326
for a di-al relations .... and the multilateral relations... plomacy that was modelled on patterns inherited from antiquity” (p. 141).
On the other hand, Professor Charles Peterson argues that the Sung policy towards the Mongols and the Jurchen state of Chin was so much burdened or preoccupied by the revanchist heritage that the decision to destroy the Chin seemed awkwardly irrational. Moreover, Peterson points out that the Sung Mongol policy "showed [even] less consistency” (p. 230). Perhaps the relationship with the Mongols was way beyond what is commonly defined as “diplomacy” and the quite flexible “multi-state system” or “bilateral relationship” had in this instance reached its limits of usefulness. In any case, the Sung certainly made the best use of the "multi-state system". However, there is a problem in this interpretation.
But let me turn first to the "yin-yang” model presented by Professor Gari Ledyard. One suspects that Chinese ways (and not just way) of conceptualizing the world order were never uniformly or consistently applied. My understanding is that the Chinese liked to think that they were always in the offensive yang position, and so always managing the Asian world order but the reality is that China was often also in the yin phase. Ledyard's essay gives one the impression that a yin-yang analytical approach to Chinese history could help us understand Asian history as a whole. This is interesting: even taking for granted the inadequacy of the dynastic cycle approach, this interpretation of Asian history remains Chinese history writ large.
Coming back to the common assumptions shared by the Chinese and the Mongolians concerning the origin, character and extent of their right to rule the world, it thus seems that whenever China was in the yin phase, other states would be glad to play the role of suzerain, thus unwittingly perpetuating the Chinese conception of world order. If even the Mongols, and certainly the Liao and the Chin, sought to create a world order based on a hierarchical approach, by relegating different states to different statuses, then the Sung really did not have a chance to even pretend that it was treated “equally" or that it was conducting “equal" foreign
326
for a di-
al relations .... and the multilateral relations... plomacy that was modelled on patterns inherited from antiquity” (p. 141).
On the other hand, Professor Charles Peterson argues that the Sung policy towards the Mongols and the Jurchen state of Chin was so much burdened or preoccupied by the revanchist heritage that the decision to destroy the Chin seemed awkwardly irratio- nal. Moreover, Peterson points out that the Sung Mongol policy "showed [even] less consistency” (p. 230). Perhaps the relation- ship with the Mongols was way beyond what is commonly defined as “diplomacy” and the quite flexible “multi-state system” or “bi- lateral relationship” had in this instance reached its limits of use- fulness. In any case, the Sung certainly made the best use of the "multi-state system". However, there is a problem in this inter- pretation.
But let me turn first to the "yin-yang” model presented by Professor Gari Ledyard. One suspects that Chinese ways (and not just way) of conceptualizing the world order were never uniformly or consistently applied. My understanding is that the Chinese liked to think that they were always in the offensive yang position, and so always managing the Asian world order but the reality is that China was often also in the yin phase. Ledyard's essay gives one the impression that a yin-yang analytical approach to Chinese history could help us understand Asian history as a whole. This is interesting: even taking for granted the inadequacy of the dynastic cycle approach, this interpretation of Asian history remains Chi- nese history writ large.
Coming back to the common assumptions shared by the Chi- nese and the Mongolians concerning the origin, character and extent of their right to rule the world, it thus seems that whenever China was in the yin phase, other states would be glad to play the role of suzerain, thus unwittingly perpetuating the Chinese con- ception of world order. If even the Mongols, and certainly the Liao and the Chin, sought to create a world order based on a hierarchi- cal approach, by relegating different states to different statuses, then the Sung really did not have a chance to even pretend that it was treated “equally" or that it was conducting “equal" foreign
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.