influencing Qing expansion came from outside the Great Wall,” and the

multiethnic army enabled the Qing to stretch its domain to both the nomadic and sedentary

worlds (Rawski, 833). More importantly, as Pamela Crossley argued, Manchu-language primary

sources showed that the essence of Qing policy was an universal rulership being disseminated to

divergent subject peoples of different ethnicities. Rawski demonstrates the idea by showing the

biography of the Tibetan Buddhist prelate referring to the Qing emperor as the “Great Khan;” the

Tibetans depicting Emperor Qianlong as a bodhisattva; the Chinese recognizing the Qing rulers

as Confucian monarchs who learned Chinese, adopted Chinese bureaucracy and patronized

Chinese literature and art. Thus, Rawski denies systematic sinicization being the basis of the

Qing’s success because it was only a partial depiction of the empire based on Chinese-language

records within China Proper, and the upheld Confucianism was only a facade presented to the

Han Chinese to win their support. She then suggests that it was the incorporation of Inner Asian

and Chinese ideological themes into the universal rulership assisted the Qing to maintain control

over a stable empire that lasted for hundreds of years.

Ping-Ti Ho, in response to Rawski’s disagreement to his 1967 essay, published “In

Defense of Sinicization: A Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski’s ‘Reenvisioning the Qing’” two years

later in 1998. Ho’s article took upon a macrohistorical perspective to explain that systematic

sinicization play the essential role in bringing about the Qing’s strength, prosperity, and stability.

Ho takes the readers back to the ancient Sinitic world to examine the origin and persistence of

sinicization. From very early on, the Sinitic people defined membership based on “common

cultural heritage rather than rigid racial or ethnic identity” (Ho 1998, 129). This mindset has

Tian !4

enabled ancient dynasties to keep expanding while incorporating different cultures to make

China a multiethnic state. From as early as the fourth century, various non-Han nomadic groups

familiarized and embraced not only a sedentary lifestyle but also the Chinese language,

Confucian values, and Chinese imperial system. When it proceeded to the Tang Dynasty, the

non-Han peoples honored Emperor Taizong as the “Heavenly Khan” to recognize his political

power beyond China Proper, and the Han people accepted foreign ways of dressing, cooking, and

entertaining in turn. The frequent cultural exchange and interethnic marriage demonstrated

sinicization as a process of tolerance and cosmopolitanism. Even the continuous attack from the

nomads largely increased Han Chinese’ sense of sinocentrism during the Song dynasty, literary

evidence has shown that elite sinicization took place widely during Jurchen Jin and the Mongol

Yuan’s rule, interethnic marriage and the adoption of Chinese civil examination further made

sinicization inevitable, only not systematically. The macrohistorical view, therefore, shows

sinicization’s significance throughout Chinese history.

Ho continues to provide evidence to show that the implementation of systematic

sinicization during the Qing dynasty made it more successful than the Jin and the Yuan. First, Ho

articulates the declining use in Manchu language and the increasing reliance upon Chinese

language and ideologies in governing the large and diverse population. Although Manchu script

was still in use during Hung Taiji’s reign, it only carried the purpose to translate Chinese classics

and “raise the cultural level of all Manchus” (Ho 1998, 142). Emperor Kangxi performed ritual

kowtows to Confucius’ tablet, which exalted Confucianism to an unprecedented level. Emperor

Yongzheng asserted that the ruler benefits the most from Confucius’ teachings that differentiate

relationships, distinguish rights and obligations, rectify minds and thoughts, and amend social

Tian !5

customs (Ho 1998, 143). Qing’s strict application of Confucian norms gradually enhanced the

loyalty of all peoples, not only the Han Chinese. Second, Han Chinese played the most

significant role in Qing’s territorial expansion both in military and economic terms. The Eight-

Banner army began losing their efficacy during Emperor Kangxi’s reign, and expansion became

increasingly relied on the Chinese Green Standard forces. Also, the Chinese immigration and

economic penetration into the new areas further served the Qing’s interests in strengthening its

political control, especially in Tibet and Inner Mongolia. To sum up, Ho believes the success of

the Qing rooted in sinicization not only because of its wide acceptance of Chinese culture and

administration, but also because of the open and dynamic appropriation of ideas in the unending

process of mutual acceptance among different ethnicities. Therefore, systematic sinicization has

set a solid foundation for the Qing to grow into a large, powerful, and polyethnic empire.

