Introduction 3
As Charles Hartman has shown in his discussion of this anec-
dote, Chen An’s position on the questions raised by Li Yansheng’s
case is what we might call a “classic non-xenophobic” Chinese po-
sition: whatever his geographic origins, a man who submits to “our
bright culture” is a Hua.^4 Chen’s words express the belief in Chi-
nese cultural supremacy as well as in its assimilative, civilizing, or
“sinicizing” qualities. As is well known, this optimistic (if chauvin-
istic) position came to be paradigmatic during the late imperial pe-
riod and has been reiterated by many scholars of Chinese history,
both inside and outside China.^5
This book is most concerned with the proposition, as Chen An
puts it, that “if one speaks in terms of geography, then there are
Hua and barbarians. But if one speaks in terms of education, then
there can be no such difference.” On one hand, it focuses on a
group of people who invested heavily in their belief that this was
the case. On the other, it is concerned with people who at the same
time had a potent sense of the “otherness” of their purported geo-
graphic origins and who relied on that very “otherness” to con-
struct their own version of Chinese identity.
This book is also about the subtle gradations of various forms of
Chinese “identity.” It takes as its core case a group of Chinese Mus-
lims, highly educated literati, who in the early Qing period com-
posed a body of literature that at once testified to their understand-
ing of themselves both as Chinese men of letters and as members
of a specifically Muslim branch of Chinese knowledge. Although
those who are interested in debates over the “sinicizing process”
will find my arguments relevant, it is not my main aim to partici-
pate in that debate. Rather, I hope to show that there are more
than two dichotomous perspectives, just as there are more than
two possible perspectives in the anecdote about Li Yansheng. What,
for instance, of Li Yansheng’s perspective? What would Li Yan-
—————
- Ibid., p. 158.
- For a critical summary of this position, see Wang Gongwu, “The Chinese
Urge to Civilize.” For the most recent systematic argument upholding siniciza-
tion, see Ping-ti Ho, “In Defense of Sinicization.” Ho’s article was written in re-
sponse to Evelyn Rawski’s “Re-envisioning the Qing,” a systematic criticism of
the sinicization model. Mark Elliott’s treatment of the question is highly relevant
to this study; see his The Manchu Way, p. 32.