scholarly journals Contesting the Confucian peace: Civilization, barbarism and international hierarchy in East Asia

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 740-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Phillips

International Relations scholars have turned to China’s tributary system to broaden our understanding of international systems beyond the ‘states-under-anarchy’ model derived from European history. This scholarship forms the inspiration and foil for this article, which refines International Relations scholars’ conceptualizations of how international hierarchy arose and endured in East Asia during the Manchu Qing Dynasty — China’s last and most territorially expansive imperial dynasty. I argue that existing conceptions of East Asian hierarchy overstate the importance of mutual identification between the region’s Confucian monarchies in sustaining Chinese hegemony. Instead, we can understand Qing China’s dominance only once we recognize the Manchus as a ‘barbarian’ dynasty, which faced unique challenges legitimating its rule domestically and internationally. As ‘barbarian’ conquerors, Manchus did not secure their rule by simply conforming to pre-existing Sinic cultural norms. Instead, like other contemporary Eurasian empires, they maintained dominance through strategies of heterogeneous contracting. Domestically, they developed customized legitimacy scripts tailored to win the allegiance of the empire’s diverse communities. Internationally, meanwhile, the Manchus strategically appropriated existing Confucian norms and practices of tributary diplomacy in ways that mitigated — but did not eliminate — Confucian vassals’ resentment of ‘barbarian’ domination. East Asian hierarchy may have been more peaceful than Westphalian anarchy, but the absence of war masks a more coercive reality where the appearance of Confucian conformity obscured more fractious relations between Qing China and even its ostensibly most loyal vassals.

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Kang

Long understudied by mainstream international relations (IR) scholars, the East Asian historical experience provides an enormous wealth of patterns and findings, which promise to enrich our IR theoretical literature largely derived from and knowledgeable about the Western experience. The intellectual contributions of this emerging scholarship have the potential to influence some of the most central questions in international relations: the nature of the state, the formation of state preferences, and the interplay between material and ideational factors. Researching historical East Asia provides an opportunity to seek out genuine comparisons of international systems and their foundational components. This introduction surveys the field and sets out to frame debate and the intellectual terms of inquiry to assess progress and guide future research. Theoretically, the essays in this issue provide insights on the emerging literature on hierarchy in international relations, and move beyond simplistic assertions that power “matters” to explore the interplay of material and ideational causal factors. Methodologically, scholars are no longer treating all East Asian history as simply one case, while also becoming more careful to avoid selection bias by avoiding choosing selective evidence from the rich historical record. Collectively, the empirical cases discussed in this volume span centuries of history, include a wide variety of political actors across East Asia, and represent an exciting wave of new scholarship.


2021 ◽  
pp. 030582982110506
Author(s):  
Ji-Young Lee

The field of international relations has long treated the Westphalian system and states in the territorial sovereign sense as the standard or ‘normal’ in IR. The World Imagined by Hendrik Spruyt boldly challenges this habit as the biases of our times and instead brings non-European historical international systems into their rightful place in our study of international order and international relations theorising more generally. Unpacking Spruyt’s discussion of ‘the East Asian interstate society’, the article argues that an in-depth examination of what is known as a ‘tribute system’ and early modern East Asian historical orders richly illuminates the book’s arguments on the heterogeneity and diversity of order-building practices. It also argues that from a practice-oriented approach, the experience of early modern East Asia presents a compelling case that legitimation holds the key to explaining order building processes at both the domestic and international levels, with legitimation at these two levels working in tandem.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 598-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph MacKay

Abstract International relations (IR) has seen a proliferation of recent research on both international hierarchies as such and on historical IR in (often hierarchical) East Asia. This article takes stock of insights from East Asian hierarchies for the study of international hierarchy as such. I argue for and defend an explanatory approach emphasizing repertoires or toolkits of hierarchical super- and subordination. Historical hierarchies surrounding China took multiple dynastic forms. I emphasize two dimensions of variation. First, hierarchy-building occurs in dialogue between cores and peripheries. Variation in these relationships proliferated multiple arrangements for hierarchical influence and rule. Second, Sinocentric hierarchies varied widely over time, in ways that suggest learning. Successive Chinese dynasties both emulated the successes and avoided the pitfalls of the past, adapting their ideologies and strategies for rule to varying circumstances by recombining past political repertoires to build new ones. Taken together, these phenomena suggest new lines of inquiry for research on hierarchies in IR.


