We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 January 2021
This paper traces the history and usage of the theory of Sinicisation in western and Chinese scholarship, and discusses the intellectual trends underlying the different discourses in which the theory has been adopted. Since early 20th Century, the theory of “Sinicisation” has evolved and was adopted into three distinct historiographical discourses to construct different arguments. The first discourse is about the historical acculturation of border peoples and assimilation of domestic peoples to Chinese language, culture and economic life; the second one argues an inherent superiority in Chinese culture specifically produced cultural change across eastern Eurasia to promote nationalism; the third discourse emphasizes the diversity and mixture of the people living inside historical and contemporary China to construct and stabilise the polity. Every discourse rooted in its own intellectual trend, and also faces different criticism. Followed with examining criticisms of Sinicisation since the 1950s, this paper concludes by discussing the relationships of the three discourses of Sinicisation.
1 Here the definition of Sinicization is paraphrased from Evelyn Rawski's article. In her article, she says “Sinicization—the thesis that all of the non-Han peoples who have entered the Chinese realm have eventually been assimilated into Chinese culture”. Rawski, Evelyn S., “Presidential Address: Re-envisioning the Qing: The Significance of the Qing Period in Chinese History,” The Journal of Asian Studies 55, no.4 (Nov. 1996), p. 842CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Ho, Ping-ti, “In Defense of Sinicization: A Rebuttal of Evelyn Rawski's ‘Reenvisioning the Qing’,” The Journal of Asian Studies 57, no.1 (Feb. 1998), p. 152Google Scholar; Yuan, Chen, Yuan Xiyuren huahua kao 元西域人華化考 (Shanghai, 2000)Google Scholar.
3 Rawski, “Presidential Address”, p. 842. Some Chinese scholars refer Rawski's address and Ping-ti Ho's defense article as a debate. Pamela Crossley recently pointed out on her personal website that there actually is no debate between Rawski and Ho. Rawski only reported the English-language historiography of Qing Studies, and Ho stated an unrelated “objective” Qing history but received no reply. Crossley argues manufacturing such a debate is “an essential element of the mythology of ‘New Qing History.’” Pamela Crossley, “War of Worlds!: The Myth of Rawski and Ho,” accessed Mar 6, 2019, https://www.dartmouth.edu/~crossley/comment.shtml.
4 The two contradictory views even lead to severe political criticism of the New Qing history by attacking it as the “New Imperialist” history. See Zhiting, Li, “New Qing History: An Example of ‘New Imperialist’ History,” Contemporary Chinese Thought 47, no. 1(2016), pp. 5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 In OED, 2nd edition (1989) OED Online version March 2016. Examples such as “1889 Athenæum 28 Sept. 414/2, While the civilization of Japan becomes every year more and more westernized, her language becomes more and more Sinicized.” “1898 Athenæum 26 Nov. 747/3, Shinto might have become a religious and ethical system, but its development was arrested by Sinicization and Buddhism”.
6 William Elliot Griffis, Don C. Seitz and Homer Lea, “Japan and the United States,” The North American Review 197, no. 691 (June 1913), p. 729.
7 W. Perceval Yetts, “Contact between China and the West,” The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 48, no. 276 (Mar, 1926), p. 122. The term “Chinoiserie” was also probably first used in the 16th and 17th Century.
8 See “The Proposed Sinification of the Settlements,” The North-China Herald and Supreme Court & Consular Gazette (1870–1941) [Shanghai] no. 20 (Mar 1899), p. 474; Gilbert McIntosh, “The Christian Literature Society Moves Forward”, The Chinese Recorder (1912–1938) [Shanghai] no. 01 (Dec, 1923), p. 746.
9 Williamson, Noël, “The Lohit-Brahmaputra between Assam and South-Eastern Tibet, November, 1907, to January, 1908,” The Geographical Journal 34, no. 4 (Oct. 1909), p. 383CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Rong here could refer to the Rong-chu Valley.
