Tesis Asier Hernandez A
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Departamento de Historia Contemporánea 2020 Mención “Doctorado Internacional” Nations on Paper Nation building and historical practice in China and Britain (1880-1930) Thesis Dissertation by Asier H. Aguirresarobe Directed by Prof. Ludger Mees 2 Abstract We, living in contemporary societies in which the nation-state is the hegemonic political organisation, hardly ever ask ourselves how national identities are produced and reproduced, or even how they first came into being. To most of us, history offers a continuous account that explains the past as a tale of national development, and that therefore legitimises the nation’s present status and claims. It is the objective of this research to trace the transition to this nationalist worldview in China and Britain, and to compare how the adoption of this framework differed in the two cases, what resistances it found and what debates and issues it generated. To do so, we will first analyse the main assumptions and principles of national historical narratives, from which national identities stem. Secondly, we will apply our results to historiographical and political sources from 1880 to 1930 China and Britain, in order to determine the degree and pace of adoption of these master narratives in the two cases. Finally, we will compare how the particular geopolitical and historical circumstances of the two examples interacted with these assumptions and principles to amplify or limit the opportunities of specific national histories and discourses to arise. The results of this study evidence that there exists a particular narrative framework at work in national histories, and that historical practice was decisively influenced by its main assumptions in China and Britain between 1880 and 1930. This, in turn, prompted the apparition of new identities, objectives, and strategies based on these national accounts. However, the particular cultural and historical circumstances of the two countries, in combination with the need to adapt to these discursive assumptions, decisively shaped and constrained the possibilities of imagining national communities and their ultimate success. 3 Resumen En nuestras sociedades contemporáneas, en las que el estado-nación es la forma hegemónica de organización política, pocas veces se cuestiona cómo se producen y reproducen las identidades nacionales o cómo llegaron a existir en primer lugar. Para la mayoría, la historia ofrece un relato continuo que explica el pasado como una narración de progreso nacional y que, en consecuencia, legitima el actual estatus y reivindicaciones de la nación. El objetivo de este trabajo es observar la transición a esta cosmovisión nacionalista en China y Gran Bretaña, así como comparar las diferencias en la adopción de este marco en los dos casos, las resistencias que produjo y los debates y cuestiones que generó. Para ello, analizaremos primero los principios básicos de las narrativas históricas nacionales a partir de las cuales se originan las identidades nacionales. En segundo lugar, aplicaremos nuestros resultados a fuentes historiográficas y políticas chinas y británicas de entre 1880 y 1930 para determinar el grado y ritmo de adopción de estas narrativas maestras en los dos casos. Finalmente, compararemos cómo las circunstancias geopolíticas e históricas particulares de los dos ejemplos interactuaron con estos principios para amplificar o limitar las oportunidades de aparición de historias y discursos nacionales específicos. Los resultados de este estudio muestran que existe una estructura narrativa particular común a las historias nacionales, y que ésta influyó decisivamente en la práctica histórica de China y Gran Bretaña entre 1880 y 1930. Este hecho, a su vez, originó la aparición de nuevas identidades, objetivos y estrategias basadas en estos relatos nacionales. Sin embargo, las circunstancias culturales e históricas particulares de los dos países, en combinación con la necesidad de adaptarse a estos principios narrativos, delimitaron y restringieron las posibilidades de imaginar comunidades nacionales así como sus probabilidades de éxito. 