More Than Just a Drink: Tea Consumption, Material Culture, and 'Sensory Turn' in Early Modern China (1550-1700) a DISSERTATI
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
More than just a Drink: Tea Consumption, Material Culture, and ‘Sensory Turn’ in Early Modern China (1550-1700) A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Yuanxin Jiang IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ann Waltner December 2019 © Yuanxin Jiang 2019 Table of Contents List of Figures ii List of Maps iii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 The Rise and Fall of Luojie Tea: Materiality, “Sensory 31 Turn,” and Gender Relations in Late-Ming Tea Literature Chapter 2 Songluo and Longjing: New Taste, New Method, and New 83 Market Chapter 3 The Taste of Tastelessness: Water Tasting, Tea Drinking, 122 and Social Status in Late-Ming China Chapter 4 An Elegant Object in a Studio: Scholar-officials’ Taste and 172 the Development of Yixing Teapots in the Seventeenth Century Chapter 5 Consuming Space in Late-Ming China: The Pleasures of 227 the Teahouse and the Joys of Exclusiveness Conclusion 270 Bibliography 272 Glossary 283 i List of Figures Figure 1.1 Songxi lun hua tu zhou by Qiu Ying 57 Figure 1.2 Yi lan xiao jing by Wen Zhengming 58 Figure 2.1 The Location of the Dragon Well and West Lake 119 Figure 3.1 Huishan cha hui tu juan by Wen Zhengming 165 Figure 4.1. Tea wares found in Famen Monastery 176 Figure 4.2 Ming yuan du shi tu attributed to Liu Songnian 181 Figure 4.3 A teapot with an inscription of Dabin on the bottom 207 Figure 5.1 An excerpt from Qingming shang he tu 247 ii List of Maps Map 1.1 The Production Area of Luojie Tea 36 Map 2.1 Huizhou in the Late Imperial Yangzi River Delta 87 Map 5.1 Grand Canal System 238 iii Introduction Tea as a Commodity and its Social Life “We are adamant about keeping separate the spheres of material objects and persons,” Igor Kopytoff, an anthropologist, states in his article entitled “The Cultural Biography of Things.”1 In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Practices, Arjun Appadurai has written, “taking my lead from Veblen, Douglas and Isherwood, and Baudrillard, I suggest that consumption is eminently social, relational and active rather than private, atomic and passive.”2 From the perspective of an anthropologist, Appadurai argues that goods cannot be reduced to production for exchange value, which “is never an inherent property of objects, but is a judgement made about them by subjects.”3 Since value is encoded in commodities, so the analysis should focus on the things exchanged rather than the process of exchange, he suggests. The meanings of commodities go beyond any simple conception of their monetary value and include their forms, the way they are used, and their trajectories or social lives in given social contexts.4 “Situations ground things, giving them meaning,” Appadurai further suggests studying how 1 Igor Kopytoff, “The Cultural Biography of Things” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 64-91: 77. 2 Arjun Appadurai ed., The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, 31. 3 Appadurai, The Social Life of Things, 3. 4 Peter K. Lunt, Sonia M. Livingstone, Mass Consumption and Personal Identity (Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1982), 14. 1 situations have constructed objects as commodities.5 A thing can be in the commodity state or not, with different time-cycles for the transformation from non-commodity to commodity. Moreover, an object becomes a commodity at the intersection of a variety of temporal, cultural, and social factors, as Appadurai has pointed out.6 “The social lives of commodities can be understood as a series of narratives which depict the paths and diversions through which a good travels.”7 In addition to following the things, the meanings of things are inscribed in their forms, their uses, their trajectories. Appadurai concludes that only through the analysis of these trajectories that we can interpret the human transactions and calculations that enliven things. 8 Demand and consumers’ desire play significant roles in the value of commodities. Jean Baudrillard, a French sociologist, has argued that that demand emerges from the social practices around commoditization rather than from human needs.9 He stresses that all purchases, because they always signify something socially, have their fetishistic side.10 Objects can always say something about their users. Therefore, the reason why consumption remains more important than production is because the “ideological genesis of needs” precedes the production of goods to meet those needs.11 Appadurai suggested 5 Ibid. 6 Appadurai, The Social Life of Things, 15. 7 Lunt, Mass Consumption and Personal Identity, 15. 8 Appadurai, The Social Life of Things, 5. 9 Lunt, Mass Consumption and Personal Identity, 15. 10 Jean Baudrillard, The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publication, 1998), 59. Appadurai, The Social Life of Things, 29. 11 Jean Baudrillard, For a Critique of the Political Economy of Sign (Candor: Telos Press, 1981), 63-87. 