China vs Europe

Lexicus said:

Well, hold on there now. While you're right that it did take means to succeed in the civil service examinations, it's also true that it was more inclusive and more meritocratic than a straight-up hereditary aristocracy.

Now, I'm not defending the 'functional meritocracy' assertion but I was taught in my Chinese history classes that the ideal of a meritocracy served to legitimate imperial rule and also created a common cultural repertoire for those who went through the system (whether they passed or failed), both of which helped to hold the empire together.

Click to expand...

Was it more inclusive, though? In practice, the number of shenshi from non-gentry origins who could pass the final rank of exams was pretty small - about as small as the number of non-nobles who could make it into a European medieval nobility. Furthermore, being ennobled because you had money or because you were a good soldier is just as 'meritocratic' as gaining access to bureaucratic positions based on your knowledge of the Chinese literary classics and your ability to compose eight-legged essays.

I don't think that the ideal of a meritocracy legitimized imperial rule so much as the entire structure of Chinese government did. Emperor at the top, gentry working their way through the examination system to gain rank and position underneath, offering their counsel and assistance to keep the natural order of things together. When that system was changed in 1905 by ending the examination system, that legitimacy, which was already under severe pressure, eroded much faster. But the abolition of the examination system was designed to make government more meritocratic, by replacing knowledge of the classics with possession of technical, philosophical, or political degrees from Western-style institutions of higher learning.

The chance of social mobility was usually not associated with the maintenance of order in the old Chinese empire. Instead, social mobility was associated with the eras of imperial collapse, when bandits could make themselves kings and when the men on one of the lowest rungs of the societal ladder, the soldiers, were the arbiters of the future. When empires collapsed, the bare sticks came out to play.

I agree that the men who made it through the examination system were linked by a common cultural experience. I just don't think it means all that much when trying to figure out why China came together and stuck together as a political entity and other entities didn't. The men who became shenshi were always a tiny fraction of Chinese society. And sure, they read all the same books all in the same language, but so did European intellectuals from the medieval era straight on through early modernity.

Pundit said:

Simply that there has been a political entity recognised as China existing for a long period of time.

Click to expand...

It didn't, though. "China" only dates back to 1911. Before that you had the Qin state, then the Ming state, the Yuan state, and so on. Each of these regimes included the region known as Zhongguo, which we now translate as "China", but that just meant "the central realm" and didn't describe any specific political entity. Not infrequently, it was split between multiple political entities, ruled by people originating outside of the region, or both. "Zhongguo" only becomes the name of a political entity, and that name equated to the Western term "China", with the nationalist revolution in 1911.

This video is a good summary of the problem with trying to find "China" before the 20th century:


Link to video.

I'm aware of the existence of zhongguo, rather than the Euro-centric term China. I was of the opinion it meant "Middle Kingdom."

"Zhongguo" doesn't historically translate into "China" as we'd use it, though, that's a twentieth century innovation. The literal meaning is something like "central state" or "central states" and originally just referred to the Northern Plains, and later came to describe the predominantly Han part of the empire. It wasn't used to describe the empire itself, which were always described by the name of the ruling dynasty.

Dachs said:

Was it more inclusive, though? In practice, the number of shenshi from non-gentry origins who could pass the final rank of exams was pretty small - about as small as the number of non-nobles who could make it into a European medieval nobility.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I tend to doubt that but obviously no way to prove it. Within the gentry the examination system allowed people of fairly modest means to rise to very high levels of prestige and authority. I don't think there's anything quite equal to it in the West.

Dachs said:

Furthermore, being ennobled because you had money or because you were a good soldier is just as 'meritocratic' as gaining access to bureaucratic positions based on your knowledge of the Chinese literary classics and your ability to compose eight-legged essays.

Click to expand...

Well, that's kind of what I meant by a cultural ideal of a meritocracy, as opposed to a "functional" meritocracy. Obviously our ideas about what constitutes "merit" are drastically different from ideas held by the literati during, say, the Sung Dynasty.

Dachs said:

I agree that the men who made it through the examination system were linked by a common cultural experience. I just don't think it means all that much when trying to figure out why China came together and stuck together as a political entity and other entities didn't. The men who became shenshi were always a tiny fraction of Chinese society. And sure, they read all the same books all in the same language, but so did European intellectuals from the medieval era straight on through early modernity.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean I would emphasize the cultural thing a lot more than the 'functional meritocracy' because it clearly wasn't a functional meritocracy. There was a meritocratic ideal though, kind of reminiscent of the modern-day US where we pretend rich people deserve to be rich and poor people deserve to be poor.

I don't think I would cite the CSE system as a major factor if I had to answer this question in, say, an undergraduate Chinese history class. I would probably say the CSE system played a minor role in holding the thing together but it obviously can't explain why China unified in the first place since it was a product of unification.

Traitorfish said:

"Zhongguo" doesn't historically translate into "China" as we'd use it, though, that's a twentieth century innovation. The literal meaning is something like "central state" or "central states" and originally just referred to the Northern Plains, and later came to describe the predominantly Han part of the empire. It wasn't used to describe the empire itself, which were always described by the name of the ruling dynasty.