10 Wang Jiqing 王冀清, “Berthold Laufer”, in Zhongwai Dunhuang xuejia pingzhuan 中外敦煌学家评传, edited by Lu Qingfu 陆庆夫 and Wang Jiqing 王冀青 (Lanzhou, 2003), pp. 368–387.
11 American Museum of Natural History: Laufer to Boas, 12 August, 1903.
12 Laufer, Berthold, “Totemic Traces among the Indo-Chinese”, The Journal of American Folklore 30, no. 118 (Oct.–Dec., 1917), p. 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 It is necessary to point out that although the term Han refers to the largest nationality known as Han Chinese in modern China, Han had different implications in diverse periods in Chinese history. For example, in the Jin Dynasty, the Jurchen rulers called the former Liao people who were under their rule as Hanren 漢人 or Yanren 燕人 (People of the Yan [region]), but called the former Northern Song people inside Jin territory as Nanren 南人. Therefore caution should be used when applying the term Hanhua in different dynasties. See Yang, Shao-yun, “Fan and Han: The Origins and Uses of a Conceptual Dichotomy in Mid-Imperial China, ca. 500–1200”, in Political Strategies of Identity Building in Non-Han Empires in China, (ed.) by Fiascheti, Francesca and Schneider, Julia (Wiesbaden, 2014), pp. 9–36Google Scholar; Elliot, Mark, “Hushuo: The Northern Other and the Naming of the Han Chinese, in Critical Han Studies: The History, Representation, and Identity of China's Majority, (ed.) by Mullaney, Thomas S., Leibold, James, Gros, Stéphane and Bussche, Eric Vanden (Berkeley, 2012), pp. 173–190Google Scholar.
14 Laopu 老圃, “Hanzu yu feihanzu (part third),” in Shun Pao, no.17988 (March 27th, 1923), p. 20.
15 “Mei gongshi youli xinan zhi ganxiang 美公使游历西南之感想,” in Shun Pao, no.18286 (Jan. 21st, 1924), p. 7; Liu Xiang 刘骧, “Miaozu zhuangkuang de gailue 苗族状况的概略,” in Jingbao fukan 京报副刊, no.17 (1924), pp. 3–4; Cheng Zhi 成志, Minsu 民俗, no.67, p. 1.
16 Liu, “Miaozu,” pp. 3–4.
17 Laufer, “Totemic Traces”, p. 417.
18 Chen, Huahua kao, p. 3.
19 Chen, Huahua kao, p. 3.
20 Besides practical knowledge, here female-education also includes the wifely submissions and virtues.
21 Chen, Huahua kao, p. 2.
22 Chen, Huahua kao, p. 3.
23 There are 168 cases discussed in Yuan Xiyuren Huahua kao under 6 different topics. 30 in the Confucianism Chapter, 8 in the Buddhism and Daoism Chapter, 51 in literature Chapter, 32 in art Chapter, 41 in ritual and customs chapter, and female education in Chapter 6. After taking away the people discussed in other chapters, there are 138 people in total. There are 5 people included by mistake, so Chen Yuan actually has discussed 133 people in his book. In the conclusion, Chen Yuan has given the numbers, but there is a minor mistake. See Chen Yuan, 2000, p. 132. About the 5 people mistakenly included, see Hsiao Ch'i-Ch'ing, Nei beiguo er wai Zhongguo 内北国而外中国 (Beijing, 2007), p. 579.
24 Feng Chengjun 冯承钧, “Tangdai Huahua Fanhu kao 唐代华化蕃胡考,” in Suitang shidai Xiyuren Huahua kao 隋唐时代西域人华化考, edited by He Jianmin 何健民 (Beijing, 1939), pp. 127–171; Xiang Da 向达, Tangdai Chang'an yu Xiyu wenming 唐代长安与西域文明 (Shijiazhuang, 2001); Suitang shidai Xiyuren Huahua kao 隋唐时代西域人华化考, edited by He Jianmin 何健民 (Beijing, 1939).
