Introduction TnE GENTEY of imperial China were a distinct social group.They had recog- nized political,economic,and social privileges and powers and led a special mode of life.The gentry stood above the large mass of the commoners and the so-called"mean people"They dominated the social and economic life of Chinese communities and were also the stratum from which the officials came They were the guardians.the promoters.and representatives of an ethical system based on the tenets of Confucianism which provided the rules of society and of man's relation to man.Educated in this system,they derived from it their knowledge of management of human affairs which was the main quali- fication for their leading role in Chinese society.During the later dynasties the genry's position and qualifications became formalized.A system ofxm tions and degrees controlled by the government determined the membership of the gentry group,which thus came to be more easily recognized and defined. Protected by a ring of formal privileges,which relieved them from physica labor and gave them prestige and a special position in relation to the govern- ment,the gentry were all the more free to act in their dominant role. A study of this group is essential for any analysis of Chinese society in its traditional form as well as in its recent development with all the changes brought about under the impact of the West and of Soviet Communism Chang Chung-li's studies on the gentry of nineteenth-century China hold,there fore,a central place in the research work on Chinese society under way at the University of Washington.His studies will be of interest not only to students of Chinese history but also to those generally concerned with the understand- ing of social organization and development. Many Western accounts have dealt with the Chinese gentry,although no adequate analysis has yer been made.In the nineteenth century,and even earlier,the special character of the Chinese upper group aroused the interest xiii
Introduction The gentry of imperial China were a distinct scxrial group. They had recog- nized political, economic, and social privileges and powers and led a special mode of life. The gentry stood above the large mass of the commoners and the so-called "mean people." They dominated the social and economic life of Chinese communities and were also the stratum from which the officials came. They were the guardians, the promoters, and representatives of an ethical system based on the tenets of Confucianism which provided the rules of society and of man's relation to man. Educated in this system, they derived from it their knowledge of management of human affairs which was the main qualification for their leading role in Chinese society. During the later dynasties the gentry's position and qualifications became formalized. A system of examinations and degrees controlled by the government determined the membership of the gentry group, which thus came to be more easily recognized and defined. Protected by a ring of formal privileges, which relieved them from physical labor and gave them prestige and a special position in relation to the government, the gentry were all the more free to act in their dominant role. A study of this group is essential for any analysis of Chinese society in its traditional form as well as in its recent development with all the changes brought about under the impact of the West and of Soviet Communism. Chang Chung-li's studies on the gentry of nineteenth-century China hold, therefore, a central place in the research work on Chinese society under way at the University of "Washington. His studies will be of interest not only to students of Chinese history but also to those generally concerned with the understanding of social organization and development. Many Western accounts have dealt with the Chinese gentry, although no adequate analysis has yet been made. In the nineteenth century, and even earlier, the special character of the Chinese upper group aroused the interest
xiv THE CHINESE GENTRY of Western writers.The position of the "literati"-as they were mostly called-was so different from anything known in the West that many writers became interested in describing one or another aspect of their role. The classical economists and,following them,Karl Marx developed a con cept of an Oriental type of society,based on the so-called Asiatic mode of production in which the state controlled an economy based on irrigated agri culture.But they were concerned only with such general concepts. A first attempt at a systematic description of Chinese society was made at the beginning of the century by E.T.C.Werner,a member of the Spencer school of sociology.In his classification of the Chinese according to the Spencer plan of Descriptive Sociology,Werner attempted to group the material available to him according to a typological division.Werner's understanding of the part played by the gentry in both state and society is indicated by his ons under general government.For the Manchu period he classified the scholars(shib)as the first and leading social group subdivided into officials and gentry.Werner's classification of Chinese social groups was meant as a case study of a social structure belonging to what his school called the "Oriental stage"in the development of societies.This stage with