Click to expand...

Well, chalk that up to me not understanding any language other than English. And I'm fairly poor at that one.

Traitorfish said:

"Zhongguo" doesn't historically translate into "China" as we'd use it, though, that's a twentieth century innovation. The literal meaning is something like "central state" or "central states" and originally just referred to the Northern Plains, and later came to describe the predominantly Han part of the empire. It wasn't used to describe the empire itself, which were always described by the name of the ruling dynasty.

Click to expand...

The 'Zhong' part means central or middle and 'guo' means country, or 'middle country'. The Chinese dynasties considered were considered to be universal rulers, not unlike the conception of the Holy Roman Emperor in Ghibelline ideology. The state they ruled over implicitly had universal jurisdiction and any other state in vicinity of China's ruling centre were considered tributary states more or less automatically by virtue of existing and being close to China. This seems consistent with the fact Vietnam, Korea and Japan have significant Confucian influence as well.

Tovergieter said:

The 'Zhong' part means central or middle and 'guo' means country, or 'middle country'. The Chinese dynasties considered were considered to be universal rulers, not unlike the conception of the Holy Roman Emperor in Ghibelline ideology. The state they ruled over implicitly had universal jurisdiction and any other state in vicinity of China's ruling centre were considered tributary states more or less automatically by virtue of existing and being close to China. This seems consistent with the fact Vietnam, Korea and Japan have significant Confucian influence as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Chinese ruler was generally a suzerain over neighboring territories during periods where the dynasties were going strong.

Of course, every so often some nomads would show up and rain on their parade. It is interesting that in the main case I know of, the Xiongnu were basically given massive tribute at swordpoint (or more accurately composite bow...point) but the language in the treaty still emphasized the Han emperor as the biggest cheese around.

Lexicus said:

Yes, the Chinese ruler was generally a suzerain over neighboring territories during periods where the dynasties were going strong.

Click to expand...

A related thing is that any Pan-Asian attempt at an EU style project will likely end up with one state being completely dominant over the others. In some way, one can compare China's tributary states network as an old forerunner of the EU. The Greater Asian Co-prosperity zone was essentially Japan's attempt to take China's role in the past as leader of Asia.

It is only rather recent China became united. Yes at some times a large dynasty dominated China but how much control these had over China is a good question. The later dynasties spent pretty much their whole treasury on their army and that did not safe them. The Ming dynasty got itself in financial difficulties just to help Korea which may have been a big reason for its fall 50 years later.

During the Song dynasty military had very low status which is pretty unqiue as civilian administrators was the thing to be. This however may not have been a good thing however as the military was hardly motivated and while it was large we know what happened.

Im not sure how much the dynasties had to spend on their military just to keep it togther, more spent on the military mean more taxes which in turn would just encourage the people to rebel. While the chinese dynasties may look large and powerful on the map they had alot of trouble to make any expansions which more or less mean that the dynasties control over the control was limited.

Denkt said:

It is only rather recent China became united.

Click to expand...

China has more experience in keeping itself together in spite of its size and diversity than either Europe and India have, or even the two of them combined.

The reasons could be geographical in nature, there is the rivers and canals facilitating communications between different parts of China, also China has a custom of sinicizing people they conquered or even conquerors, the package includes the language, customs, religion etc.The most obvious are the Bai Yue in Guangzhou and the Xiongnu in Northern China, these were just some major nations of history that were swallowed and gone. There were others that were able to resist for quite awhile, the Khitan who formed the Jin Empire and later the Manchu dynasty and successfully conquered China.

Shaihulud said:

The reasons could be geographical in nature, there is the rivers and canals facilitating communications between different parts of China, also China has a custom of sinicizing people they conquered or even conquerors, the package includes the language, customs, religion etc.

Click to expand...

By that reasoning, the EU's rise was inevitable because of the Rhine and Meuse. Interesting thought.

Shaihulud said:

The most obvious are the Bai Yue in Guangzhou and the Xiongnu in Northern China, these were just some major nations of history that were swallowed and gone. There were others that were able to resist for quite awhile, the Khitan who formed the Jin Empire and later the Manchu dynasty and successfully conquered China.

Click to expand...

Yue people still form a cohesive identity. The thing, China is as diverse as Europe, if not more so, culturally speaking. You have obviously have a very large formative Han identity, whereas the core of the EU is far more fragmented - although all founding members of the EU were once members of the HRE, indirectly.

Politically, China is perhaps even more diverse. It operates on a One-Nation, Two-Systems basis, which is why Hong Kong could be so easily integrated within the PRC despite its vast regulatory and political differences. It's impossible to think the GDR could become a Bundesländer of the FRG while at the same time maintaining its Communist system. That's however what happened between the PRC and Hong Kong and Macau.

Flying Pig said:

On that subject, Metternich (in, I think, 1815) knew exactly where Europe ended - as soon, he said, as you turned East out of Vienna.