Undoubtedly, both sides of the debate have limitations. On the one hand, Rawski’s

argument is confined by her excessively biased focus and lack of supporting evidence. Her paper

focused only on one of the five theses Ho made in his 1976 essay and pushed it to an extreme to

articulate her own belief. Although Rawski emphasizes the major omission of non-Han language

primary sources in the “pro-sinicization” notion, she fails to provide adequate quotations from

the sources to support her idea, and only produced a “monothematic bibliographic survey” (Ho

1998, 124). Also, part of Rawski’s information was partial and misleading. For example, Rawski

tries to convey the idea that many non-Han regimes resisted to adopt Chinese culture (Rawski,

837), yet she fails to mention that the resistance ended up unsuccessfully, which only accelerated

the regimes’ incorporation of Chinese system and ideologies. Thus, Rawski has interpreted some

carefully selected phrases out of their historical context. On the other hand, Ho’s claim was a

Tian !6

false generalization sits upon Chinese nationalism. The “macrohistorical perspective” became

Ho’s excuse to avoid discussing non-Han language sources, and many Manchu sources—palace

memorials, court letters, and government documents—are left unexamined. His depiction of

sinicization’s significance depends solely on events happened within China Proper and leaves the

other half of the empire completely out of the picture. Without legitimate reference to the records

or ideologies beyond China Proper, Ho draws conclusion for the whole Qing empire from a not

necessarily representative region. Therefore, Ho’s ethnocentrically biased perspective shakes the

validity of his assertion that sinicization was the major causing factor of the Qing’s success.

Before any further discussion, it is necessary to clarify the definition of sinicization. In

this debate, the meaning of sinicization has remained somewhat amorphous, and it became more

puzzling when Ho concludes his rebuttal with a wordplay on “Han-hua” and “Hua-hua” to

defend his position (Ho 1998, 152). Rawski defines sinicization as a process to assimilate all the

non-Han peoples within the Chinese realm into Han Chinese culture (Rawski, 842). However,

Ho emotionally refutes that sinicization should not be a concept for scholars to “mechanically

substitute ideology for scholarship and historical vision” (Ho, 152). Ho is trying to convince the

readers that “true” sinicization is not a one-way street where non-Han peoples absorb from the

Han culture; instead, it is a bilateral process that includes changes brought by ethnic minorities to

the Chinese culture. All peoples, including the Qing emperors themselves, maintained their

ethnic recognition yet acquired a common cultural identity—Chinese. It is convincing, but only

nationalistically. If the readers follow Ho’s logic carefully, they will find “being sinicized” and

“being Chinese” are fluid concepts; thus, Ho will always have something to say, and could never

be proved wrong. Therefore, when Rawski got carried away in her argument by her denunciation

Tian !7

of Han nationalism, Ho was carried even further by his firm belief in the superiority of Han

Chinese culture.

Although both Rawski and Ho’s arguments are inevitably biased, it is undeniable that

both of them have made great points. At the beginning of the Qing dynasty, the Manchu rulers

abandoned their nomadic life and adopted the sedentary lifestyle of the Han Chinese, which

enabled them to expand the territory while keeping the empire functioning. The Manchus further

fully accepted the Chinese bureaucracy and Confucianism to scaffold the construction of the

empire. Yet, Nurhaci and Dorgon forced the Han men to adapt to the Manchu hairstyle and Han

women to stop binding their feet as demonstrations of loyalty and submission (Spence, 38).

Starting from Emperor Kangxi, the Qing rulers initiated a series of fiscal reforms to lessen the

tax burden and to stabilize the economy. Emperor Yongzheng was so devoted to Chinese culture

and society within China Proper that he was even not regarded as a Manchu emperor (Zheng,

Week 2 Lecture 4). During Emperor Qianlong’s reign, the empire renewed its Manchu heritage

with new racial, religious, and linguistic elements and reinforced the empire’s multicultural trait.

Westward conquest and ruling missions under Emperor Qianlong were dominated by Manchu

bannermen with only a few experienced Chinese officials (Spence, 95); Emperor Qianlong

himself established bonds with the Dalai Lama and the Mongol prince, and exhibited multiple

faces to different subjects (Zheng, Week 2 Lecture 4). As a result, although it is impossible to

ignore the importance of the non-Han ideologies in the Qing empire, it is imprudent to assert that

systematic sinicization—the adoption of Chinese culture—was not the key to the Qing’s success.

Rawski and Ho are very ambitious scholars who aim to draw a definite conclusion on

whether the Qing’s success was a product of sinicization. However, the Qing ruled for over two

Tian !8

hundred years, and each emperor developed his political agenda with unique ruling philosophies.

So many things have been lost over such a long and dynamic period of time that may never be

recovered. In the absence of the non-Han peoples’ voices and many other pieces of irretrievable

evidence, neither viewpoint could be easily proven or disproved. The debate may have reached a

deadlock, but having the debate is more than beneficial. Merging Rawski and Ho’s propositions

at the end of their essays—the equivocality of sinicization demonstrates that the Qing deserves

further attention and study, for modern-day China to reflect upon its self-identification and

relation with the rest of the world (Rawski, 842; Ho, 152). 


Bibliography

Ho, Ping-Ti. “In Defense of Sinicization: A Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski's ‘Reenvisioning the

Qing.’” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 57, no. 1, 1998, pp. 123–155.

Ho, Ping-ti. “The Significance of the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History.” The Journal of Asian

Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, 1967, pp. 189–195.

Rawski, Evelyn S. “Presidential Address: Reenvisioning the Qing: The Significance of the Qing

Period in Chinese History.” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 55, no. 4, 1996, pp. 829–

850.

Spence, Jonathan D. The Search for Modern China. 3rd ed. New York: Norton, 1990.