its rigidity of social status and absence of any"true liberty"was believed to have kept the societies which had allowed themselves to be trapped into it from further social advancement.' This first rather crude and schematic attempt at classification of Chinese society by a sociological school was far outdone by the brilliant sociological studies of Max Weber.In his broad analysis of the interrelationship between ideological and social development,Weber included China as one of his main typological examples.In contrast to the West where,as Weber saw it,Protes- tant ethics were suited to a society based on individual zeal and thus contri buted to the development of capitalism,China's Confucian ideology could not, he thought,contribute to such a development. China was one of the examples of the bureaucratic state in which Weber had such special interest.For him the tendency of bureaucracy to grow by monopolizing the means of government power was a phenomenon of general development.In his discussion of bureaucratic development as well as in his general theoretical analysis of society,Weber saw the importance of"technical economic factors"in general as well as the specific question of the control of the means of production.But Weber attacked Marxism as an untenable, monocausal theory which could not do justice to the multiplicity of causa 8081.A cioon1效a,u2凯
xiv THE CHINESE GENTRY of Western writers. The position of the "literati"—as they were mostly called—was so different from anything known in the West that many writers became interested in describing one or another aspect of their role. The classical economists and, following them, Karl Marx developed a concept of an Oriental type of society, based on the so-called Asiatic mode of production in which the state controlled an economy based on irrigated agri- culture. But they were concerned only with such general concepts. A first attempt at a systematic description of Chinese society was made at the beginning of the century by E. T. C. Werner, a member of the Spencer school of sociology. In his classification of the Chinese according to the Spencer plan of Descriptive Sociology, Werner attempted to group the material available to him according to a typological division. Werner's understanding of the part played by the gentry in both state and society is indicated by his subdivisions under general government. For the Manchu period he classified the scholars {shih) as the first and leading social group subdivided into officials and gentry. Werner's classification of Chinese social groups was meant as a case study of a social structure belonging to what his school called the "Oriental stage" in the development of societies. This stage with its rigidity of social status and absence of any "true liberty" was believed to have kept the societies which had allowed themselves to be trapped into it from further social advancement.^ This first rather crude and schematic attempt at classification of Chinese society by a sociological school was far outdone by the brilliant sociological studies of Max Weber. In his broad analysis of the interrelationship between ideological and social development, Weber included China as one of his main typological examples. In contrast to the West where, as Weber saw it, Protes- tant ethics were suited to a society based on individual zeal and thus contri- buted to the development of capitalism, China's Confucian ideology could not, he thought, contribute to such a development. China was one of the examples of the bureaucratic state in which Weber had such special interest. For him the tendency of bureaucracy to grow by monopolizing the means of government power was a phenomenon of general I, development. In his discussion of bureaucratic development as well as in his general theoretical analysis of society, Weber saw,the importance of "technical economic factors" in general as well as the specific question of the control of the means of production. But Weber attacked Marxism as an untenable, monocausal theory which could not do justice to the multiplicity of causal ^ See E. T. C. Werner, Chinese. Compiled and abstracted upon the plan organized by Herbert Spencer, No. IX, division III. Descriptive Sociology; or, Group of Sociological Facts, classified and arranged by Herbert Spencer (London, 1910), pp. 80-81. Also E. T. C. Werner, "China's Place in Sociology," The China Review. XX. No. 5 (1892-3), pp. 305-310
INTRODUCTION relations recognizable in social history. For him marx had overdramatized a“special case,”'confusing further“economic,' "economically determined, and "economically relevant"factors.Weber did not deny the importance of the economic factors,but he saw them in the context of many other factors He was especially concerned with the political struggle over what he called the"means of administration."Weber was always concerned about the growth of bureaucratic management.In his words,"for the time being,the dictator- ship of the official and not that of the worker is on the march. Bureaucracy,resulting from the increasing demand of a society to satisfy more and more varied wants and for order and protection,could,however,be established only where the society provided an exploitable social stratum to fill the ranks of an expert officialdom.Weber lists five examples of social strata