25 Song Wenbing 宋文炳, “Nüzhen Hanhua kaolue 女真汉化考略,” in Suitang shidai Xiyuren Huahua kao 隋唐时代西域人华化考, edited by He Jianmin 何健民 (Beijing, 1939), pp. 172–194; Mao Wen 毛汶, “Liaoren Hanhua kao 辽人汉化考,” in Guoxue lunheng 国学论衡, vol.6 (1935): pp. 23–43.
26 The term Hanhua also has been used a few times in Chen Yuan's book.
27 Chen, Huahua kao, p. 5.
28 Dardess, John W., Conquerors and Confucians: Aspects of Political Change in Late Yuan China (New York, 1973), p. 3Google Scholar.
29 Bol, “Common Ground,” pp. 485–486.
30 Ibid.
31 Tao, Jing-shen, The Jurchen in Twelfth-century China: A Study of Sinicization (Seattle, 1976), p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.
32 John R. Shepherd, “Rethinking Sinicization: Processes of Acculturation and Assimilation,” in State, Market and Ethnic Groups Contextualized, edited by Bien Chiang and Ho Ts'ui-p'ing, pp. 205–250. Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, Taipei.
33 Shepherd, “Rethinking Sinicization”, p. 133.
34 Chen, Huahua kao, p. 3.
35 Pelliot, Paul, Haute Asie (Paris, 1931), pp. 21–22Google Scholar.
36 Witfogel, Karl A. and Chia-Sheng, Feng, History of Chinese Society. Liao (907–1125) (Philadelphia, 1949), p. 4Google Scholar.
37 Song, “Nüzhen Hanhua,” p. 173.
38 John Dardess, review of The Jurchen in Twelfth-century China: A Study of Sinicization, by Jing-shen Tao, The Journal of Asian Studies 37, Feb. 1978, no.2, pp. 329–330; also reviewed by Ruth Dunnell in Sung Studies Newsletter, 1977, no.13, pp. 77–81. The main reason for the criticism is in the Jin Dynasty, the Jurchen was the politically and militarily dominant group.
39 Jing-Shen Tao, Nüzhen shilun 女真史論 (Taipei, Shihuo chubanshe, 1978), 4; Jing-shen Tao, “A Reply to Professor John Dardess,” The Journal of Asian Studies 38 (Feb. 1979), no.2, pp. 441–442.
40 Engels, Frederick, Anti-Dühring. Herr Eugen Dühring's Revolution in Science, trans. by Burns, Emile (New York, 1894), pp. 208–209Google Scholar.
41 There are different opinions on this topic. The point here is cited from Zhongguo tongshi jianbian 中國通史簡編 by Fan Wenlan 范文澜, which is one of the representative works of Chinese Marxism historiography. See Fan Wenlan, Zhongguo tongshi jianbian (revised version) (Beijing, 1964), vol.1, pp. 13–14.
42 Tang Zhangru 唐长孺, “Tuobazu de Hanhua guocheng 拓跋族的汉化过程,” in Lishi jiaoxue 历史教学 (1956), no.1: 21–29; Zhang Jingsong 张劲松, “Ping Wanyan Liang de Hanhua gaige 评完颜亮的汉化改革,” in Neimenggu minzu shiyuan xuebao 内蒙古民族师院学报 (1996), no.4, pp. 1–6.
43 The word “Chinese” in “Chinese culture” is vague. Such questions as when the word “Chinese” can be adopted into the culture in the Chinese territory, and what culture particularly can be considered as “Chinese” culture, all need to be discussed. Different scholars may give different answers for these questions. For instance, Qian Mu and Ge Zhaoguang give a different description of Chinese culture in both of their works. Qian Mu, Zhongguo wenhua shi daolun 中国文化史导论 (Beijing, 1994); Ge Zhaoguang, “Hewei Zhongguo”, pp. 112–115.
44 Feng, “Tangdai huahua”, p. 135.
45 Chen Yinke, Suitang zhidu yuanyuan lue lungao 隋唐制度渊源略论稿 (Taiwan, 1966), pp. 16–20. This book was first published in 1940.
