A Jiangnan Identity in North China: the Making of Jining Urban Culture in the Late Imperial Period
Jinghao Sun
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/late.2011.0010
2011-01-01
Late Imperial China
Abstract:A Jiangnan Identity in North China: The Making of Jining Urban Culture in the Late Imperial Period Jinghao Sun (bio) I. Introduction Although Jining today is generally known as the administrative seat for the home district of Confucius and Mencius, it was also a major trading entrepôt from the early fifteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries, roughly the heyday of Grand Canal operation. As recently as 2001, in telling stories about their hometown, local elders spoke primarily of the Grand Canal, the Taibai Pavilion (Taibai lou), the Yutang food-processing firm, along with a variety of stories concerning well-known historical celebrities, sojourners and travelers. Rather than native sages such as Confucius and Mencius, it was sojourning literary and artistic giants who were most commemorated at historical sites such as the Taibai Pavilion in this Confucian heartland.1 In terms of its physical appearance, at least in the eyes of its residents, Jining seemed to live up to its historical epithet "Little Suzhou," an appellation that vividly captures the Jiangnan style of a canal-laced cityscape, and a prosperous urban image found in late imperial literature. Why would a city in the quintessentially northern province of Shandong manifest these "southern" attributes? This article answers this question by examining the origins of Jining's Jiangnan-style cultural identity with particular reference to the city's network of commercial and social relations that was dominated by local elites. As bequeathed by Karl Marx, Max Weber, and many Western theorists, ancient Chinese cities were identified as political and military centers with only weak economic functions and as places where commerce and consumption far outstripped any "real" production. This image of the Chinese city stood in opposition to European cities, which, to these thinkers, gestated capitalist [End Page 34] and industrial modernity.2 Older scholarship in the field of Chinese studies tended to agree with this analysis and similarly repudiated the existence of independent urbanism in premodern Chinese society.3 It became a commonplace among China scholars by the early 1960s that China, as a whole, was still in a predominantly agrarian stage before the stimulus of modern western civilization beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Largely inspired by William Skinner's provocative study of the Chinese marketing system based on central-place theory,4 beginning in the mid-1960s revisionist historians began to perceive cities and market towns in the late imperial period as existing within a spatially graded urban hierarchy, which was shaped by the hierarchies of local commercialization. Fruitful new research has led to the recognition that new types of cities and market towns constituted economic and cultural urban centers, especially in commercially advanced areas such as the Yangzi Delta and the Pearl River Delta.5 The term "Jiangnan" literally refers [End Page 35] to places "south of the Yangzi River," in both its conventional designation and its scholarly usage. As a geographical designation, Jiangnan roughly covers the jurisdictional territories of Suzhou, Songjiang, and Changzhou prefectures (in present-day Jiangsu province) and Hangzhou, Jiaxing, and Huzhou prefectures (in present-day Zhejiang province). Revisionist historians have enthusiastically studied the flowering of the Yangzi Delta's commercialized economy and urban culture.6 While these studies have been essential in expanding our knowledge of the more commercialized and urbanized regions of late imperial China they have largely focused on the Jiangnan region and have thus developed a distinctly Jiangnan-based, if not an even Jiangnan-biased scholarship in the field of late imperial Chinese history.7 In contrast, northern cities are still conventionally recognized as being more political or more administrative—in accordance with their lower levels of commercialization and economic development—rather than commercial. Thus, North China in general is understood as being less "urban" in terms of economy, culture, and society, especially when compared with the Jiangnan region.8 This southern bias in the field of late imperial scholarship has created regional clichés, which often pit the urban south against the rural north. Such clichés tend to overlook considerable exceptions to the southern model provided by a few commercialized and urbanized centers in the north, such as Jining in Shandong, that shared many attributes with southern cities. Despite a huge...