from which the civil rvice of the rationl bureaucratic state ou be derived,among them being the clergy,including the Brahmins in India,the Buddhist priests and the Lamas.Another such stratum,listed by Weber in the second place after the clergy,was the"humanistically educated literati." the West,the training of the Humanist schools was only"a transitory epoch,' but in East Asia it had been different.In Weber's words,"The Chinese man darin is,or rather originally was,what the Humanist of our Renaissance period approximately was:a literator humanistically trained and tested in the lan- guage monuments of the remote past.This stratum,with its conventions developed and modeled after Chinese Antiquity,has determined the whole destiny of China." Of this Chinese stratum Weber says,"Confucianism was the status ethic of prebendaries,of men with literary educations who were characterized by a secular rationalism.If one did not belong to this cultural stratum he did not count.The religious (or if one wishe irreligious)status ethic of this stratum has determined the Chinese way of life far beyond the stratum itself." Weber stressed also the imporance of the examination system in iniiating "a competitive struggle for prebends and offices among the candidates, a competition he believed to have prevented a joint stand of the gentry against the government.In spite of his scanty Western material,Weber was thu able to gain an extraordinary insight into the structure of Chinese society and state,and into the position of the educated upper stratum,the gentry.It is 3 The En slogy,transird University Press,1946).See,Introduction and pp.92 f.212 f.,265, 、0a不 咒 650-678 395430 e Sce alsc 密装
INTRODUCTION xv relations recognizable in social history. For him Marx had overdramatized a "special case," confusing further "economic," "economically determined," and "economically relevant" factors. Weber did not deny the importance of the economic factors, but he saw them in the context of many other factors. He was especially concerned with the political struggle over what he called the "means of administration." Weber was always concerned about the growth of bureaucratic management. In his words, "for the time being, the dictator- ship of the official and not that of the worker is on the march." Bureaucracy, resulting from the increasing demand of a society to satisfy more and more varied wants and for order and protection, could, however, be established only where the society provided an exploitable social stratum to fill the ranks of an expert officialdom. Weber lists five examples of social strata from which the civil service of the rational bureaucratic state could be derived, among them being the clergy, including the Brahmins in India, the Buddhist priests and the Lamas. Another such stratum, listed by Weber in the second place after the clergy, was the "humanistically educated literati." In the West, the training of the Humanist schools was only "a transitory epoch," but in East Asia it had been different. In Weber's words, "The Chinese mandarin is, or rather originally was, what the Humanist of our Renaissance period approximately was: a literator humanistically trained and tested in the lan- guage monuments of the remote past. . . . This stratum, with its conventions developed and modeled after Chinese Antiquity, has determined the whole destiny of China. . . ." Of this Chinese stratum Weber says, "Confucianism was the status ethic of prebendaries, of men with literary educations who were characterized by a secular rationalism. If one did not belong to this cultural stratum he did not count. The religious (or if one wishes, irreligious) status ethic of this stratum has determined the Chinese way of life far beyond the stratum itself." Weber stressed also the importance of the examination system in initiating "a competitive struggle for prebends and offices among the candidates," a competition he believed to have prevented a joint stand of the gentry against the government. In spite of his scanty Western material, Weber was thus able to gain an extraordinary insight into the structure of Chinese society and state, and into the position of the educated upper stratum, the gentry." It is - The English quotations of Max Weber are taken from Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated, edited, and with an introduaion by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946). See Introduction and pp. 92 f., 212 f., 26S, 426. These seaions are translated from Gesammelte Politische Schriften (Miinchen, 1921), pp. 396-450; Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, III, chap. 6, pp. 650-678; "Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen" in Archiv fiir Sozialforschung, Vol. 41 and Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Religionssoziologie (Tiibingen, 1922-3), Vol. I, pp. 237-268 and 395-430. See also Max Weber, The Religion of China, translated and edited by Hans Gerth (Glencoe, III., 1951)