2021 ◽  
pp. 030582982110506
Author(s):  
Yuan-kang Wang

Scholars of international relations have embraced the tributary system as the dominant lens to studying historical orders of East Asia. Hendrik Spruyt’s The World Imagined, a rare gem in the study of comparative international orders, argues that the tributary system articulated the ontology of the historical East Asia international society. This article cautions against two common pitfalls. First, the tributary system is a modern conceptual construct that can blind researchers to other types of political orders existing throughout East Asia’s diverse landscape and history, thus contributing to a Sinocentric bias. Both the Mongols and the Tibetans adopted a distinctive set of rules of inter-polity conduct that have little to do with the Chinese tributary system. Second, the tributary system perpetuates the myth that East Asia has been historically peaceful, while glossing over the numerous interpolity warfare that took place in the region as well as internal conflicts within the same cultural sphere of a state. I argue that our understanding of international orders can be substantially enriched when we take material power seriously and study its interplay with ideational factors.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weizhan Meng ◽  
Weixing Hu

AbstractThe rise of China and how other countries respond to China’s rising is widely studied. But little has been done on how other countries reacted to the rise of China throughout history and how China strategically interacted with them. The conventional wisdom holds East Asian international relations did not operate in the Westphalian way and China’s rising in history did not trigger regional balancing actions. In this article, we challenge that view. We argue East Asian international relations were not exceptional to basic rules of the Westphalian system. Each time China rose up, it triggered balancing actions from neighboring regimes, including nomadic empires and settled kingdoms. The neighboring regimes would accommodate China only after they were defeated by China or pro-China regimes propped up in these countries. The Chinese hegemony in East Asian history could not be taken for granted. Over last 2,000 plus years, only during three periods of time (the Qin-Han 秦汉, Sui-Tang 隋唐, and Ming-Qing 明清 dynasties) China could successfully overpower regional resistance and enjoyed a stable tributary relationship with neighboring states. In the rest of time, the Chinese state could not retain hegemony in East Asia.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-175
Author(s):  
Richard Javad Heydarian

The paper examines the evolution of the Asian regional security architecture in the past three decades, evaluating relations between China and its neighbors, and considering various approaches in International Relations theory. First, the paper examines the assumptions of liberal institutionalism in the context of “econophoria,” assessing its merits in East Asia. Second, the paper addresses China and its relations with the East Asian neighborhood in the latter decades of the 20th century. Third, the paper examines growing territorial tensions between China and its neighbors in the past decade -- and how this undermines regional security and regional integration. Lastly, the paper evaluates the contributions of alternative IR theories such as realism and constructivism in providing a better understanding of China’s new assertiveness.


Author(s):  
Salvatore Babones

China’s economic rise has been accompanied by the maturation and increasing professionalization of academic disciplines in China, including the discipline of international relations. The emergence of an indigenous international relations discipline in China has led to an intense debate about the development of a distinctive “Chinese School” that draws on China’s intellectual traditions and historical record to inspire the development of new international relations theories. While the debate continues, the outlines of a Chinese School are becoming clear. The Chinese School of international relations theory draws on Confucian concepts of relationality and hierarchy to theorize the character of the relations between countries rather than focus on the attributes of countries themselves. It also highlights the historical existence of interstate systems organized in a hub-and-spoke pattern around a single, central state. The premodern East Asian world-system in which China was embedded and classical Chinese scholars developed their ideas was a central state system. Premodern China was always by far the dominant state in East Asia, with the result that international relations in the East Asian world-system exhibited a hub-and-spoke pattern centered on China, as in the tributary system of the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Moreover the Confucian worldview that ultimately came to be China’s state ideology served in effect as the governing moral code of the system as a whole. The combination of a central state structure with a universal moral code created what in Chinese is called a tianxia (“all under heaven”), a world-embracing system of governance centered on a particular state, in this case China. In a tianxia system international relations tend to be hierarchical because of the clear power differentials between the central state and other states. They can be either expressive (showing social solidarity) or purely instrumental, depending on the stance taken by the central state. Chinese School international relations theorists tend to assume that the “best” (most stable, most peaceful, most prosperous, etc.) world-system configuration would be a tianxia system dominated by expressive rationality and centered on China, but this is no more self-evident than the widely held Western preference for a liberal, rules-based order. What Chinese School international relations theory really offers the discipline is a new set of concepts that can be applied to the theorization and empirical analysis of today’s millennial world-system. This postmodern interstate system appears to be a central state system with a universal moral code, an American tianxia based on individualism. The historical Confucian Chinese tianxia may be the best precedent for modeling this system.


