{"title":"Double-track governance in traditional Chinese society: Dialectics between the enfeoffment system of fiefdom and the bureaucratic prefectural system","authors":"Jingdong Qu","doi":"10.1177/2057150X211027407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beginning in the Yin-Zhou and Qin-Han periods, development of the Chinese imperial system revolved around the dialectical tension between the “enfeoffmental system of fiefdom” (fengjian zhi, or the fengjian system) and the bureaucratic prefectural system (junxian zhi, or the junxian system). In Fei Xiaotong’s words, this was a dual-track politics of the “power of the monarch” and the “power of the gentry”. Under the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, the relationship between the monarch and his kinsfolk was governed by the Confucian hierarchical principle of “favoring the intimate” (qin-qin) and “respecting the superior” (zun-zun), and ritualized by the patriarchal order of clan, mourning rites, and ancestral worship. In addition, the “mandate of Heaven” solidified an organic relationship between the emperor and his subjects and became the foundation for monarchical rule. The bureaucratic prefectural system highlighted the historical change since the Warring States period, which had abolished the enfeoffmental fiefdom system and given birth to the concept of “all-under-Heaven” (gong tianxia). Thinkers like Wang Fuzhi and Gu Yanwu placed emphasis on the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom as a counterpart of to the bureaucratic prefectural system which helped break up the centralization of power and renew the debate on the dialectic between “public” and “private”. In sum, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in China still needs to be clarified through re-examining the Classics.","PeriodicalId":37302,"journal":{"name":"社会","volume":"7 1","pages":"347 - 389"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2057150X211027407","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"社会","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2057150X211027407","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Beginning in the Yin-Zhou and Qin-Han periods, development of the Chinese imperial system revolved around the dialectical tension between the “enfeoffmental system of fiefdom” (fengjian zhi, or the fengjian system) and the bureaucratic prefectural system (junxian zhi, or the junxian system). In Fei Xiaotong’s words, this was a dual-track politics of the “power of the monarch” and the “power of the gentry”. Under the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom, the relationship between the monarch and his kinsfolk was governed by the Confucian hierarchical principle of “favoring the intimate” (qin-qin) and “respecting the superior” (zun-zun), and ritualized by the patriarchal order of clan, mourning rites, and ancestral worship. In addition, the “mandate of Heaven” solidified an organic relationship between the emperor and his subjects and became the foundation for monarchical rule. The bureaucratic prefectural system highlighted the historical change since the Warring States period, which had abolished the enfeoffmental fiefdom system and given birth to the concept of “all-under-Heaven” (gong tianxia). Thinkers like Wang Fuzhi and Gu Yanwu placed emphasis on the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom as a counterpart of to the bureaucratic prefectural system which helped break up the centralization of power and renew the debate on the dialectic between “public” and “private”. In sum, the enfeoffmental system of fiefdom in China still needs to be clarified through re-examining the Classics.
期刊介绍:
The Chinese Journal of Sociology is a peer reviewed, international journal with the following standards: 1. The purpose of the Journal is to publish (in the English language) articles, reviews and scholarly comment which have been judged worthy of publication by appropriate specialists and accepted by the University on studies relating to sociology. 2. The Journal will be international in the sense that it will seek, wherever possible, to publish material from authors with an international reputation and articles that are of interest to an international audience. 3. In pursuit of the above the journal shall: (i) draw on and include high quality work from the international community . The Journal shall include work representing the major areas of interest in sociology. (ii) avoid bias in favour of the interests of particular schools or directions of research or particular political or narrow disciplinary objectives to the exclusion of others; (iii) ensure that articles are written in a terminology and style which makes them intelligible, not merely within the context of a particular discipline or abstract mode, but across the domain of relevant disciplines.