Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T21:35:19.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chinese Xenology and the Opium War: Reflections on Sinocentrism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2014

Dilip K. Basu
Get access

Abstract

Editor's Note: The essay that follows is based on a conference paper by Dilip K. Basu that has long circulated informally, in the process exercising an unusually high degree of influence for an unpublished commentary. Most notably, some ideas embedded in it have been spread via literary scholar Lydia Liu's engagement with and quoting of the paper in The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making (Liu 2006), a provocative and much-cited book that calls for a radical rethinking of some of the standard terms and concepts used in the past to refer to the Qing Empire's ties to and conflicts with other political and territorial units. Those familiar with Liu's work will find here an essay that complements some arguments in her book; those who have not read it will be introduced to those ideas for the first time. Beyond this, though, all readers will find a discussion of various ideas and events—visions of China's place in the world, how the story of the Opium War is thought about in different settings, the history of Sinology—shaped by personal as well as scholarly concerns.

The essay's ties to the author's life and associations, which come into play more as the essay proceeds, make it a good fit with the goals of our recently introduced and still evolving “Reflections” genre. In addition, since it revisits critically ideas about China associated with the work of John K. Fairbank, it can be placed well beside some of the essays published in the “Legacies” series launched by Kenneth George, in his time as editor of the journal. And regular attendees of the Association for Asian Studies annual meetings may notice that much that follows resonates with the keynote address by Amitav Ghosh, one of those familiar with Basu's essay in draft form, when that conference was held in Toronto in 2012. The pages that follow are tightly focused on China, but Basu's discussion of “xenology” (a term for the ways that cultures think about those deemed “others,” which has, of course, the same root as the more familiar term “xenophobia”) clearly has implications for widely varied times and places, just as the handling of Fairbank's distinctive role in Chinese studies may bring to mind parallels to the influence that other prominent Western academics from the last century once shaped and via their legacies can continue to shape academic work on other parts of Asia. While focused tightly on China, in other words, it has much to offer readers whose primary interest is not in that country.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 73 , Issue 4 , November 2014 , pp. 927 - 940
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Alcock, Rutherford. 1882. “The Opium Trade.” Journal of the Society of Arts 30:201–27.Google Scholar
Bhabha, Homi K. 1995. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Creel, Herrlee Glessner. 1970. What Is Taoism? And Other Studies in Chinese Cultural History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John King. 1953. Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842–1854. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John King. 1959. United States and China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John King. 1967. China: the People's Middle Kingdom and the U.S.A. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John King, ed. 1968. The Chinese World Order: Traditional China's Foreign Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John King, Reischauer, Edwin O., and Craig, Albert M.. 1965. East Asia, the Modern Transformation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John King, and Ssu-yü, Têng, eds. 1961. China's Response to the West: A Documentary Survey, 1839–1923. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fairbank, John King, and Ssu-yü, Têng. [1961] 1968. Ch'ing Administration: Three Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, Gang. 2013. The Qing Opening to the Ocean: Chinese Maritime Policies, 1684–1757. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Goodrich, Chauncey S. 1984. “Riding Astride and the Saddle in Ancient China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 44(2):279–306.Google Scholar
Tingyi, Guo. 1947. Jindai Zhongguo shi [Modern Chinese history]. 2 vols. Shanghai.Google Scholar
Halbfass, Wilhelm. 1988. India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hart, Robert. 1975. The I.G. in Peking: Letters of Robert Hart, Chinese Maritime Customs, 1868–1907. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tingfu, Jiang. [1939] 1996. Zhongguo jindaishi dagang [Outline of modern Chinese history]. Beijing: Dongfang chubanshe.Google Scholar
Lattimore, Owen. 1951. Inner Asian Frontiers of China. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, H. H. 1840. Is the War with China a Just One? London: James Ridgway.Google Scholar
Liu, Lydia. 2006. The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maddox, Donald. 1989. “Veridiction, Verifiction, Verifactions: Reflections on Methodology.” New Literary History 20(3):661–77.Google Scholar
Matheson, James. 1836. The Present Position and Prospects of the British Trade with China. London: Smith, Elder.Google Scholar
Meadows, Thomas T. 1847. Desultory Notes on the Government and People of China, and on the Chinese Language. London: W. H. Allen and Co.Google Scholar
Meadows, Thomas T. 1853. On the Meaning of the Word “E” Used by the Chinese Government to Designate Foreigners. Shanghai: Herald.Google Scholar
Meadows, Thomas T. 1856. The Chinese and Their Rebellions, Viewed in Connection with Their National Philosophy, Ethics, Legislation, and Administration, to Which Is Added an Essay on Civilization and Its Present State in the East and West. London: Smith, Elder & Co.Google Scholar
Medhurst, W. H, and Thoms., P. P. 1852. Remar ks on the Signification of the Chinese Character E. Hong Kong: Printed at the “Hongkong register” Office.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1995. “Translator Translated. (Interview with Cultural Theorist Homi Bhabha).” Artforum 33(7):80–84. https://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/bhabha/interview.html (accessed September 5, 2014).Google Scholar
Morrison, Robert. 1815. A Dictionary of the Chinese Language in Three Parts. Macao: East India Co. Press.Google Scholar
Morse, Hosea Ballou. 1910. The International Relations of the Chinese Empire: The Period of Conflict, 1834–1860. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Niranjana, Tejaswini. 1992. Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Overland Friend of China. 1852. August.Google Scholar
Parliamentary Papers. 1840. Correspondence Relating to China, 1840. Public Record Office, London: FO677/9.Google Scholar
Schafer, Edward H. 1963. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A Study of T'ang Exotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Silbergeld, Jerome. 1984. “In Praise of Government: Chao Yung's Painting, Noble Steeds, and Late Yüan Politics.” Artibus Asiae 46(3):159–202.Google Scholar
Staunton, George Thomas. 1836. Remarks on the British Relations with China, and the Proposed Plans for Improving Them. London: E. Lloyd.Google Scholar
Swisher, Earl. 1953. China's Management of the American Barbarians: A Study of Sino-American Relations, 1841–1861, with Documents. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, Chung. 1973. “On Sinocentrism: A Critique.” China Report 9(5):38–50.Google Scholar
Thoms, P. P. 1853. The Emperor of China v. the Queen of England: A Refutation of the Arguments Contained in the Seven Official Documents Transmitted by Her Majesty's Government at Hong Kong, Who Maintain That the Documents of the Chinese Government Contain Insulting Language. London: P. P. Thoms.Google Scholar
Lien-sheng, Yang. 1969. Excursions in Sinology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yule, Henry, and Burnell, A. C.. [1886] 1990. Hobson-Jobson: The Anglo-Indian Dictionary. Calcutta: Rupa & Co.Google Scholar
Zhongfu, Zhang. 1933. “Yapian zhanzhengqian Qingting banli waijiao chi jiguan yu shouxu” [The Qing court's diplomatic methods and procedures before the opium war]. Waijiao yuehpao 2(2):1–7.Google Scholar