Click to expand...

Are you sure von Metternich said "east" and not "south?"

East takes one into eastern Europe and eventually to Moscow, which had been part of Europe for a century, ever since Peter the Great. South takes one into the Ottoman Empire, the oriental land of the muslim Turk.

One man taxing beards in the capital does not a European nation make, would presumably have been Metternich's response.

Zkribbler said:

Are you sure von Metternich said "east" and not "south?"

East takes one into eastern Europe and eventually to Moscow, which had been part of Europe for a century, ever since Peter the Great. South takes one into the Ottoman Empire, the oriental land of the muslim Turk.

Click to expand...

That was exactly the point - that Russia's status as Europe was highly debatable, and a lot of people in 1815 still considered them barbarians from the steppe. If you look at some of the cartoons published by British and French papers even fifty years later during the Crimean War, you see the same thing - Russia portrayed as a barbaric, uncivilised, un-European place. We don't really have that category any more, because 'Asian' has been absorbed to mean the various southern and eastern parts of the continent, but there was certainly space for Russians to be non-Europeans until really quite recently.

By the by, I looked it up - Metternich actually said 'Asia begins at the Landstrasse', which was the road leading east out of Vienna into Hungary, to rule out that half of the Austrian empire and the Balkans as well. The same sort of arguments and perceptions apply, though, particularly as that part of the world had a history, as you say, of Ottoman rule and influence.

onejayhawk said:

The question is raised, why did China develop a stable culture and Europe did not? Both have significant ethnic, geographic and linguistic diversity, yet one developed an identifiable central culture and the other remained fragmented. Why?

Two elements to consider:
1) China had a single written language
2) China had a functional meritocracy (anyone could test for a job in the bureaucracy)

Is these sufficient? Are both necessary? Discuss.

J

Click to expand...

Single written language is the enhancer of the cultural stability but not the cause.
A functional meritocracy may prevent the Emperor from using all his intimate people as official (which was the original idea to set up so), but never gave any credit to culture.

The main mastermind behind this phenomena is...
China adapted a moral system that Europe did not have, vs. the religion/legislation that Europe depended on.

It can be well observed in Confucianism, but not restricted to it.
The class system (not something about nobility and commoners) divided positions of every family members,
giving them strict morale roles in society and family that everyone should fulfill.

The divisions for example: females obeys male, young obeys elder
The morale roles: Wives should take care household, every family members' well-being, while husbands should work hard to maintain the economy.

These ideas give everyone a role-model to follow and failure to follow disgraces the family.
So everyone surveillance each other and themselves, building up a system that maintain the stability.
These ideas, however, are cultural, but not legislative. Therefore, cultural assimilated ethics groups share the same identity in this sense.
(And does not need education to establish them into commoners, it is present in every families, even the poorest.)
This was a powerful tool, as the people themselves inherited these values and was self-driving to stabilize the society.

On the other hand Europe needed education and police/military force to maintain the control.

But you'll find pretty much all of that in Medieval Europe; you're talking at such a level of abstraction, it would be surprising if you didn't. Unless you get into the nitty-gritty of how idealised moral systems actually interact with the real world, something no more consistent or perfect in China than in the rest of the world, you're really just describing any traditionally-minded, patriarchal, agrarian society as it likes to imagine itself.

The only real distinction is the point about official culture- but even in China, that really only describes a small strata of officials, not to the greater mass of non-Han peoples, and you can arguably identify the same thing in the Catholic and Orthodox clergies, which represented a substantially larger part of the total European population, and had more regular interaction with the rest of the population, than the scholar-gentry ever did. It's less an argument about "China" and "Europe", and more an argument about how certain institutions successfully fostered elite identities, and on what scale.

At any rate, it's hard to credit that a country so frequently disturbed by messianic uprisings as China could really be described as having a bone-deep commitment to social stability.

Also Europe had a single written language: Latin.

Eastern Europe has had a pretty handsome record of unified political continuity; the eastern Mediterranean also had a long history of unified political continuity that didn’t really end until decolonization. So did the Balkans, and so has Gaul.

From a super dialectical point of view I’d say that the different cultural groups in Europe have maintained a good deal of continuity, but have been politically organized in different ways from China’s historical monolithic states because of a number of thetic and antithetic conflict resolutions, which themselves arose from conditional differences between China and Europe geographically. For example: Western European feudalism was a result of the dialectical resolution of Roman imperial centralism and Germanic/Celtic proto-confederal decentralism. Meanwhile the northern-central part of China we usually think of when we say China didn’t have as many political micro-divisions as Western Europe, but did have a complex imperial bureaucracy— I’m not as good with Chinese history, so I’ll be a lot weaker in trying to trace that to its roots.

Of course historical and dialectical materialism reminds me that the political cause and effects are ultimately irrelevant because the practical effects on the class structures of each state are more important to examine. In which case the Chinese states have historically been more stable because of the lack of a rigid caste system, born military class, and better agricultural techniques.