46 Qian, “Zhongguo wenhua”, pp. 41–42. This book, Zhongguo wenhua shi daolun, was first published in 1948. Ping-ti Ho also made similar a point in his rebuttal by stating, “This saying of Mencius (about Shun and King Wen of Zhou) suggests that long before the rise of the Zhou the fundamental criterion for defining membership in the Sinitic world was the awareness of a common cultural heritage rather than rigid racial or ethnic identity.” Ho, “defense”, p. 129.
47 Levenson, “Confucian China”, pp. 98–102. To the interpretation of culturalism, Hoyt Tillman and Ge Zhaoguang responded by tracing Chinese ethnic nationalism to the Song Dynasty, and Yuri Pines and Paul Goldin by pointing out the existence of Han discourse about the “un-civilizable” side of foreigners such as Xiongnu because of military conflicts. Shao-yun Yang, however, argues that the term culturalism should not be adopted to describe the “relativistic and moralistic discourse on Chineseness and barbarism”, which was a product of the Tang-Song transition instead of Eastern Zhou origin or earlier. Nevertheless, the truth or falsity and the origin of culturalism interpretation is not the concern of this paper, what is more important for the argument in this paper is that this interpretation is held by many researcher till today. See Tillman, Hoyt Cleveland, “Proto-Nationalism in Twelfth-century China? The Case of Ch'en Liang”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 39 (1979), no.2, pp. 403–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ge, “Hewei Zhongguo”, pp. 126–133; Pines, Yuri, “Beasts or Humans: Pre-imperial Origins of the ‘Sino-Barbarian’ Dichotomy,” in Mongols, Turks, and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World (ed.) Amitai, Reuven and Biran, Michal (Leiden, 2004), pp. 59–102Google Scholar; Goldin, Paul R., “Steppe Nomads as a Philosophical Problem in Classical China” in Mapping Mongolia: Situating Mongolia in the World from Geologic Time to the Present, (ed) Sabloff, Paula L.W., (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2011), pp. 228–234Google Scholar; Shao-yun Yang, Reinventing the Barbarian: Rhetorical and Philosophical Uses of the Yi-Di in Mid-Imperial China, 600–1300, Ph.D. dissertation from University of California, Berkeley, Spring, 2014.
48 Song, “Nüzhen Hanhua”, p. 173.
49 Pines, “Beasts or Humans”, pp. 63–69.
50 Chen, Huahua kao, p. 5.
51 Ho Ping-ti. “The significance of the Ch'ing Period in Chinese History,” Journal of Asian Studies 26, no. 2 (1967), pp.189–195; Mary C Wright, The Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism: The T'ung-Chih Restoration, 1862–1874. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1957; Xiao Yishan, Qingdai tongshi (General History of Qing Dynasty), (Beijing, 1986).
52 Ho, “Significance of the Ch'ing”, p. 191.
53 Rawski, “Presidential Address”, p. 842.
54 Crossley, “Thinking about Ethnicity”, p. 2.
55 Crossley, “Thinking about Ethnicity”, pp. 4–5.
56 Ibid.
57 Ge Zhaoguang 葛兆光, Hewei Zhongguo: jiangyu minzu wenhua yu lishi 何为中国: 疆域民族文化与历史 (Hong Kong, 2014), pp. 78–79.
58 Zhang Taiyan, Taiyanwenji太炎文錄, vol. 1, in bielu section, Minguo Zhangshi congshu edition 民國章氏叢書本.
59 Levenson, Joseph R., Confucian China and its Modern Fate: The Problem of Intellectual Continuity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965), p. 102Google Scholar.
60 Hao Jing 郝经, “Yu Songguo chengxiang lun benchao bingluan shu与宋国丞相论本朝兵乱书,” in Lingchuan wenji 陵川文集 (Beijing tushuguan guji zhenben congkan edition北京图书馆古籍珍本丛刊), vol. 38, 6 (upper section) -11(lower section).
