Society of Imperial Power: Reinterpreting China’s “Feudal Society”

Feng Tianyu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/23521341-01010003

2014-04-24

Journal of Chinese Humanities

Abstract:Abstract To call the period from Qin Dynasty to Qing Dynasty a “feudal society” is a misrepresentation of China’s historical reality. The fengjian system only occupied a secondary position in Chinese society from the time of Qin. It was the system of prefectures and counties ( junxianzhi ) that served as the cornerstone of the centralized power structure. This system, together with the institution of selecting officials through the imperial examination, constituted the centralized bureaucracy that intentionally crippled the hereditary tradition and the localized aristocratic powers, and hence bolstered the unity of the empire. Feudalism in medieval Western Europe shares many similarities with that of China during the Shang and Zhou dynasties, but is quite different from the monarchical centralism since the time of Qin and Han. Categorizing the social form of the period from Qin to Qing as “feudal” makes the mistake of over-generalizing and distorting this concept. It runs counter to the original Chinese meaning of fengjian , and severely deviates from the western connotation of feudalism. Moreover, the decentralized feudalism in pre-Qin dynasties and the later centralized imperial system from Qin onwards influenced the generation and evolution of Chinese culture in vastly different ways.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether the social form in China from the Qin Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty can be defined as "feudal society". The author, Feng Tianyu, believes that calling this period "feudal society" is a misreading of China's historical reality. He points out that the feudal system (fengjian system) only occupied a secondary position after the Qin Dynasty, and the county - prefecture system (junxianzhi system) was the cornerstone of the centralized structure. This system, together with the system of selecting officials through the imperial examination, formed the centralized bureaucratic system, which deliberately weakened the hereditary tradition and the power of local aristocrats, thus strengthening the unity of the empire.

The core view of the paper is that classifying the social form from the Qin to the Qing Dynasties as "feudal society" is an over - generalized and distorted concept. This classification not only violates the original meaning of the word "feudal" in China, but also seriously deviates from the Western understanding of feudalism. The author emphasizes that Chinese society after the Qin and Han Dynasties is essentially different from the feudal society in medieval Western Europe. The latter had decentralized local aristocratic power and personal dependency relationships, while the former was a highly centralized autocratic monarchy.

In addition, the paper also explores the translation and use of the word "feudal" when the historical terms of the East and the West converged in the early 20th century. The author points out that early scholars such as Yan Fu and Liang Qichao translated "feudalism" as "feudal" when translating Western literature. This translation was reasonable at that time, but later this concept was over - generalized, leading to misunderstandings of Chinese history. The paper calls for a re - examination and correction of this error in order to more accurately understand the development context of Chinese history.