To what extent can it be claimed that the governmental and intellectual elite of the Qing dictated the parameters of ‘popular culture’?

I have decided to publish online, by chapter, my 3rd year BA (Hons) History Independent Study Project (ISP) as completed at The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London in the academic year September 2008 - June 2009. My focus area for said degree was the region 'East Asia', further coming to concentrate on early modern Chinese popular culture and the development of religious practices throughout Imperial history. I was awarded a First Class grade for this module by Professor T. H. Barrett.

I: Introduction

The aim of this study is to explore the concept of ‘culture[1]’ within early Qing China[2]. Chinese society was rigidly hierarchical, with the elite, literati class staffing a bureaucracy whose purpose was to effectively govern and organize general society, thereby ensuring prosperity and equilibrium. As thus, the state employed methods through which to control and mould general society into an utilizable entity, leading one to question the relationship between elite ideals and popular practice: the extent to which ‘popular culture’, the organization, values, beliefs and relationships that existed within the community, for example in systems of work, family organization and religious belief, was a product of state orthodoxy or, alternatively, existed separately to elite ideals and values, warranting independent scholarly attention. It therefore becomes essential, and core to the purpose of the present paper, to explore not only the relationship between the state and general society, the extent to which popular systems of belief, values and mechanisms of interaction were defined by the state, but also examine general society as it existed on its own terms in order to ascertain a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms of popular, ‘peasant’ culture: how general society existed in early Qing China. The historian, in reconstructing Qing China, requires more than the tools traditionally placed at his disposal. To acquire a thorough understanding of Chinese culture, the practices extant throughout China as a whole and not merely contained within an elite minority, it is necessary to acknowledge and employ the skills of other academic disciplines. The past existed beyond orthodox economic, political and social practices exhibited in governmental documentation, and in investigating the logic behind social interaction and systems of belief on both a popular and ‘official’ level a more true understanding of the forces that directed China’s history.

To reach a conclusion as to how popular culture was constructed during early Qing China three key areas will be considered:

Firstly, chapter two explicitly explores the relationship between the Qing state and it’s bearing on the values, beliefs and systems of interaction present within general society, examining the extent to which the state successfully standardized ideals of virtue, in particular widow fidelity and female chastity. Tracing the chastity virtue in early Qing gives direct insight into an attempt on behalf of the state to propagate orthodoxy, dictating ‘correct’ and acceptable behavioural norms through instilling said norms into the popular mentality.

Secondly, chapter three attempts to understand ‘peasant’ culture on its own terms through examining culture on a ‘root level’, looking specifically at internal and external relationships, may these be social, economic, political or otherwise, and exploring the influences and differences, if any, between socially, economically and politically different entities.

Thirdly, chapter four considers the extent to which popular culture implies creativity, the ability of individuals to make conscious decisions, will and want on a personal basis, and not simply as members of a social unit. To achieve this sexual identity, in particular the existence of same-sex relationships will be explored. Such a case study will provide a means through which the existence of volition, emotions and desires personally constructed regardless of the mechanisms underling functional social, economic and political systems can be assessed.

Through considering the aforementioned areas a comprehensive understanding of popular culture, both in relation to the state and on its own terms, can be achieved. The primary line of argument will follow that popular culture in the early Qing cannot be understood simply through considering the official standpoint, those ideals propagated by the state and which directed policy and practice. While the state machine exercised influence and enforced particularities within general society, this was but only one of many relationships constituting cultural practice. Although the state attempted to dictate normative behaviour and modes of interaction, there existed less a connection between elite and popular spheres because of pressure asserted from the top down and more two cultural identities capable of unique expression which share a common bond through principles born in tradition, such as those values governing family politics. While the work of G. William Skinner and Patricia Ebrey demonstrates the significance of examining the specific mechanisms governing particular social units and institutions, illuminating that beyond the influence of the relationship held with orthodoxy existed a cultural inimitability; it becomes clear that it is essential to examine explicitly said mechanisms on a personal level in order to truly reconstruct the multiple relationships that constitute Chinese culture. Exploring same-sex relationships in Qing society aids in tracing the relationship between the individual and the different institutions, such as the family, the community, the state, which externally exist as ‘Chinese culture’, illuminating both the perseverance of personal enthusiasm in constructing ones cultural sphere and an underlying unity born in tradition.

---

[1] The examination of culture raises methodological and intellectual considerations that need to be outlined, if only for reflection. Firstly, levels of analysis need to go beyond historical scholasticism, incorporating statistical methods, anthropology and religious studies, to name but a few. This in turn raises questions over the importance of alternative methods available to the historian. However the magnitude of this question will and cannot be adequately answered here. Secondly, this analysis cannot sufficiently approach the question of how culture should be defined. Therefore it will take Leon J. Goldstein’s nominal definition that the author “should state explicitly and unambiguously what they mean by ‘culture’…”. Such a definition has been outlined in the opening paragraph.

[2] The period under question specifically refers to the ‘early Qing’, encompassing the reigns of Nurhaci, Huang Taiji, Shunzhi Emperor, Kangxi Emperor, Yongzheng Emperor, Qianlong Emperor and Jiaqing Emperor. However, due to the fact the Manchu rulers were alien, not being native to the geographical region they came to control, allusions to the practices evinced during late Ming China may be appropriated to provide a more plenary understanding of general convenance.