61 Liu Shipei, “Yudao pian鬻道篇,” in, Rangshu 攘書 (Minguo Liushenchu xiansheng yishu edition 民國《劉申叔先生遺書》本).
62 Ge, “Hewei Zhongguo”, p. 78; Wang, “Zhongguo”, pp. 215–222.
63 Here, based on the context, renzhong 人种 should be translated as to race. In the beginning of the renzhong section, Liang Qichao says that western scholars divided the world population into five, three or seven kinds, which is not the ethnicity but race. Liang Qichao 梁启超, “Zhongguoshi xulun 中国史叙论,” in Yinbingshi heji 饮冰室合集 vol.6 (Beijing, 1988), pp. 5–7.
64 Liang, “Zhongguoshi Xulun”, pp. 5–7.
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 Here, although Feng uses the “zhong 种” similar to Liang Qichao's “renzhong 人种,” in Feng's context, the “zhong” is closer to nation or ethnicity; the people who share the same “zhong” also share history and culture in Feng's writing. So I use “nation” to translate Feng's zhong.
68 Feng, “Tangdai Huahua”, p. 134.
69 Feng, “Tangdai Huahua”, p. 132.
70 Fire in the furnace refers to Han civilization, and here Mao gives an example that Buddhism was introduced to the Liao from Han territory, which is a kind of transformed “fire”.
71 Mao, “Liaoren Hanhua”, pp. 23–43.
72 Laopu, “Hanzu yu Feihanzu”, p. 20.
73 Wang, “Zhongguo”, p. 226.
74 Jishou is ancestor of the Khitan people according to Liaoshi. Liaoshi, juan, pp. 32, 378.
75 Mao, “Liaoren Hanhua”, p. 43.
76 The Japanese thinkers claim that as the leader of East Asia, they have the responsibility to protect East Asians from the western states. Either “preserving China” or “carving up China” would need the help of the Japanese, which would involve military occupation and “supporting” the local ethnic groups to build “their own” nation-state, such as the Manchukuo state. Ge, Hewei Zhongguo, pp. 82–84.
77 Before the Japanese threat becoming more serious, there were other ideas of dealing with the different ethnic groups inside China and in Chinese history. Ge, Hewei Zhongguo, pp. 91–97.
78 Li Mumiao 李木妙, Guoshi dashi Qian Mu jiaoshou zhuanlue 国史大师钱穆教授传略 (Taipei, 1995), p. 77.
79 Zhou Wenjiu 周文玖, “Cong yige dao duoyuan yiti: guanyu Zhongguo minzu lilun fazhan de shixueshi kaocha (从一个到多元一体: 关于中国民族理论发展的史学史考察),” in Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Science) 44, no.4 (2007), pp. 102–110; Ge, Hewei Zhongguo, pp. 104–109.
80 Gu Jiegang 顾颉刚, “Zhonghua minzu shi yige 中华民族是一个”, in Kunming: Shiyi bao 世益报 (Feb. 13, 1939).
81 Ibid.
82 Qian Mu 钱穆, Guoshi dagang (国史大纲) (Beijing, 1991), p. 19.
83 See Chen Yinke, “Li Tang shizu zhi tuice houji” 李唐氏族之推測後記, in Jinming guan conggao erbian 金明館叢稿二編 (Shanghai, 1980), p. 303; Young-tsu Wong 汪荣祖, Lun duominzu Zhongguo de wenhua jiaorong 论多民族中国的文化交融, in Huren Hanhua yu Hanren huhua 胡人汉化与汉人胡化, edited by Young-tsu Wong and Lin Guanqun 林冠群 (Yijia, 2006), pp. 1–40; Fei Xiaotong 費孝通, “Plurality and Unity in the Configuration of the Chinese People”, The Tanner lectures on human values, delivered at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Nov.15 and 17, 1988. Chinese version of this lecture is in Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti geju (中華民族多元一體格局), edited by Fei Xiaotong (Beijing, 1999), pp. 3–39; Yao Congwu 姚從吾, “Guoshi kuoda yanmian de yige kanfa (國史擴大綿延的一個看法),” in Dongbei shi luncong 東北史論叢 1 (Taipei, 1959), pp. 1–26.
84 Chen, “Li Tang shizhu”, p. 303.
85 Ho, “defense”, p. 125.
86 Ibid.
