Abstract
There has been a common understanding in literature about the nature of the Chinese nation, that is, the nation is a “cultural formation” as opposed to being a genealogy.1 Therefore, any ethnic group can become Chinese as long it subscribes to the Chinese mainstream culture, especially Confucianism. The cultural argument has had a long history beginning during Confucius’ time. Confucius was widely quoted as one who used the code of dressing to distinguish the Chinese from the barbarians. In fact, in the Chinese political narrative, “under-heaven” is a more popular metaphor than the territorial “state” when talking about the proper domain of the emperor. Under-heaven refers to a morally superior emperor reigning over those like-minded subjects, while the state is at most an extension of the emperors genealogy. The early reference to “hua-xia”—whereby “hua” denotes being Chinese and “xia,” the first recorded dynasty, as the representation of the Chinese civilization—further stresses the importance of culture, as opposed to genealogy, in the Chinese identity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Some argue that this is because the Chinese culture is all-embracing; see Zhou Xing, New Theses on Ethnology [minzuxue xin lun] (Xian: Shanxi People’s Press, 1992), 28. Others argue that this is because the Chinese culture is close to the outside world;
see Zhu Riyao, Cao Deben, and Sun Xiaochun, The Contemporary View of China’s Political Cultural Tradition [zhongguo chuantong zhengzhi wenhua de xiandai sikao] (Changchun: Jilin University Press, 1990), 29.
In fact, in the Western literature, a nation is likewise a modern invention; see Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), Introduction.
Chen Daluo, Historical Review of Chinese Nation Building [zhonghua minzu ronghe licheng kaoshu] (Taipei: Editorial Committee of Chinese Series, National Institute for Compilation and Translation, 1979).
Fei Xiaotong described the Chinese nation as “multiplicity into unity” [duoyuan yiti], which witnesses the process of mix as Fei says, “you come then I go; I come then you go; I have you in me and you have me in you.” See Fei Xiaotong, “The Structure of Multiplicity into Unity of the Chinese Nation” [“zhonghua minzu de duoyuan yiti geju”], Beijing Daxue Xuebao 4 (1989): 1, 11.
Fei actually had a theory of anomaly, which was rarely attended. He specifically argued that there were two forces in the process of national building—centripetal and centrifugal. Fei believed that this was why a nation could rise or fall and form or split. He encouraged newcomers to study this subject. See Fei Xiaotong, “A Brief Review and Recollection of My Ethnological Studies” [“jian shu wode minzu yanjiu jingli he sikao”], Beijing Daxue Xuebao 2 (1997), 1–4.
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1991).
For more discussion, see Chen Yongling, “Exploring a Few Questions about the Research on Han Ethnology” [“tansuo hanzu minzuxue de yanjiu de ji ge wenti”], in Yuan Shaofen and Xu Jieshun (eds.), Han Studies [hanminzu yanjiu] 1 (Nanning: Guangxi Peoples Press, 1989).
Lucian Pye, “China: Erratic State, Frustrated Society,” Foreign Affairs 69, no. 4 (1990): 56–74.
Wu, Yiping, A Brief Review of the Relationship between the Great Chinese Nation and Its Culture [da zhonghua minzu yu qi wenhua zhi guanxi shu lyue], (Tainan, Taiwan: Wendao, 1970), 94–95.
Mellissa Brown, Is Taiwan Chinese?: The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration on Changing Identities (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).
For how the Manchurian court struggled to demonstrate to the Han subjects its assimilation into the Confucian culture, see Jonathan Spence, Treason by the Book (New York: Penguin, 2002).
Yu Yingshi, “The Concept of Nation-state and National Consciousness” [“guo jia guannian yu minzu yish”]), in Cultural Reviews and Feelings toward China [wenhua pinglun yu zhongguo qinghuai], ed. Yu Yingshi, (Taipei: Yunchen, 1988), 19.
See the discussion in Ross Terrill, The New Chinese Empire: And What It Means for the United States (New York: Basic Books, 2003);
Lucian Pye, The Spirit of Chinese Politics (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968).
Liu Xiaomeng, “The Formation of the Chinese Nation in Modern History” [“zhonghua minzu zai jindai lishi zhong de xingcheng”], The Formation and the Growth of the Bonding Power of the Chinese Nation [zhonghua minzu ningju lixingchen yu fazhan], ed. Ma Rong and Zhou Xing, (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 1999), 116–19.
Concerning the complicated relationship between Westernization and nationalism, see Liu Dengge and Zhou Yunfang, The Western Knowledge Coming Eastward and the Eastern Knowledge Going Westward [Xi xue dong jian yu dong xue xi jian] (Beijing: Chinese Social Science Press, 2000), 97–125.
The famous mortuary drama of Yellow River condemns the Chinese culture and calls for an “ocean-oriented” or “blue” renovation. The text was later published and reprinted again and again by a Taiwanese press. See Su Xiaokang and Wang Ruxiang, Death Song of the River [he shang] (Taipei: Fenyun Shidai, 1988).
The major task is to refute the theory that the Chinese originally come from Egypt, India or Babylonia. See Wang Ling, Wei Kaizhao and Wang Caimei, Yellow River, Yellow Soil and the Children of Emperors Yan and Huang [huang he, huang tudi, yan huang zisun] (Beijing: China Bookstore, 1991), 3–12.
Gao Bingzhong, “The Diverse Characteristics of the Chinese Culture and the Sharing of Culture among Nationalities” [“ zhongguo wenhua de duoyang xing yu zu ji wenhua gongxiang]” in The Formation and the Growth of the Bonding Power of the Chinese Nation, ed. Ma Rong and Zhou Xing 246–53 (Beijing: Beijing University Press, 1999).
Genealogy is the indicator of diasporic community. Children of early immigrants remain diasporas because of genealogy. The genealogy argument is the basis for discussion of model minority or model immigrant. See the discussion of Ruth in Old Testimony in Bonnie Honig, “Ruth, the Model émigré: Mourning and the Symbolic Politics of Immigration,” in Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, ed. D. Campbell and M. J. Shapiro, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), 184–210.
For more discussion, see Suo Xiaoxia, Amorphous Links: Succession and Modernization of Ethnic Minorities’ Culture in Guizhou [wuxing de lianjie: guizhou shaoshu minzu wenhua de chuancheng yu xiandaihua] (Guiyang: Guizhou Nationality Press, 2000), 187–200.
Copyright information
© 2007 Chih-yu Shih
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shih, Cy. (2007). Imagined Genealogy: Behind the Cultural Formation of Huishui’s Buyi Nationality. In: Autonomy, Ethnicity, and Poverty in Southwestern China: The State Turned Upside Down. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230609341_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230609341_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-53995-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-60934-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)