Name- Mandeep Kaur Puri

Roll number- 2021/1320

Course- B.A. (Hons) History

Name of the Paper- History of Modern China

Semester- V
China is one of the key players in world politics in today’s era due to which it has captivated
the attention of many scholars. The trajectory it has taken over the years was shaped by (as
argued by some scholars) SINOCENTRISM. The validity and significance of this concept
have been discussed in length by two prominent historians John King Fairbank and Tan
Chung in their respective works. Therefore, the discussion in this assignment will revolve
around the understanding of Sinocentrism, China’s relations with other regions in the pre-
modern period, a comparison of pre-modern China with the West from Fairbank’s
perspective and a shift in historiography with Tan Chung’s intervention and his notion of
Sinocentrism.

The idea of China being Sino-centric lay at the heart of Fairbank’s work overarching
discussion about the relations of China with its immediate neighbour and the far-flung
regions. In the context of Sinocentrism, Fairbank has highlighted the cultural aspects
extensively yet he gave due recognition to the geographical factors as well. He argued that
topography made the region remain in a bubble (with certain natural barriers). Unlike the
nomadic groups that appeared in Mongolia, Chinese society was predominantly agrarian,
fairly wealthy, and culturally superior (in terms of civilisation). The idea of the ‘central’
location of China (oblivious to the presence of centres in the West) paved the way for its
cultural superiority.

The recurrent references to Tien Hsia (all under heaven), Tien Tzu (Son of Heaven),
and Chung Kuo (Central Kingdom) in the Chinese as well as sources from Vietnam, Japan,
Korea, etc., pointed towards the prevalence of Sinocentrism- the idea of China being at the
centre of the world and its emperor ruling as the Son of Heaven with a mandate to rule all
over the world. As indicated by these sources, the Son of Heaven was considered a
superordinary figure owing to his virtuous deeds and expected to be a protean- a priest, judge,
administrator, sage, and patron of art. A relationship of superordination and subordination
existed between the Son of Heaven and the subjects. Chinese society was largely stratified
with Tien Tzu at the fastigium of the social structure, as per Confucius’ principles. To
maintain the status quo, the educated elites at the local level employed various methods-
emphasizing the ideology, performance of ceremonies (li) and dispensation of education in
the tradition, and employing regulations (fa) to instil control on the lowest strata.

Similar hierarchisation existed in the arena of foreign relations inclusive of three zones- Sinic
zone, Inner Asia Zone, and the Outer Asia Zone. The Sinic zone included Japan, Vietnam,
Korea and Liu Chu islands that sprouted from the Ancient China which was quite evident in
the cultural overlap and similar administrative structure. Whereas in the Inner Asia Zone the
nomads or the semi-nomads (Mongols, Manchus etc) had distinctive cultural practices yet
similar administration. The Outer Asia Zone (least resemblance) comprised of South Asia
and Europe that sent tributes while being engaged in the trade. To establish realtions with the
neighborhood areas, Chinese rulers employed administrative, ideological and diplomatic
methods.

Tien Tzu remained a culturally significant figure even during the feudal age in China. Despite
the presence of multiple political units, the heads of these units owed their allegiance to the
Chou ruler.
In 1973, Tan Chung came up with a critique of the interpretation of Sinocentrism. He
targeted the interpretation of the terms- Tien Hsia, Tien Tzu, and Chung Kuo; outrightly
rejecting the inclusion of these three under the fold of Sinocentrism.

In the case of Tien Hsia- all under almighty, he argued that it was used as a grandiose for
Chinese ‘mini-world’, instead of referring to the entire world. He found out that the Wu- Fu
system comprising of the five dominions- Tien-Fu (Tien Tzu’s capital), Hou-Fu (Dominion
of the lords), Sui-Fu (Sinicized dominions), Yao-Fu (Remotely linked dominions), and
Huang-Fu (uncultivated dominions on the fringes)- together made the ‘known world’ of the
Chinese. With time, the Wu-fu system was abandoned and the lords’ and Tien Tzu’s
dominions were consolidated. This laid the foundation of the Chinese empire transforming it
from a ‘mini world’ to a ‘bonafide nation state.’ Despite these upheavals, the term Tien Hsia
managed to survive the test of time. Chinese sources are loaded with examples reflecting that
Tien Hsia was more of a grandiloquent term. Some use Tien Hsia as an alternate name for
China or some use it while referring to the Chinese confederation. It is unlikely that claims
such as ‘within four seas’ and ‘under the heaven’ were made while keeping in mind the
regions of Eurasia since the world known to the Chinese were confined to the desert regions
bordering its territory. He further explains that claims similar to Tien Hsia were also made by
other regions in the world- in the West the phrase ‘this land of our lord’ was prevalent,
Kelantan -‘land of lightning’ and Japan -‘the original land of the Sun.’ Therefore, the
tendency to describe one’s homeland with great adjectives was practised by many and wasn’t
restricted to the Chinese only.

Secondly, he argued that the term Tien Tzu (Son of Heaven) was misunderstood as universal
kingship. The chief emperor in China used different titles depending upon the circumstances.
Tien-Tzu was more often used against a foreigner, he referred to himself as Tien- wang
among rulers within China, whereas, he used the title wang among his subordinates. Wang
(one who ties mankind and the universe together) and Tien Tzu were often used
interchangeably. This shows the fluidity of the use of such terms. Instances of the Chinese
rulers acknowledging the titles equivalent to Tien Hsia claimed by other rulers have also been
found. Moreover, Tang Chung points out that it was not the sole claim made by the Chinese
for a heavenly link, term such as Tien-mu (heavenly pastors) was used for lords while Tien
min (people of the heaven) was used to refer to the populace. Rulers such as Asoka took the
title of devanampriya –‘the darling of god’, and Louis XIV affirmed his position as the ‘Sun
King.’ It shows that the adoption of such titles was fairly common and was a political tool to
establish supremacy.

Thirdly, he elucidates that Chung Kuo or the central kingdom was used to refer to the
dominion of the Tien Tzu. While the rest of China was known as Tien Hsia. With the coming
up of the empire, Tien Hsia and Chung Kuo became synonymous. It ultimately resulted in the
replacement of Chung Kuo by Tien Hsia for referring to the Chinese state. He argued that
Chung Kuo was not a claim of cultural superiority, if that had been the case, the Chinese
rulers would not have accepted the reference to India as the centre of the world by the
Buddhist scholars. He critiqued the scholars for misinterpreting the Centre and periphery’s
relation as China’s relations with the foreign regions. Based on the source material available,
he emphasised that Chung Kuo was one of the 5 directions used in the Chinese vocabulary
and it was the Chinese way to give directional names to the places. Thus, Chung Kuo was not
a way to seek cultural superiority but had purely geographical affiliations.
The arguments by both scholars have widened our understanding of Sinocentrism and the
history of China per se. Hence, one must not hastily jump to any conclusion, though it might
look tempting to call China Sinocentric based on the superficial understanding of these terms.
Therefore, it is vital to look into the nuances and peep into the intricacies to deduce a better
understanding of the concept. Newer studies are being conducted increasing the horizon of
our knowledge on Sinocentrism.

Bibliography

● Fairbank, John King. The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign
Relations, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1968
● Chung, Tan. On Sinocentrism: A critique, 1973.

● Evan, Paul. “Historians and Chinese World Order: Fairbank, Wang, and the Matter of
Indeterminate Relevance”
https://sppga.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/03/Historians-and-Chinese-
World-Order.pdf