|
|
                 |
Analyse the mixing of ‘Chinese’ and ‘foreign’ in one aspect of society, culture, politics, or economyThe Mongol rule of the Yüan dynasty significantly influenced Chinese culture. It was the first time that a non-Chinese dynasty ruled over all of China. Although it has been argued that the Tang was foreign, the Chinese regarded them as native. There is an ongoing debate among historians as to whether the idea of sinicisation can be applied to the Yüan Dynasty. Despite their defeat by the Mongols, the Chinese believed their superior culture would mesmerise their conquerors. As the core of the sino-centric Chinese worldview was their sense of cultural superiority, the military victories of ‘barbarian’ rulers failed to shake this basic belief, provided they adopted Han culture. The barbarians would be sinicised if they embraced their ethics, clothes, manners, family and bureaucratic systems, the sedentary lifestyle, the agricultural economy and most importantly the Confucian ideology. I agree with Ebrey that the Mongols never fully adopted the Chinese culture, that they were never fully sinicised. For example, they still ate meat, drank and hunted. Most Mongols never learnt Chinese. Significant evidence is the fact that Mongol women never bound their feet. The Yüan dynasty enforced alien marriage practises like the levirate that repelled many Chinese and Chinese marrying Mongol was illegal. The Mongols faced a constant balancing act because they wished to appear sinicised in China whilst at the same time had to appear the opposite to the rest of the empire. The sinicisation thesis is simplistic and one-dimensional. It mistakenly assumes sharp distinctions between Chinese and foreign. For example, that Chinese are literate and ‘barbarians’ are illiterate. It cannot cover the rich and complex relationship between the Han and non-Han in Chinese history. Sinicisation does not work because it omits the effects of the barbarians on the Chinese, for example the Mongols’ promotion of paper money and their patronage of novels and drama that are subsequently seen as traditional parts of Chinese culture. The ‘sinicisation’ was often achieved through ‘barbarianisation’. The monetary compensation legal reforms introduced by the Mongols in the 1291 code were later regarded as completely Chinese as were the neo-Confucianism exams introduced in 1315. The Chinese view of the world was certainly not solely a consequence of Han Chinese culture. It resulted from the attempts of both the Han and non-Han Chinese to respond to change over time. For example, the Confucian literati, unable to govern, greatly advanced education and literature. The foreign influence of the Mongols in religion, trade and architecture deeply contributed to Chinese culture. During the Yüan China was exposed to western religion, cotton, sorghum and medical innovations. Sinicisation omits the subtleties of these complex interactions. The impact of the Yüan Dynasty has been interpreted as positive, negative and of little importance. Historians have contended the Han Chinese despised being ruled by the autocratic, ‘bandit’ Mongols and desired to expel them from the Middle Kingdom. Marco Polo found the ethnic hostility absolute. He said ‘all the Cathaians detested the rule of the great khan… for they treated them just like slaves[1]’. However, Langlois finds it extremely dubious that the Yüan Chinese were anti-Mongol racists[2]. Most Chinese accepted the Mongols as legitimate holders of the Mandate of Heaven, and loyally obeyed their rule. The Ming founder said this in his pronouncements and letters. The Mongols discriminated against the former scholarly elite both socially and politically. Foreigners replaced the ruling class. Central and regional positions were monopolised by Mongols. They preferred employing non-Chinese, even Europeans, in the positions for which no Mongol was available. Chinese were more often employed in non-Chinese regions of the empire. Han Chinese were treated as legally inferior. They were the bottom of the four social categories and were forbidden to congregate or own weapons in case they rebelled. Mongols who murdered Chinese were merely fined. In spite of this, often the domestic life of most Chinese was untouched by Mongol rule. It could even have been described as benign. The Mongols effect on the economy is contentious. They are often accused of having an incredibly negative effect, ending Song economic growth. They are frequently blamed for the population decline in North China. Schurmann said ‘after the Yüan, perhaps during it, China entered a period of decline from which it emerged only in the 20th Century[3]’. He argues that taxation under the Mongols was ruinous, forcing many into slavery. Khubilai Khan protected the peasants, building granaries and taxing them regularly. However, the later, conservative Mongol rulers undoubtedly exploited the peasants. Under the 9 emperors in the 39 years after Khubilai there were severe famines. However, the Yüan greatly benefited the economy, by developing foreign trade, advancing transport infrastructures, developing the extensive relay postal system, carrying out huge public works like the extension of the Grand Canal and promoting paper money. As the Mongols primary aim was to enrich themselves, they never intentionally damaged the economy. The peace they imposed on Asia triggered the greatest expansion of commerce in Eurasian history. The Mongols had numerous other positive effects on Chinese culture. Unlike previous dynasties they bestowed merchants, artisans, physicians, scientists, and engineers a higher social status. All received greater rewards and their fields advanced. For example, the astronomers were able to construct