2 to treat demand and consumption as an aspect of the overall political economy of societies. According to him, demand, “emerges as a function of a variety of social practices and classification, rather than a mysterious emanation of human needs, a mechanical response to social manipulation, or the narrowing down of a universal and voracious desire for objects to whatever happens to be available.”12 Appadurai considered demand as an economic expression of the political logic of consumption.13 On the one hand, demand is determined by social and economic forces; on the other hand, it can manipulate, within limits, these social and economic forces.14 For instance, Christopher Bayly’s study on cloth in India since 1700 demonstrates the links between politics, value, and demand in the social history of things. Bayly argues that the production, exchange, and consumption of cloth constitute the material of “political discourse” that ties together royal demand, local production structures and solidarities, and the fabric of political legitimacy.15 Appadurai noticed that “the customary consumption logics of small communities are intimately tied to larger regimes of value defined by large-scale polities.”16 Like cotton cloths to India, the production, exchange, and consumption of tea is also deeply embedded in China’s political scene. Tea not only can be an important tribute of the empire, whose production and shipment were both scrutinized by supervisors, but was also one of the most important taxable resources that contributed to 12 Appadurai, The Social Life of Things, 29. 13 Ibid., 31. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 30. 16 Ibid. 3 the court’s revenue. Furthermore, while playing a role in domestic politics, tea was significant to the daily life of people outside China Proper, and its influence went far beyond the trading itself. Consumption, as Appadurai has pointed out, is not only for “sending social messages,” but for receiving them as well. He further indicates that “elite tastes, in general, have a ‘turnstile’ function, selecting from exogenous possibilities and then providing models, as well as direct political controls, for internal tastes and production.”17 One way to execute the political control over consumers is the “sumptuary laws,” through which consumption is subjected to external regulation. Appadurai asserted, “what modern money is to primitive media of exchange, fashion is to primitive sumptuary regulation.” Different from sumptuary laws, which are rigid, slow to move, weak in their capacity to commensurate, tied to hierarchy, discrimination, and rank in social life, the term fashion suggests “high velocity, rapid turnover, the illusion of total access and high convertibility, the assumption of a democracy of consumers and of objects of consumption.” However, Baudrillard and Bourdieu have both pointed out the effectiveness of fashion and taste in the contemporary West in the attainment of similar results, including limiting social mobility, marking social rank, and discrimination. “Taste makers” and “their affiliate experts,” who determine those ever-shifting rules, dwell at the top of society. “The demand for commodities is critically regulated by this variety of taste-making mechanism,” Appadurai argued. According to him, the consumption demands of persons are regulated by high-turnover criteria of 17 Ibid. 4 “appropriateness (fashion).” Therefore, demand is a socially generated impulse, “not an artifact of individual whims or needs.” The impulse could come from the media or could be manipulated by political appeals. Appadurai concluded that, in general, “those commodities whose consumption is most intricately tied up with critical social messages are likely to be least responsive to crude shifts in supply or price, but most responsive to political manipulation at the societal level.”18 Like other commodities, the value of tea in China was not only decided by forms of technology and labor, but also heavily depended on demands from its consumers. These consumers included ordinary people who utilized it as a daily drink, and more importantly, imperial courts and emperors, who used the tea as a way to fulfill their political control. In terms of taste, the imperial selections of tea, also known as the tribute tea, was significant to the reputation and popularity of each tea that had been chosen. The fashion that was first generated from a small change of imperial taste would result in a huge transformation in the national tea market. Traders were the critical agents between the supply and demand of commodities. Appadurai argued, “the politics of demand frequently lies at the root of the tension between merchants and political elites; whereas merchants tend to be the social representatives of unfettered equivalence, new commodities, and strange tastes; political elites tend to be the custodians of restricted exchange, fixed commodity systems, and established tastes and sumptuary customs.”19 Since the merchants were the only group who were familiar with suppliers and consumers, they played a significant role in 18 Appadurai, The Social Life of Things, 32-3.