327
relations. We have a problem here: the Chinese could only accept either more or less “equal” realities, and I think the Sung was no exception.
The impression I derive from reading the relevant essays, then, suggests that there indeed existed a rhetoric which had remained stubbornly unchanged in Chinese history and that the Sung was not much different from other dynasties in Chinese history in continuing to subscribe to the hierarchical view of world order, with China as necessarily its suzerain state. The reality, however, as the essays suggest, was that China during the tenth to thirteenth century, out of necessity and common-sense, had to revert back to her own diplomatic tradition of a “multi-state system", and was forced to adjust to the reality of a world of many states. Whenever a non-Chinese state was powerful enough, it would use the same Chinese rhetoric or argument to justify its domination of the Asian world and perhaps even try to enforce a hierarchical arrangement, at least on the bilateral relationship. This hierarchical way of conceptualizing foreign relations, obviously of Chinese origin, certainly dominated Asian people's thinking at least until the 19th century. In this sense, the conception of “equality”, as I see it, did not actually exist on a practical level, and perhaps even only on the rhetorical level for its political usefulness. That the Liao, Chin and Hsi-Hsia were all quick to employ the Chinese formula of interpreting foreign relations, by using kinship nomenclature, is ironically a proof of the prevalence of the Chinese conception of world order, even when used against the Chinese themselves. The Sung government certainly considered that China was placed in a lower, and hence, unequal, position, however it rationalized this reality. In any case, the Chinese people have been quite good at this from antiquity.
This is a handsome collection of penetrating essays, and it enlightens us about how the Chinese people could use the “multi-state system" to its best advantage. A student of modern Chinese diplomatic history will certainly find this book instructive. Moreover, this book also helps us to know better how China managed its relations with people she considered as "lesser", those today we call "minorities".
327
relations. We have a problem here: the Chinese could only accept either more or less “equal” realities, and I think the Sung was no exception.
The impression I derive from reading the relevant essays, then, suggests that there indeed existed a rhetoric which had remained stubbornly unchanged in Chinese history and that the Sung was not much different from other dynasties in Chinese history in continuing to subscribe to the hierarchical view of world order, with China as necessarily its suzerain state. The reality, however, as the essays suggest, was that China during the tenth to thirteenth century, out of necessity and common-sense, had to revert back to her own diplomatic tradition of a “multi-state system", and was forced to adjust to the reality of a world of many states. Whenever a non-Chinese state was powerful enough, it would use the same Chinese rhetoric or argument to justify its domination of the Asian world and perhaps even try to enforce a hierarchical ar- rangement, at least on the bilateral relationship. This hierarchical way of conceptualizing foreign relations, obviously of Chinese origin, certainly dominated Asian people's thinking at least until the 19th century. In this sense, the conception of “equality”, as I see it, did not actually exist on a practical level, and perhaps even only on the rhetorical level for its political usefulness. That the Liao, Chin and Hsi-Hsia were all quick to employ the Chinese formula of interpreting foreign relations, by using kinship nomen- clature, is ironically a proof of the prevalence of the Chinese con- ception of world order, even when used against the Chinese them- selves. The Sung government certainly considered that China was placed in a lower, and hence, unequal, position, however it ratio- nalized this reality. In any case, the Chinese people have been quite good at this from antiquity.
This is a handsome collection of penetrating essays, and it en- lightens us about how the Chinese people could use the “multi- state system" to its best advantage. A student of modern Chinese diplomatic history will certainly find this book instructive. More- over, this book also helps us to know better how China managed its relations with people she considered as "lesser", those today we call "minorities".
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.