observatories. As in the Jin and Liao dynasties, a rich cultural diversity developed. Before the Yüan, north and south China had been culturally isolated from each other. The differences that existed heightened the impact of reunification. The mutual cultural discovery led to much enthusiasm. Yüan rulers sought to be seen as good Confucian emperors so they favoured and patronised artisans. The artistic freedom they allowed resulted in remarkable advances in textiles, jewellery, and porcelain. Yüan support for the theatre fostered the golden age of Chinese drama. Many cities had dozens of theatres and over 160 plays survive. Guan Hanqing’s The Injustice to Dou E has often been interpreted as a protest against the Yuan but such dissent occurred under native dynasties. Architecture, painting and the novel also flourished. Langlois believes the Mongols brought China peace, tolerance and prosperity. Evidence of their liberal rule is the infrequent capital punishment. There were only 3 executions in 1302[4], although they did use brutal methods such as killing the offender with as many as 120 cuts[5]. There were only 135 offences punishable by death, compared to 293 in the Sung. The contemporary historian Li-Tse-fen thought early Ming scholars had an extremely positive view of the Yüan and the negative view in Chinese historical scholarship emerged only after the Oirat Mongols captured the Ming emperor. Perhaps this episode caused the strong anti Mongol bias of much Chinese historiography. Many historians, like Farqhar insist the Mongols made no real cultural impact. He said that Yüan rule was never as centralised as previously believed and that the ‘Yüan exercised direct, reliable control only over a relatively small section of the realm[6]’. They stress that the Mongols preserved much of Chinese culture in their efforts to appear sinicised. The Yuan kept the Chinese dating system and Confucian rituals. Khubilai Khan’s son was educated in the Confucian style and was designated to rule in the Chinese manner. Even the name Yüan is Chinese. The Mongols never aimed to and were incapable of exercising ideological control over the Chinese people. They never made sustained, methodical attempts influence the way the Chinese thought. They were too few in number and not knowledgeable enough about the Chinese literary tradition to adopt anything but a laissez-faire attitude. The non-Han (se-mu-jen) could not adequately police the administration. Furthermore, the Chinese were never forced to adopt the customs of their conquerors. For example, they could opt out of the levirate. Importantly, Han cultural life continued, the elite still read and wrote books and ordinary Chinese continued to worship Gods of their choice in their own ways. Though the Chinese maintained great freedom they were still affected by Mongol rule. The Yuan did make a significant impact on Chinese culture. I disagree that ‘despite this century of contact, things foreign remained superficial in China, as did the Mongol conquerors themselves[7]’. There are so many examples of the Mongols’ influence, such as their introduction of the more accurate Wan-nien li calendar and western instruments. Modern historians generally accept that Mongol rule had a strong, positive impact on Chinese culture during the Yüan dynasty. Schurmann said ‘it was a decisive period which deeply influenced Chinese society[8]’. Yet it certainly did not fundamentally alter Chinese society or damage their sense of inherent cultural supremacy. The Mongol adoption of Chinese culture reinforced this attitude. I think this was a pragmatic, cynical move by the Yüan rulers calculated to make their rule more successful. The reaction to the Mongol threat profoundly influenced Chinese culture. Han civilisation survived not simply by sinicising the Mongols, but by upholding their own culture, for example, in the Confucian academies. The military outlook of the Mongols intensified the ‘identification of China with the opposite, the arts of peace and order’[9]. Our understanding of the Yüan dynasty will increase in the future because the Yüan legal texts that survive are yet to be accurately translated. Langlois said ‘nor are we very close to the point where we can draw conclusive assessments of the era[10]’ It is problematic to approach this topic in a gendered way due to the lack of evidence in the sources, although evidence exists proving Mongolian women were not fully sinicised. For example, the political freedom they held went against Chinese tradition. It disgusted Confucians that women could command armies. Although a period of significant change, the Yüan dynasty has still not been satisfactorily researched. While China certainly thrived in many ways during the Yüan dynasty, as Langlois says ‘it would probably be a mistake to wax rhapsodic about the merits of Mongol rule…We still do not have enough detailed monographic studies of Yüan local government, to sustain generalisations about Yüan rule[11]’. Bibliography
[1] Patricia Buckley Ebrey, The Cambridge Illustrated History of China, Cambridge University Press, 1999, 174 [2]
John D. Langlois ed., China Under Mongol Rule, Princeton University
Press 1981, 17 [3] H. F. Schurmann, Economic Structure Of The Yüan Dynasty, Harvard University press, 1967, 1 [4] Paul Heng-chao Ch’en, Chinese Legal Tradition under the Mongols: The Code Of 1291 reconstructed, Princeton University Press, USA, 1979, 45 [5] Paul Heng, Chinese Legal Tradition, 43 [6] John D. Langlois ed., China Under Mongol Rule, 20 [8] Schurmann, Economic Structure Of The Yüan Dynasty, 1 [9] Ebrey , The Cambridge History of China, 185 [10] John D. Langlois ed., China Under Mongol Rule, 21 [11] John D. Langlois ed., China Under Mongol Rule, 19 |
|
|