Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: April 27, 2021 at 4:21:14 PM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Asia]: Brindley on Yang, 'The Way of the > Barbarians: Redrawing Ethnic Boundaries in Tang and Song China' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Shao-yun Yang. The Way of the Barbarians: Redrawing Ethnic > Boundaries in Tang and Song China. Seattle University of Washington > Press, 2019. xii + 229 pp. $95.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-295-74602-9; > $30.00 (paper), ISBN 978-0-295-74603-6. > > Reviewed by Erica Brindley (Penn State) > Published on H-Asia (April, 2021) > Commissioned by Bradley C. Davis > > Yang Shao-yun's The Way of the Barbarians is an important > contribution to the study of ethnicity and changing rhetorical > strategies involving the ever-evolving construction of Chinese > identity in premodern China. Its dedicated account of debates on > Chineseness and barbarism during the Tang-Song eras--in particular, > in the Confucian Guwen and Daoxue movements--sheds light on the > development of ethnocentric discourses that wove together morality > and identity so as to justify the superiority of certain strands of > Chinese culture, learning, and history. Taken together, such debates > suggest how fundamental the Tang-Song eras were in the creation and > consolidation of a distinct and exclusionary, ethnocentric vision of > the self. Yang refers to this ethnocentric self, in particular its > emphasis on superiority and centrality, in terms of a supremacist > myth that has been sustained throughout millennia. > > In an attempt to avoid the heavy-handed labels invoked by recent > scholars, such as "xenophobic," "proto-nationalistic," or even > "culturalist," Yang coins the labels "ethnicized orthodoxy" and > "ethnocentric moralism" and applies them to various strands of the > Tang-Song Guwen and Daoxue movements. These terms link authors to > their intellectual and moral agendas at the time. Also, by > identifying these movements as "ethnicized" or "ethnocentric" and not > just "culturalist," Yang highlights the clear ethnic component of > these views, which seems to elaborate on the well-known ancient > passage, _Analects_ 3.5, that the "Yidi" (barbarians), even with > rulers, are still not better than the "Zhuxia" (Chinese; "many > various Xia") without them. > > To my mind, a real strength of Yang's account lies not in the > reframing of these discourses in terms of either ethnicized orthodoxy > or ethnocentric moralism but in the plethora of analyses Yang > provides of the changing views of the Chinese self and other in this > critical period. Yang's discussion of debate after debate--going back > to Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan in the Tang, moving to the ninth century > and then on into the Song to consider Daoxue in the eleventh and > twelfth centuries--is astounding for its thoroughness and deep > knowledge of the textual tradition. Yang establishes a very clear > account of key sets of debates that helped define "Chineseness" in > the context of political and intellectual contingencies, asking not > just what it meant for these authors to refer to others as > "barbarians," but to what extent such authors were actually even > interested in criticizing barbarians, as opposed to launching a > critique of themselves and certain "barbarized Chinese." > > The book also provides a helpful excavation of shockingly resolute > and sometimes extreme orientations on the Chinese-barbarian > dichotomy. Of great interest as well are Yang's accounts of the > animosity certain Guwen and Daoxue thinkers had not just toward > barbarians and Buddhism (as an alien belief system) but toward > allegedly heterodox intellectual traditions that were deeply > entrenched in Chinese history. Yang shows that some attempts at > creating a classicist orthodoxy were not intellectually or > politically neutral; they utilized ethnicized discourses to denigrate > any way of thinking that was not associated with their own idea of > the Way of the Sages. This amounted to a denigration of the views of > the Daoists, Yangists and Mohists, and Legalists, and not just the > Buddhists, who were more clearly associated with non-Chinese, South > Asian roots. > > In early China, the Hua-Xia (or what Yang calls the "Chinese") self > was intimately tied to the geopolitical interaction sphere of the > _Zhongguo_ (Central States) and a heritage steeped in ritual > practices and moral traditions that reputedly stemmed from founding > sages in the ancient past. While Shao-yun Yang's book is firmly > rooted in the Tang-Song eras and does not engage extensively in > comparative work that shows how the ideas during the Tang-Song eras > were significantly different from those from before, he does, rather > frequently, show how authors used ancient orientations toward Central > States morality and identity. He especially shows that they drew from > the language found in the classical texts and expounded on certain > evocative statements regarding Chinese superiority. > > Because Yang chooses not to compare Tang-Song views with what had > come before, he neither tries to demonstrate that the Tang and Song > periods were categorically different from earlier views nor to show > that they were on the same continuum. Yet the sheer power of the > vituperative language used by some of the Tang-Song authors against > certain perceived "outsider" ways and traditions makes one wonder if > we are witnessing a new and important historical phase in the > articulation and construction of the notion of Chinese ethnicity. We > also wonder if the writings Yang examines played a decisive or > impactful role in shaping the direction of future discourses on > Chinese ethnicity. While the reasons that Yang does not stray very > far from the chronological limits of the Tang-Song periods are clear > (there is certainly more than enough to tackle there), I do think > that Yang might have highlighted more clearly for the reader how this > particular moment in history seems to have been special (or not), and > in just what ways it was (or was not) different from what came before > and after. > > One of Professor Yang's key insights is that the Chinese-barbarian > dichotomy was not entirely determined by political change but had a > developmental logic of its own based in changes in intellectual taste > among the elite. This is interesting and likely true in many ways. > Yang certainly wields a plethora of evidence to show the changes that > occurred in thought and rhetoric among the thinkers he examines. He > readily provides important information about the specific contexts > that each author found himself in, politically or personally, and > such explanations of the rationale behind their thinking are > especially helpful. But more could be done to go beyond individual > authors and their personal or political leanings to explain larger > sociopolitical and intellectual trends of the time. This is > especially the case concerning the relationship between Buddhism and > imperial favor or support, and how such a relationship might have > impacted larger intellectual trends at specific moments in time. > > Yang's _The Way of the Barbarians_ is a well-written and grounded > account of the attitudes of various late Tang and Song intellectuals > towards the self-other distinction. It makes the important claim that > the Guwen movement radicalized notions of the Chinese self by > equating it with an exclusively classicist tradition of teachings and > by criticizing all nonclassicist teachings as barbarous and dangerous > in their approaches to education and morality. It examines key > thinkers associated with both the Guwen and Daoxue movements to show > how they moored Chineseness to a selective cultural heritage while > reformulating "tradition" and promoting a new stance towards > ethnicized others. Most importantly, it recasts the intellectual > history of the Tang-Song periods in terms of ethnicity and the > profound entanglement of emergent notions of Chinese identity with > moral discourses at the time. > > Citation: Erica Brindley. Review of Yang, Shao-yun, _The Way of the > Barbarians: Redrawing Ethnic Boundaries in Tang and Song China_. > H-Asia, H-Net Reviews. April, 2021. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54869 > > 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 (#8268): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8268 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/82427362/21656 -=-=- 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. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