Asian Survey ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 754-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörg Friedrichs

Abstract The “ASEAN family” of regional security institutions has a mixed record: it has proved very helpful in improving interstate trust, fairly helpful in managing peaceful change, somewhat helpful in enhancing regime stability, but virtually useless in resolving interstate conflict. Overall, East Asia remains dominated by conventional forms of international relations.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 212-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen L. Thornber

The idea of an East Asian cultural “bloc” united in no small part by the Chinese script has long been widely held; through the end of the Qing dynasty Chinese characters served as the scripta franca for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese intellectuals. Yet writing in East Asia has almost always involved more than Chinese characters and their offshoots. The purpose of this article is twofold. First is to introduce readers of world literature unfamiliar with East Asia to the wide variety of the region’s languages and scripts. The second objective is to demonstrate that when we associate writing in China only with Chinese characters, as often has been the case, we overlook some of the region’s, and the world’s, most significant works of world literature. These include the twelfth-century Epic of King Gesar, a living epic which at twenty-five times the size of the Iliad is the world’s longest.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (35) ◽  
pp. 189-208
Author(s):  
藍日昌 藍日昌

<p>近代所謂漢字文化圈者,意謂在東亞區域之內諸國受中國文化之影響,舉凡儒學、佛教及技術等,皆由中國而向外傳至日、韓、琉及越南等,東亞諸國的文化交流的媒介自然是以漢字為主。</p> <p>東亞交流雖自六朝開始,但當時並無官方語音的觀念,因此交流之時自以當時主流發音為主,而主流發音則隨政治、經濟形勢而變。六朝時以南方吳音為主流,唐時以河洛及西北方音為主流,南宋時則以蘇杭音為主流。</p> <p>書寫文字雖同,但音調則有差異,這對其他諸國而言,也是有所困擾,音調雖有變化,但書寫則不變,筆談即是東亞交流中溝通的媒介。</p> <p>明太祖所建立起朝貢制度,政治及經濟來往熱絡,朝鮮作為明朝與日本的紐帶,明、朝之間的燕行使與朝、日之間的通信使,交往之時大體透過筆談溝通。甚至越南與琉球、日本交往之時亦復透過筆談溝通。</p> <p>筆談之事,少見於唐宋,入明則筆談的記錄頻率轉增,然則筆談出現的頻率則證諸東亞交流的狀況及文化交流的盛景,其事雖簡,其義則甚重大。</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>The so-called Chinese cultural circle in modern times means that all countries in the East Asian region are influenced by Chinese culture, and all Confucianism, Buddhism, and technology have been spread from China to Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Vietnam, and other countries in East Asia. The medium of cultural exchange is naturally based on Chinese characters.</p> <p>Although the East Asia exchange started from the Six Dynasties, there was no concept of official speech at that time. Therefore, the main stream of pronunciation was mainly from the time when the exchange was made, and the mainstream pronunciation changed with the political and economic situation. At the time of the Six Dynasties, Wu Yin was the mainstream in the South. In the Tang Dynasty, Heluo and Northwestern were the mainstream. In the Southern Song Dynasty, the Su Hang sound was the mainstream.</p> <p>Although the written words are the same, but the tones are different, this is also a nuisance to other countries. Although the tone changes, the writing remains the same. The pen talk is the medium of communication in East Asian communication.</p> <p>Ming Taizu established the tributary system, political and economic exchanges, North Korea as the ties between the Ming Dynasty and Japan, the Yan Dynasty between the Ming Dynasty and the DPRK to exercise communication with the DPRK and Japan, when the exchanges are generally communicated through the pen. Even when Vietnam communicates with Ryukyu and Japan, it communicates through pen talks.</p> <p>The things in pen talk are rare in the Tang and Song dynasties. The frequency of writing records in Ming Ming&rsquo;s writings has increased. However, the frequency of conversations in writing has confirmed the status of exchanges in East Asia and the grand scene of cultural exchanges. Although the matter is simple, its significance is very significant.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document