Scholarlink

<p>In the chapters on Tibet (Xizang) in&#xa0;<i>The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 10, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911</i>, Joseph Fletcher, following Luciano Petech’s theory of the protectorate, argued that the Qing dynasty possessed only&#xa0;“symbolic authority”&#xa0;in Xizang. Based on this premise, he offered a one-sided interpretation of relevant historical events. This article introduces ritual as an analytical tool and integrates it with the operation of the various institutions through which the Qing administered Xizang. It argues that Qing authority in Xizang was neither merely symbolic nor purely coercive, but was embedded in a distinctive mode of&#xa0;ritualized sovereignty. This mode incorporated&#xa0;Tibetan Buddhist&#xa0;institutions into the Qing political order while preserving a degree of autonomous space for their operation, thereby achieving effective rule over Xizang.&#xa0;This&#xa0;analytical framework transcends the binary opposition between the substantive and the symbolic, offering a new theoretical perspective for understanding frontier governance in the&#xa0;multi-ethnic Qing dynasty.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Beyond “symbolic authority”: Qing governance in Xizang and the construction of “ritualized sovereignty”

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月30日

查看全文
  • Hairuo Jiang,
  • Wenpeng Liu

摘要

In the chapters on Tibet (Xizang) in The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 10, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911, Joseph Fletcher, following Luciano Petech’s theory of the protectorate, argued that the Qing dynasty possessed only “symbolic authority” in Xizang. Based on this premise, he offered a one-sided interpretation of relevant historical events. This article introduces ritual as an analytical tool and integrates it with the operation of the various institutions through which the Qing administered Xizang. It argues that Qing authority in Xizang was neither merely symbolic nor purely coercive, but was embedded in a distinctive mode of ritualized sovereignty. This mode incorporated Tibetan Buddhist institutions into the Qing political order while preserving a degree of autonomous space for their operation, thereby achieving effective rule over Xizang. This analytical framework transcends the binary opposition between the substantive and the symbolic, offering a new theoretical perspective for understanding frontier governance in the multi-ethnic Qing dynasty.