Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: January 9, 2021 at 10:17:36 AM EST > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Diplo]: Tagirova on Afinogenov, 'Spies and > Scholars: Chinese Secrets and Imperial Russia's Quest for World Power' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Gregory Afinogenov. Spies and Scholars: Chinese Secrets and Imperial > Russia's Quest for World Power. Cambridge Harvard University Press, > 2020. 384 pp. $45.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-674-24185-5. > > Reviewed by Alsu Tagirova (East China Normal University) > Published on H-Diplo (January, 2021) > Commissioned by Seth Offenbach > > At Kazan University, which is one of the leading centers of oriental > studies[1] in Russia, future sinologists are taught that the > discipline originated with the works of a linguistically talented and > prolific scholar who became the forefather of the discipline, Iakinf > Bichurin. His revered career continues to inspire awe and admiration > among the students of sinology who study at Russian academic > institutions. Therefore, the new book written by Gregory Afinogenov > comes as a revelation, breaking down every myth about the history of > sinology in Russia that the university instructors continue to pass > on to the next generations of Russian scholars. > > The book, of course, accomplishes much more than just that. It > explores the development of the knowledge regime in Russia over the > span of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, > focusing particularly on Russia's China policy. Borrowing the term > from the works of John L. Campbell and Ove Kaj Pedeson, Afinogenov > points out that "knowledge regime" encapsulates the entire complex of > state-based, autonomous, and semiautonomous institutions which > generate data, research, policy recommendations, and other ideas; > these ideas, in turn, allow a state's policy makers to make decisions > (p. 7). > > As the reader discovers, Muscovites began to gather intelligence on > China very early on, as their privileged relationship with the Qing > allowed them greater access to information compared to other European > states. That same privileged access rendered the product of Russian > intelligence a target for foreign espionage. During the Petrine era, > the newly established institutions began to make the distinction > between public and secret information. While the Imperial Academy of > Sciences oversaw the production of scholarship, the College of > Foreign Affairs kept the intelligence-gathering within its purview. > Interestingly enough, no exchange of information existed between > these two institutions. > > In the book, Afinogenov points out that knowledge is a commodity, and > in the absence of market mechanisms, the development of knowledge > becomes conditioned by the will of bureaucrats to support scholarship > and intelligence-gathering. The institutions that no longer produced > the kind of knowledge officials considered useful quickly found > themselves sidelined. Therefore, when global factors began to > influence Russo-Qing relations to a much greater extent, that brought > new possibilities for career development for the Russian experts who > were literate in Chinese and Manchu languages. As the knowledge > regime continued to evolve, these experts found themselves at the > forefront of global competition for power and territories. > > A refreshingly new body of scholarship on the topic has begun to > emerge in recent years. It represents a new generation of scholars > who view the history of bilateral relations through a wider lens, > bringing both global context and individual lives into the story. The > main characteristic of this new scholarship is the departure from > state-to-state diplomacy as the main object of scholarly inquiry. The > multifaceted nature of the Russo-Qing encounters is finally becoming > more acknowledged; therefore, authors like Afinogenov adopt a more > complex, transnational approach to their research. > > The selection of sources and archival work is highly indicative of > this change. The author impresses with his ability to pore over > massive amounts of material preserved in Russian, French, and British > archives, and at the same time, work with secondary sources in > multiple European and Asian languages. The author points out his > decision to exclude Chinese sources and Chinese perspectives from the > narrative (p. 18). Nevertheless, how the work of spies and scholars > was viewed by the Chinese would be an interesting topic to explore in > the future. Whether their efficacy was understood and could they, in > turn, have served as a source of information about the northern > neighbor remains to be further studied. In any case, reading the > testimonies to the abominable lifestyle of the priests in the Russian > Ecclesiastical Mission in Beijing, one sees another reason why the > Qing were not inclined to perceive Russia as a threat and considered > it as nothing but an "unruly border state which was to be pacified" > (p. 12). > > Another important work, by Sören Urbansky, _Beyond the Steppe > Frontier: A History of the Sino-Russian Border,_ was published in > 2020. In it, he explores the encounters between the subjects of two > countries in the Argun basin and reframes the issue of border > formation not only as a state-level, top-down process but also as a > highly personal endeavor. Similarly, Afinogenov's book tells the > stories of people who were personally involved in the acquisition and > production of knowledge, and it is their careers that the reader > observes being propelled or crushed by the needs of the bureaucratic > machine and the knowledge regime of their time. Both works highlight > the role of transborder peoples in facilitating the exchanges between > the two empires. Mongols and Manchus, Buriats and Evenki, Bukharans > and Tatars were all involved in this elaborate system of > intelligence-gathering. Some scholars have argued that such > involvement of non-Russian subjects helped bridge the differences > between Russia and its Asiatic neighbors. Afinogenov, to the > contrary, argues that "in the Chinese context the starkness of > Russia's geopolitical priorities overrode the pluralism of making > knowledge in an empire of difference" (p. 16). > > The book makes a great contribution to scholarly literature by > studying the caravan as an institution. Afinogenov highlights the > numerous and often conflicting goals that a caravan was to achieve. > Far from being an economically profitable enterprise, the caravan was > perceived more as a unique opportunity for intelligence-gathering and > accumulating information. Equally important, it had a role as a > carrier of correspondence between the Jesuits in China and their > counterparts in Europe. In terms of intelligence-gathering, the > agents within the caravans focused on strategic goals--they often > were tasked with acquiring the details of military provisioning and > interethnic relations. Many either prepared the maps of Qing > territories themselves or secretly obtained them from contacts at the > "palace library" (p. 112). > > Afinogenov describes how, in 1755-57, the Qing conquest of the > formerly independent Junghar Confederation led to the conclusion of > the caravan trade. Given the opportunities for intelligence-gathering > that caravans provided, the absence of the latter inadvertently led > to the rise of frontier intelligence as the main source of > information. At the same time, in eastern Siberia, the Russian Empire > created an intelligence network that drew on dozens of agents, spies, > and informers in Mongolia. Its purpose was both to determine the > extent of the Qing threat and to cultivate the likelihood of Mongol > defection. > > By the end of the eighteenth century, Russia found itself apparently > under siege by pinpricks of British encroachment, from spies to naval > raiders. A cloud of conspiracy and intrigues which accompanied the > foreign policymaking of this period, as Afinogenov rightly points > out, soon became a substitute for the deployment of significant armed > forces, because no European state had yet the capacity to dominate > the region militarily. By the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, > this sense of global encirclement became the driving force of Russian > policy toward China. Real threats gradually emerged as responses to > imagined ones. Soon enough, military domination became an important > part of the imperial agenda, so much so that the prospect of newly > gained territories and the personal benefits that arose from it > invited competition within the bureaucratic apparatus of the Russian > Empire. > > As the Russian colonial project began to take shape in the northern > Pacific, the empire had to formulate rhetoric befitting the > ambitiousness of the endeavor. Much the way western European states > justified their conquest with the desire to spread the "true faith" > and "enlighten the backward peoples of the Orient," Russians chose to > believe that their conquest of the lands of the Qing Empire was, in > fact, an attempt to save these lands from British occupation (p. > 252). The book tries to estimate to what extent the spies and > scholars of the Russian Empire were complicit in creating this > rhetoric. > > There have been multiple works examining the connections between > Russian foreign policy and the formation of the intellectual > environment of the empire. Some traced the development of orientalism > to the needs of the state in terms of its relations with the > neighbors[2]; others connected territorial expansion to the wider > debate between Slavophiles and Westernizers about Russian uniqueness > (_samobytnost'_) and the desire for "enlightenment."[3] Afinogenov's > book touches upon all of these topics, showcasing a complex system of > interdependence wherein the foreign policy agenda was formulated > based on intelligence and research, but similarly, intelligence and > research were either encouraged or disregarded based on foreign > policy needs. > > Two different evolutionary processes can be traced throughout the > book. The first is the gradual change in Russia's perception of > itself. Muscovite Russia vividly understood its proximity to Asia and > built its foreign relations accordingly. But starting from the > Petrine era, Russian rulers attempted to remodel society after the > West. And while the Slavophile movement arose in response to this > attempt, the Westernizers' agenda generally prevailed. Ironically, in > the Chinese context, this pro-Western approach ultimately left > Imperial Russia unable to make use of the advantage it had over the > European powers. Many insightful works of earlier scholars were > shelved in libraries, never to be consulted again. And by the middle > of the nineteenth century, Afinogenov demonstrates, Russian academia > made a conscious effort to forget the legacy of the past in order to > build a disciplinary future. > > The second evolutionary process is Russia's changing perception of > China. The Far East for a long time was not the main direction for > Russian territorial expansion; the Russian colonial project began to > include these lands only at a later stage. This was in part due to > the widely accepted view of the Qing Empire as a dangerous rival, > with which one should maintain border trade rather than engage in > war. It was through the territorial encroachment of Western powers > that Russia finally realized the weakness of the Qing and chose to > reinvent itself as an expansionist power in the region. Most of the > conquest came from the desire to renegotiate the relationship; it was > almost always driven by an understanding that the Western powers got > a better deal in their interactions with the Qing Empire.[4] Both of > these evolutionary processes were largely defined by the gradual > integration of Russia into the European tradition of governance and > the adaptation of the Eurocentric worldview. > > The book is undoubtedly a wonderful scholarly accomplishment. The > ability to analyze historical texts in a variety of languages and > identify the instances of blatant plagiarism is only one of many > impressive skills that the author demonstrates throughout the book. > His grasp of linguistic intricacies is so thorough that in several > cases he is able to identify the probable origin of the source behind > the intelligence reports based solely on the use of certain words. > Eloquent and skillfully researched, the book is a must-read for > anyone interested in the history of Sino-Russian relations. > > _Alsu Tagirova is Research Fellow at the Academy of History and > Documentation of Socialism, East China Normal University, Shanghai. > Her research interests include the history of Sino-Soviet relations, > the Korean Peninsula, and Central Asia. Her doctoral dissertation was > on the history of Soviet public diplomacy in China. Her current > project is on the history of the Sino-Soviet border._ > > Notes > > [1]. The term is used here neutrally; in Russia it is a widely > accepted generic term that incorporates Asian, African, and Middle > Eastern studies. > > [2]. See, for instance: David Schimmelpennick van der Oye, _Russian > Orientalism: Asia in the Russian Mind from Peter the Great to the > Emigration_ (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010); and Mark > Bassin, _Imperial Visions: Nationalist Imagination and Geographical > Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840-1865_ (Cambridge: Cambridge > University Press, 1999). > > [3]. Nathaniel Knight, "Grigor'ev in Orenburg, 1851-1862: Russian > Orientalism in the Service of Empire," _Slavic Review _59, no. 1 > (2000): 74-100. > > [4]. See, for instance, Akifumi Shioya, "The Treaty of Ghulja > Reconsidered: Imperial Russian Diplomacy toward Qing China in 1851," > _Journal of Eurasian Studies _10, no. 2_ _(2019): 147-58. > > Citation: Alsu Tagirova. Review of Afinogenov, Gregory, _Spies and > Scholars: Chinese Secrets and Imperial Russia's Quest for World > Power_. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. January, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55501 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5325): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/5325 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/79549614/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
