下载
加入VIP
  • 专属下载券
  • 上传内容扩展
  • 资料优先审核
  • 免费资料无限下载

上传资料

关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 [美]柯娇燕:帝国之于边缘:近代中国文化、族群性与边界(加州大学 2006)

[美]柯娇燕:帝国之于边缘:近代中国文化、族群性与边界(加州大学 2006)

[美]柯娇燕:帝国之于边缘:近代中国文化、族群性与边界(加州大…

Stlnz
2008-09-19 0人阅读 举报 0 0 0 暂无简介

简介:本文档为《[美]柯娇燕:帝国之于边缘:近代中国文化、族群性与边界(加州大学 2006)pdf》,可适用于人文社科领域

EmpireattheMarginsThisvolumeandtheconferencefromwhichitresultedweresupportedbytheJointCommitteeonChineseStudiesoftheAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocietiesandtheSocialScienceResearchCouncilEmpireattheMarginsCulture,Ethnicity,andFrontierinEarlyModernChinaEDITEDBYPamelaKyleCrossley,HelenFSiu,andDonaldSSuttonUNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIAPRESSBerkeleyLosAngelesLondonUniversityofCaliforniaPressBerkeleyandLosAngeles,CaliforniaUniversityofCaliforniaPress,LtdLondon,England©byTheRegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniaLibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataEmpireatthemargins:culture,ethnicity,andfrontierinearlymodernChinaeditedbyPamelaKyleCrossley,HelenSiu,andDonaldSuttonpcm(StudiesonChina)Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindexisbn(cloth:alkpaper)EthnicityChinaHistoryChinaEthnicrelationsHistoryITitle:Culture,ethnicity,andfrontierinearlymodernChinaIICrossley,PamelaKyleIIISiu,HelenFIVSutton,DonaldSVSeriesdse''dcManufacturedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofansinisoz(r)(PermanenceofPaper)contentsacknowledgmentsviinotestoreadersixIntroductionpartiidentityattheheartofempireEthnicityintheQingEightBannersMarkCElliottMakingMongolsPamelaKyleCrossley“AFierceandBrutalPeople”:OnIslamandMuslimsinQingLawJonathanNLipmanpartiinarrativewarsatthenewfrontiersTheQingandIslamontheWesternFrontierJamesAMillwardandLauraJNewbyTheCantofConquest:TusiOfficesandChina’sPoliticalIncorporationoftheSouthwestFrontierJohnEHermanpartiiioldcontestsofthesouthandsouthwestTheYaoWarsintheMidMingandtheirImpactonYaoEthnicityDavidFaureEthnicityandtheMiaoFrontierintheEighteenthCenturyDonaldSSuttonEthnicity,Conflict,andtheStateintheEarlytoMidQing:TheHainanHighlands,–AnneCsetepartivunchartedboundariesEthnicLabelsinaMountainousRegion:TheCaseofShe“Bandits”WinghoiChanLineage,Market,Pirate,andDan:EthnicityinthePearlRiverDeltaofSouthChinaHelenFSiuandLiuZhiweiConclusionnotesoncontributorsbibliographyglossaryofcharactersindexacknowledgmentsWebeganwithaconferencesupportedbytheJointCommitteeoftheSocialScienceResearchCouncilandtheAmericanCouncilofLearnedSocieties,andtheHenryLuceFoundationTheconferencewasheldatDartmouthCollegeinMayofParticipantsincludedhistoriansandanthropologists,ChinaandnonChinaspecialistsWewouldliketoacknowledgetheirvaluableintellectualcontributionsandnotetheiraffiliationsin:WinghoiChan(YaleUniversity,Anthropology),NicoladiCosmo(HarvardUniversity,EastAsianLanguagesandCivilization),PamelaKyleCrossley(DartmouthCollege,History),AnneCsete(StLawrenceUniversity,AsianStudies),DaleEickelman(DartmouthCollege,Anthropology),MarkElliott(UniversityofCaliforniaatSantaBarbara,History),DavidFaure(OxfordUniversity,InstituteforChineseStudies),JohnHerman(VirginiaPolytechnicUniversity,History),HuYing(UniversityofCaliforniaatIrvine,ComparativeLiterature),RichardFox(WashingtonUniversity,Anthropology),JamesMillward(GeorgetownUniversity,History),SusanNaquin(PrincetonUniversity,History),LauraJNewby(OxfordUniversity,InstituteforChineseStudies),EmikoOhnukiTierney(UniversityofWisconsin,Anthropology),MorrisRossabi(Queen’sCollegeandCUNYGraduateCenter,History),WilliamTRowe(JohnsHopkinsUniversity,History),JamesScott(YaleUniversity,PoliticalScience),RichardShen(PrincetonUniversity,EastAsianStudies),HelenSiu(YaleUniversity,Anthropology),DonaldSutton(CarnegieMellonUniversity,History),andourJointCommitteeobserver,RobertWeller(BostonUniversity)Itisnevereasytoputtogetheramanuscriptinvolvingthreeeditorsandtwelveauthorsspreadacrosstheglobe,andwithvaryingacademictrajectoriesJustaswefoundremarkablesharingofintellectualconcernsduringtheconference,thefinalproduct,wehope,highlightsadegreeofsynergyTheproblemofdelayisours,andwesincerelythankourauthorsandcolleaguesviifortheirpatienceandoccasionalhumorWeareparticularlyappreciativeofSueNaquin,WilliamRowe,andJamesScottforinsistingonseeingthefinalproductTheanonymousreviewersweremosthelpfulwiththeirsuggestionsDrMayBoChing,LiuZhiwei,YukikoTonoike,OuDonghong,andVenusLeehavekindlyprovidedsomeordertothehistoricalmapsandtoglossarieswithethnic,regionalnuancesWealsothankSheilaLevine,ReedMalcolm,MarySeverance,KaliciaPivirotto,andElizabethBerg,editorsandstaffoftheUniversityofCaliforniaPress,fornotlosingfaithLastbutnotleast,webowbeforeourmostable,thoughtful,andpersistenteditorialassistant,GailMVernazzaWithoutherdetermination,theprojectmightstillexistsomewhereinourimaginationviiiacknowledgmentsnotestoreadersUNITSOFMEASUREMENTSmu=acrecatty=lbqing=mu=acrestael=ozofsilverMINGANDQINGREIGNNAMESANDDATESmingHongwu–Jianwen–Yongle–HongxiXuande–Zhengtong–Jingtai–Tianshun–Chenghua–Hongzhi–Zhengde–Jiajing–Longqing–Wanli–TaichangTianqi–Chongzhen–ixqingShunzhi–Kangxi–Yongzheng–Qianlong–Jiaqing–Daoguang–Xianfeng–Tongzhi–Guangxu–Xuantong–ANOTEONSTYLESomeofourcontributorsworkinfieldsinwhichthereisnoclearconsensusregardingstandardtransliterationofnamesandtermsWehavenotinsistedthatcontributorsdepartfromtheirestablishedpracticesintheirpublishedworksThisresultsinminorinconsistencies,suchasthepersonalnameofQingTaizuappearingasbothNurhaciandNurgaci,orreferencestotheterritoryofpresentdayXinjiangasAltishahrorEasternTurkestanTheeditorshavestriventoavoidconfusionforreadersbyaskingcontributorstocontextualizevariantreferences,andthroughunifyingvariantreferencesintheindexxnotestoreadersIntroductionPamelaKyleCrossley,HelenFSiu,andDonaldSSuttonEthnicityisaprocess,whichimpliesbeginningsandendingsSomepeoples,suchastheAvarsandtheKitans,havefewornodescendantswhoclaimtheiridentitiesOthers,suchastheUyghurs,andtheQiangandMiao,haveadoptedthenamesandthehistoricalclaimsofmuchearlierpeoplestowhomtheyhaveatbestaproblematicconnectionStillothers,suchastheManchus,cannotbetracedbeforetheearlymodernperiodEthnicphenomenanotonlyaredynamicacrosstime,butareproducedbyintertwiningactsofnamingothersandnamingoneself,usingdistinctly“ethnic”institutionsoflanguage,religion,economicactivity,orfamilyorganizationorusingnoexternalmarkersatallandrelyingsolelyonconsciousnessofdifferenceandsimilaritySomeofthenominalizingoriginateswiththestate,somewithlocalcommunities,somewithindividualsIntotalthesemechanismsproduce“centers”and“peripheries,”“histories,”“nationalities,”and“culturalothers”thatarediscernibleonthesocial,cultural,orideologicalcanvas,andthatplayouttherotationsofdominance,submission,resistance,conversion,orsubversionTheydelineatehistoriesofidentities,embeddedinandelucidatingthehistoriesofstates,societies,andculturesEthnicityisproducedbysociopoliticalordersthatarestratifiedbyassociationsofcertainregionsandcertainculturalinstitutionswiththe“normal,”“classic,”or“formal”Populationgroupsidentifiedwiththesenormativeinstitutionsare,inthetwentiethcentury,usuallyplayingthe“national”rolevisàvisthe“ethnic”populationsConstructionandenforcementofnationalcriteriaisadefinitivestateenterpriseIndeedallmodernnationalrepublicscanbeshowntohavedefinedtheirnationalpopulationsthroughthebackwardprocessofidentifyingtheir“ethnic”groupsThoughthereadersometimesmeetsthetermmultinationalinthedescriptionofcertainkindsofmodernstates,thisisaverymisleadingdescriptionNationshave,asahistoricalnecessity,onlyone“national”groupOthers,whetherdefinedbyhistoricalorbyculturalstandards,playtheroleofmarginalizedethnicitiesMostnationshave,indeed,morethanoneethnicgroupwithintheirbordersButthesegroupsdonotplaytheroleofthenational,normativepopulationTheimportanceofbeingpreciseintheuseofthesetermsbecomesclearwhenoneturnstotheperiodbetweenand,theroughchronologicalframeworkofourbookTheMing(–)andQing(–)empireswereprofoundlydifferentwithrespecttotheirperceivedstructureofnationalandethnicpopulationsIntheMingperiod,anationalgroupwithintheempirehappenedtobeveryclearlydefinedusuallybyculture,butinsomeinstancesbygenealogyTheQingstructurewasquitedifferent,particularlybeforethenineteenthcenturyInthatcase,adistinctiveformofrulershipboundagroupofhistoricallydefinedpopulationsofnorthernandeasternAsiaintoaconsolidatedconquestelite,andvigorouslynurturedatheoreticaldistinctionbetweenthemandtheobjectsoftheconquestIntheeighteenthcenturythefadingoftheconquestwasaccompaniedbymanycomplexchangesinthedefinitionsandstatusoftheimperiallyorientedpopulations,butnotwiththeresultthata“national”populationemergedRather,thelingeringcentralitiesandmarginalitiesoftheMingperiodremainedidentifiable,andmanyregionsvigorous,beneaththeformal,newlyhistoricizedhierarchiesoftheQingconquestTheresultwasacacophonyofculturaldynamicsthroughouttheempire,insomecasesproducingnewclarificationsofloyalties,identities,andcommunities,andinothersobscuringpatternsthatmighthavebeenclearerormoremeaningfulinearliercenturiesAlltheseprocesseswereancestraltotheculturalconfigurationsofmodernChinaandinsomecasestothesocietiesofMongolia,Kazakhstan,Burma,andotherneighborsAllmustbeoutlinedandconsideredbeforearenderingofcontemporaryChinesesocietyandcultureispossibleButethnicityashistorycannotbeseparatedfromtheevidentiaryprocessesbywhichallhistoryisunderstooditcannotbemorereal,moreimportant,ormoreprimarythanthemanifestationsbywhichitisrecognizedForthesereasons,ethnicityinhistoricalcontextquicklyaccruestoitselfthequalificationsofanyevidentiaryproblemItscharacter,itsappearanceascauseoreffect(orboth),itsconnectionstorelatedphenomenaortheirinterpretationsnationalism,sectarianism,dissidence,empowerment,ordisenfranchisementallbecomeextraordinarilychallengingtodescriptionandanalysisThisvolumeisanattempttoaddresstherelativesparsenessofhistoricalstudiesofethnicityinearlymodernChinesehistory,andinevitablydemonstratesthedifficultiesthatmakethesestudiessouncommonThehistorians’problemofsourcesandfacts,however,ismitigatedbytheintroductionparticipationofanthropologists,whocansometimesfillinthegapsinthehistoricalrecordAndso,evenasourvolumeisafflictedbytheextremedifficultyofteasinghistoriesof“ethnic”consciousnessandexperiencefromdocumentaryremains,itisstrengthenedbytheaffinitiesofhistoriansandanthropologistsacrosstheirdisciplinarydividesThechaptershighlightcrucialmomentswhenimperialmachineriesattemptedtocreatewhatJamesScotthascalled“legiblestatespaces”intheirperceivedfrontiersCharacterizationsoftimeandspaceinthisvolumearepositedontheimplicitunderstandingthatthehumansocialconditionperpetuallygeneratesfrontiers,dismantlesthem,andgeneratesnewonesThesefrontiersaresometimesatthepoliticalbordersofempires,butveryoftentheyarelocatedatsocial,economic,orculturalfissuresinternaltoapoliticalorderWewouldliketodissectofficiallanguage,asrepresentedinannals,gazetteers,legalstatutes,andadministrativeregulationsinordertosortouttheideologiesofthecenterfromtheshiftingexperiencesofthoseinthe“frontier”regionsWeexplorehowstatediscoursefunctionedincontrollingandassimilatingpopulationsovertlyconsideredalientobutneverthelessobjectsoftheempireWeexaminewhoparticipatedinthediscursiveproductionsofethnicity,whetherethnicmarkingswereacceptedorrejectedbythetargets,andultimatelyhowpressuresworkontheindividualandthecommunitytopromotediverseresponsesEquallyimportantisrecognizingnativevoicesinlineagerecords,rituals,communityfestivals,andreligioustextsTheywereexpressionsoflocalagentswhosoughttoidentify,differentiate,andnegotiatewitharealorimaginedcenterWewishtoexaminetheevidenceforknowledgeofhowtheoreticalconceptsrelatetowhatishistoricallydemonstrableOuressaysconsidertheroleoftheMingandQingempiresinthemarking,enforcement,suppression,orinventionofidentitiesAttimes,directstateforcewasinvolvedAtothers,softerparametersweresetfornegotiationsTherewerealsohistoricalmomentswhenthestateagendawassubvertedandreinventedTheconsequentculturalrepertoirewasinfinitelydiverse,yetidentificationwithithasbeenintenselyunifyingThistensionbetweenunityanddiversityisacorethemeofourvolumeWespecificallyaskwhatgovernsstatediscoursesincontrollingandassimilatingpopulationsconsideredtobeoutsideoftheimperialrealm,howstatecategoriesconfrontandcompromisewithindigenousones,andhowdifferenceswereattestedindifferenthistoricalcontextsAttimesboundariesweresuggestedbydistinctmeansoflivelihoodThisultimatelyengenderedasenseofidentitythatwemaylabel“ethnic”WealsoexplorehowlocalgroupsappropriatedculturalsymbolsofauthorityfromthepoliticalcenterinordertoestablishtheirrespectiveplacesinanoverarchingimperialorderTheircomplicitattachmenttothecenterwasforgedpreciselybecause“thestate”remainedlargelyintroductionaculturalideaAssuch,itallowedlocalpopulationstoimproviseonstateconceptionsandtojointheimperialenterpriseontheirowntermsThisbookisorganizedtoreflectthecontinuumofovert,organizedstateexertionintheconstructionandenforcementofidentitiesThosepeoplesoftheearlymodernperiodmostdirectlyaddressedbystatepoliciesofidentityopenthebookTheManchusandtheMongolswereamongthegroupswithintheQingconquestelitewhoweretheobjectsofextensivecourthistoricalnarrativeandongoingcourtprescriptionofculturallifeForgroupsoutsidetheconquestelitebutstillcriticaltotheQingconquest,controlofthehistoricalnarrativewasindispensableThosewhobecametheobjectsofQingconquestsoutsidetheformerMingboundariesinourstudies,thoselivinginTurkestanandsouthwestChinawerenotonlynewlynarratedbytheimperialhistorians,butreconstitutedinthelanguageoflocalofficials,andbroughtunderperiodicallytighterformsofimperialruleThevolumeprogressestoouterringsofimperialassertion(primarilysouthwesternChinaandsoutherncoastalfrontiers),whereinitiallythemechanismsofascriptionwererudimentaryandhistorydirectedfromthecenterwasabsentorsketchyHerewemaydiscernthefamiliarfrontierdynamicswithwavesofHaninmigrationandmultiethnicmingling,buttheoutcomeisdeterminednotbyanabstractconquest“project”oftheempire,butthroughtheinterplayoflocalparticulars,specificallysuccessivevarietiesofindirectruleandgradualacculturationaccompaniedbyvacillatingpoliciesandshiftsinofficialdiscourseIntheexpandingsandsofthePearlRiverdelta,weseethedegreetowhichprocessesofbecomingHan,Dan,andYao(withimplicationsforsettlement,mobility,andexclusion)aregeneratedwellbelowthethresholdofstatemanipulationorcooptationThestateapparatusmightbeweakorevenabsent,butlocalagentsandvictimscouldbedeeplyengagedwiththeimperialmetaphorTheircomplicitmaneuversconstitutedanimportantaspectofstatemakingInearlierstudiesofthedelta,DavidFaureandHelenSiuhavearguedthattheriseandfalloflineagesintheMingandQingdynasties,thedeploymentofdeitiesinlocalalliances,andtheshrewduseofethniclabelsprovidedauthoritativetermsforadiscoursethatreifiedthecriteriaformembershipinChineselocalsocietyHowevervariable,theleveragethestateenjoysthroughitsabilitytoformanddisseminatehistoricalnarrative,toestablishandenforceculturalbehaviorsinthespheresofeducation,commerce,familyregistrationandstructure,andtocontrolaccesstolegalproceedingswouldneverthelessappeartopredictthatinitiativewasthedefiningfeatureofimperialpolicyButourstudiesalsounderscorethatthiswasnotaonewayprocessThestructureofQingrulewasshapedandreshapedbytheculturalterrainThelanguagegeneratedbythecenterwasinmanycasescaptured,transformed,andrediintroductionrectedbythoseintendedtobe(andoftenreproducedinhistoricalanalysisas)itsinanimateobjectsWhileourstudiesarenoteworthyfortheirinterpretivevariabilityfromoneanother,allunderscorethefactthatstateinterferencewasseldomsufficienttooverridethemomentumofthedailyacts,materialconcerns,socialintimacies,andmanifestationsofconsciousnessthatallconstitute“culture”Ourstudiessuggestthattheeffectivenessofanypolicydependeduponitsdegreeofalignmentwithlocalrealities,andnotwiththedegreeofcoercionthatcouldbeemployed“ETHNICITY”ANDCULTURALPOSITIONINGEthnicityisrelativeinthedeepestsenseItisasephemeralasthosethingsitappearstoexistrelativetolineage,community,nationThisisnotalwaysobviouswhenethnicityisconsideredasthephenomenonofagroupofpeopleperceivingthemselvesassharingthesamecultureorthesamegenealogyHistorically,itismoreimportantthattheculturetheybelievetheysharebedifferentfromtheculturesofothersaroundthemEthniccategoriesareconstructed,asarelineages,communities,nationsImposedbystatemachineriesorassertedbylocalpopulations,thesesocialandculturalcategorieshavebeenusedtomarkboundariesandtohighlightdifferencesonthegroundWhenethniccategoriesareintertwinedwiththeseotheridentities,onefindspowerfullanguagesofexclusionDistinctnessandhierarchywhetherhorizontalorconcentriccannotbeisolatedfromoneanotherTobeethnicistobemarginal,notpartofthecanon,notpartoftheestablishedculturecentraltolegitimacyofthestate,notmainstream,notauthoritativeOurstudiesonChinaandcontiguousterritoriesoftheQingempireremindusthatthepositioningfun

用户评价(2)

  • 121.41.244.26 到这里去试试看http://gigapedia.org/v5/item:view_description?id=188338

    2009-01-07 02:41:49

  • liuxian19780103 怎么下载不了了.

    2008-12-18 09:30:16

关闭

新课改视野下建构高中语文教学实验成果报告(32KB)

抱歉,积分不足下载失败,请稍后再试!

提示

试读已结束,如需要继续阅读或者下载,敬请购买!

评分:

/49

VIP

在线
客服

免费
邮箱

爱问共享资料服务号

扫描关注领取更多福利