4 Laburpena Gure gizarte garaikidetan, estatu-nazioa erakunde politiko nagusia dela eta, gutxietan bururatzen zaigu nortasun nazionalak nola sortzen eta erreproduzitzen diren kuestionatzea, edo hauen agerpenari buruz galdetzea. Gehiengoarentzat, historiak hedapen nazionalaren kontaketa ezkaintzen du eta, honezkero, nazioak aldarrikatzen duen estatus eta erreibindikazioak legitimatzen ditu. Lan honen helburua Txinan eta Britania Handian honako mundu-ikuskera nazionalistarekiko transizioa behatzea da. Gainera, marku honen adopzioak bi kasuetan eragindako ezberdintasunen, erresistentzien, eztabaiden eta arazoen arteko konparaketa sustatzea du jomuga. Horretarako, lehenik nortasun nazionalak sortzen dituzten narratiba historiko nazionalen funtsezko oinarriak aztertuko ditugu. Gero, lortutako emaitzak Txinan eta Britania Handian 1880tik 1930ra ekoiztutako iturri historiografiko eta polikitekin alderatuko dira, narratiba nagusi hauen adopzioaren maila eta abiadura zehaztatzearren. Azkenik, bi kasuetako egoera geopolitiko eta historikoak konparatuko dira, hauek kontakizun eta diskurtso nazional espezifikoen agerpenean izandako rol anplifikatzaile edo mugatzailea antzemateko. Ikerkuntza honen emaitzek kontakizun nazionalek egitura narratibo komuna dutela agerian uzten dute, eta honek Txinako eta Britaina Handiko jardute historikoetan izandako eragin erabakigarria nabarmentzen dute. Influentzia honen ondorioz, gainera, kontakizun nazional hauetan oinarritutako nortasun, helburu, eta estrategia berrien sorkuntza azaltzen da. Hala eta guztiz ere, bi herrietako egoera kultural eta historiokoak eta printzipio narratibo hauetara moldatzeko beharrak komunitate nazionalen imajinazioan eta haien bidegarritasunean ezarritako mugak azpimarratzen dira. 5 Contents INTRODUCTION 13 A. WHAT IS A NATION? 19 B. NATION AND HISTORY 26 C. THEORETICAL APPROACH 30 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 40 A. BRITAIN 40 B. CHINA 52 ASSUMPTIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVES 63 A. UNITY 65 B. COMMUNITY 70 C. CONTINUITY 73 D. SOVEREIGNTY 77 E. PURITY 80 F. HISTORICAL SUBJECTHOOD 84 G. REPRESENTATION 91 H. INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL SPATIALITY 96 THE NATION AT THE CORE: HISTORICAL PERIODISATION MODELS IN BRITAIN AND CHINA 103 A. THE WHIG INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY 105 B. PROGRESSIVE PERIODISATION AND THE CORRECTION OF WHIG HISTORY 127 C. THE TRANSFORMATION OF CLASSICAL AND DYNASTICAL PERIODISATION IN THE LATE QING 147 D. HISTORICAL PERIODISATION IN REPUBLICAN TIMES 168 E. COMPARISON AND BALANCE 176 6 THE NATION AS A HOMOGENEOUS COMMUNITY 182 A. THE NATION AS A COLLECTIVE SUBJECT 184 B. THE BOND OF THE NATION 213 C. COMPARISON AND BALANCE 261 THE QUEST FOR NATIONAL CONTINUITY 265 ONE EMPIRE, ONE NATION: (RE)DEFINING THE NATION IN SPACE 291 A. BACKGROUND AND CAUSES 296 B. PROJECTS OF GREATER BRITAIN 311 C. GREATER NATIONALISM IN CHINA 340 D. COMPARISON AND BALANCE 377 CONCLUSIONS 389 REFERENCES 403 7 List of maps and figures Maps Map 1. The Expansion of the British Empire in the First World War 38 Map 2. The Qing Empire, 1800 39 Figures Fig.1. Politico-dynastical periodisation model 108 Fig. 2. Traditional tripartite periodisation model 111 Fig. 3. Whig tripartite periodisation model 116 Fig. 4. Progressive evolutionary periodisation model 127 Fig. 5. Classical periodisation model 149 Fig. 6. Kang Youwei’s Three Ages periodisation model 155 8 Note about translation For the romanisation of Chinese names, we have opted for utilising the Pinyin system. So, for instance, terms like Beijing or Liang Qichao have been found preferable to other possible romanisations such as Peking or Liang Ch’i-ch’ao. The only exception has been the name of the President of the Republic of China Sun Yat- sen, which has been maintained to the spelling best-known to most English readers. 9 Acknowledgements On the course of this research I have incurred great debts of gratitude with a lot of people. First and foremost, of course, with my director Professor Ludger Mees, who has been a guide, a support, and –at times- a voice of reason that has tempered my worst intellectual tendencies. This he has done while involved in multiple projects of his own, and without a word of annoyance or complaint. The final result is, therefore, as much mine as his, and I am sincerely grateful for it. Secondly, with all the members of the Department of Contemporary History of the Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, for their help in the long days of bureaucracy, administrative documents, and activities that seemed to have no end. In this regard, I would like to particularly address Professors Santiago de Pablo and Antonio Rivera for their outstanding readiness and will to help. In addition, it is mandatory that I reserve some words for those who looked after me and this research during my stay in the University of Edinburgh. I would like to thank especially Dr. James Kennedy for his interest and closeness, and for taking the time to correct some preliminary drafts of this research that were well beyond his responsibilities towards me. I also do not forget the work of others such as Dr. Michael Rosie, Dr. Gëzim Kasniqi, Professor David McCrone, and Professor Jonathan Hearn, whose teaching labour opened my eyes to new perspectives that have undoubtedly improved the overall quality of this research. Finally, on a more personal level, there are others towards which I felt greatly indebted and grateful and I hope that it is not inappropriate if I address them in 10 Spanish. A