xvi THE CHINESE GENTRY cqually extraordinary that since Weber's time no scholar has atempted any broad social analysis of Far Eastern or,more particularly,Chinese society along similar lines. Serious attention has been given to the theory of Oriental society,which has been worked out and developed to its present form by Dr.K.A.Witt- fogel.This theory stresses the part played by a ruling bureaucracy in the control of waterworks in economies depending on irrigated agriculture.It holds that in such economies the large public works necessary for irrigation flood control,and canalization gave this ruling bureaucracy power over the large mass of peasant labor.This theory has been of great importance as a hypothesis for the study of Oriental societies and has been of great value to the thinking of our research group in the Modern Chinese History Project.Its strength is that it brings ou with great clarity position of the officials in China,as in other similar societies. The officials,however,are only part of the story.The social basis for the officialdom was the gentry.The following studies deai with this group in all its complexity,aiming at a new understanding of the Chinese gentry. The facts socarefuly gathered by Dr.Chang illuminate the whole position of the gentry in nineteenth-century Chinese society and the gentry's relationship to the state.The gentry is shown as a privileged group which dominated Chinese society.It had most important functions which covered a wide field of socia control from ideological leadership to the practical management of political, social,and economic affairs,shading off into the field of administrative func tions. The gentry's relationship to the state was more complex than any simple formula would indicate.The gentry included the mem- bers of the bureaucratic officialdom which represented the state authority. This authority was,however,a rationalization of a broader and different com pact of interests than those of the gentry group alone,either material or ideo logical.On the one hand,the bureaucratic state depended on the gentry for soal and toprovide its administrative staff.On the other hand,it placed an institutional check on the gentry through state control over admission to membership in this dominant group.This was accomplished by making admission to the gentry dependent on a state-controlled examina tion system with fixed quotas.This institutional check was paralleled by an the ogans and in pseudoscholarly writings but cannor be taker
xvi THE CHINESE GENTRY equally extraordinary that since Weber's time no scholar has attempted any broad social analysis of Far Eastern or, more particularly, Chinese society along similar lines. Serious attention has been given to the theory of Oriental society, which has been worked out and developed to its present form by Dr. K. A. Wittfogel. This theory stresses the part played by a ruling bureaucracy in the control of waterworks in economies depending on irrigated agriculture. It holds that in such economies the large public works necessary for irrigation, flood control, and canalization gave this ruling bureaucracy power over the large mass of peasant labor.^ This theory has been of great importance as a hypothesis for the study of Oriental societies and has been of great value to the thinking of our research group in the Modern Chinese History Project. Its strength is that it brings out with great clarity the controlling position of the officials in China, as in other similar societies. The officials, however, are only part of the story. The social basis for the officialdom was the gentry. The following studies deal with this group in all its complexity, aiming at a new understanding of the Chinese gentry. The facts so carefully gathered by Dr. Chang illuminate the whole position of the gentry in nineteenth-century Chinese society and the gentry's relationship to the state. The gentry is shown as a privileged group which dominated Chinese society. It had most important functions which covered a wide field of social control from ideological leadership to the practical management of political, social, and economic affairs, shading off into the field of administrative functions. The gentry's relationship to the state was more complex than any simple formula of economic control would indicate. The gentry included the members of the bureaucratic officialdom which represented the state authority. This authority was, however, a rationalization of a broader and different compact of interests than those of the gentry group alone, either material or ideological. On the one hand, the bureaucratic state depended on the gentry for social control and management and to provide its administrative staff. On the other hand, it placed an institutional check on the gentry through state control over admission to membership in this dominant group. This was accomplished by making admission to the gentry dependent on a state-controlled examination system with fixed quotas. This institutional check was paralleled by an •' This theory has been bitterly attacked by the Soviet Communists because it runs counter to their theory of unilinear development from slavery through feudalism and capitalism to socialism. Bureaucratism has no place in this dogma and also comes uncomfortably close to a description of the social and political structure established by the Communists in countries where they hold power. In trying to fit such bureaucratic Oriental societies into their dogma, the Soviet Communists have to describe them as feudal, a classification which has been used for political slogans and in pseudoscholarly writings but cannot be taken seriously in academic discussions