-
10. Marking the Boundaries: The Rise of Historical Geography in Republican China
- The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter 10 Marking the Boundaries: The Rise of Historical Geography in Republican China Tze-ki Hon In current scholarship, the founding of academic disciplines is widely accepted as a benchmark for Chinese modernity. For many scholars, the specialization in the academy is a potent symbol of China being connected to the global network of scientific and scholarly research.1 Yet, until today, there has been no agreement on when, how, and under what circumstances historical geography was established. Part of the disagreement is the meaning of “historical geography” (lishi dili 歷史地理). It is unclear whether historical geography is a continuation of traditional cartography and ethnography, or whether it is a new concept completely different from “chronological geography” (yange dili 沿革地理) of the dynastic periods. Another controversy centers on the relationship between historical geography and “geography” (dili 地理). In the early twentieth century, geography was understood as a broad system of learning including a variety of subfields such as geology, meteorology, mining, oceanography, population studies, seismology, transportation, and topography. It is unclear how history—a discipline in humanity— can be linked to these natural scientific inquiries. Thus, two different views emerge in dating the founding of historical geography. One view focuses on the “New Policy” period (1901–11) when the late Qing government established a national school system that included historical geography as an academic discipline.2 Stressing the continuity between tradition and modernity, the supporters of this view share Laura Hostetler’s view that the Qing geographical studies were sufficiently modern because “the techniques of expansion that the Qing employed, and the epistemology behind these techniques, were similar to those that shaped early modern European expansion.”3 As a result, these scholars find nothing new in modern Chinese historical geography except 304 · Tze-ki Hon that it created a collective identity among scholars who study historical geography.4 Seen in this light, the founding of historical geography is primarily an institutional innovation. Specifically it involves three institutional changes: (1) the recognition of historical geography as an independent academic discipline in the national school system, (2) the professionalization of historical geographers in the academy, and (3) the standardization of methods and skills in studying historical geography.5 Together, these institutional changes create “a community of geographers” (dilixue gongtong ti 地理學共同體) who strive to preserve and protect their professional interests by organizing academic societies, publishing journals, and hosting conferences.6 Whereas in the first view the founding of historical geography was closely tied to the establishment of the national school system, in the second view it was the immediate product of the May Fourth New Culture Movement. Focusing on the 1920s and 1930s, the supporters of the second view consider tradition and modernity as a dichotomy. In the field of historical geography, the dichotomy manifests in the division between chronological geography and historical geography.7 For them, chronological geography serves the dynastic rulers through “the reconstruction of historical conditions, as described in the geographical treatises sponsored by past dynasties.”8 It concerns the changes of national territories and administrative divisions through philological studies of texts.9 In contrast, historical geography is “a science, and in some cases, a natural science.”10 On the one hand, it is “the search for alternative interpretations about China’s past” based on Western scientific theories and methods; on the other hand, it is “the preservation of China’s cultural heritage” based on critical examinations of Chinese historical data and documents.11 Described by Tang Xiaofeng as “from dynastic geography to historical geography,” the scientific approach represents a paradigmatic change in perspective toward geography.12 Historical Geography and the System of Nation-States Inspiring as they are, these two views—one emphasizing institutional innovation and the other intellectual transformation—ignore one important aspect of modern Chinese historical geography. As Marwyn Samuels points out, historical geography is a form of human self-definition [34.229.223.223] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 02:12 GMT) Marking the Boundaries · 305 “mediated through time (history) and defined in space (geography).”13 The purpose of this self-definition, Samuels continues, is to delineate “our place in the world,” showing an image of what we want ourselves to be known to people around the globe.14 Understanding historical geography this way, the founding of the discipline in modern China was more than satisfying the needs for the national school system, creating a collective identity among geographers, or introducing modern scientific skills and methods. It was an attempt to present a self-image of China to the...