China and Japan reacted very differently to the Western pressures of colonialism in the early 19th century. Both countries were sovereign states with centuries of history and relatively stable governments for the region. Under the Developmental or Statist theory, both countries should have been able to easily move into the global market without problem. For Japan, this was the case; however, China took a very different path.
Neither country was accepting of the West. Both adopted isolationist methodologies and rejected Western efforts to open ports or establish trade agreements. This is where the similarities end. The modernization theory points a path of where the two countries divided sharply in their response to Western pressure.
Japan, understanding that the western nations were industrially mighty and relentless, began a proactive campaign to strengthen their state. They adopted the traditions of the west necessary to become competitive without losing their indigenous culture or social structure. Japan established a strong enough infrastructure to be on equal footing with the western powers so they could be trade partners, not colonized victims.
Geography was a downfall for China. Ch’ien Lung, in the early 18th century, denied British trade requests believing that there was nothing China needed from the outside world. Their vast lands were the center of the universe and everything their countrymen needed was already there. In many aspects, they were correct. As industry flourished and the workers’ tea habit became insatiable, Britain was turning more silver over to China in exchange for tea and not much else. However, the Chinese were not ready for the ruthlessness of the market and instead of evolving as Japan did to respond to the new global market, they allowed the market to dictate how business would be done in China. Britain fired first, introducing opium to the Chinese working class. This lead to two wars for the Chinese who were not prepared to deal with an international superpower, especially one with decades of battle experience. The result – treaties unfavorable to China and a coastline littered with foreign countries.
In 2009, it appears according to the world system theory that both China and Japan have moved into the core of highly developed countries; however, their path was not the same. China remained at the periphery for more years than it needed to because it relied on the mythology that they were a divine nation. Japan was aggressive in its approach, proactive from the start. Although they took a major hit after World War II, their methodology learned from the 19th century helped them bounce back quickly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Charles,
ReplyDeletePerhaps Ch’ien Lung was correct at the time when he believed China needed nothing from the outside world when you consider much of what they received from the British: opium, tobacco, liquor, and weapons! Of course, it is difficult to imagine that some of these things (like liquor) did not exist there before their interaction with the British.
I found it very interesting in your post and in the readings that the Chinese were so weak, unlike Japan, despite their vast natural resources (something Japan lacked). It really demonstrates what a difference a national image and strong government make. And while China absorbed some cultural practice, I was interested to read on page 52 that the Chinese had a way of assimilating outside (like the Manchus and Mongols) conquerors and ethnic groups like merchant Jews almost to the point where they were no longer distinguishable from the native Chinese.
When I read this, I thought about the Western companies that now do business in China, according to the terms of a strong central government. In some ways, it would also seem that some American companies have been assimilated into the culture and politics of China to where their policies are much different from those of their main branches in the United States. Reports of Google and Yahoo sharing information to the authorities concerning unauthorized online activity and supposedly subversive communication would not be tolerated by U.S. stockholders and consumers, yet they are perfectly acceptable in China as part of doing business there (regardless of the consequences). In some ways, it would seem that China has been able to affect other cultures as well as absorb other cultures.
To me, it seems like Japan would have been much more vulnerable to invasion than China, with its narrow lands surrounded completely by navigable waters, but Japan’s organization and strength made such a venture too costly and uncertain. Even a weakened Japan in WWII would have been a formidable task for the Allies to invade.
I just completed a study on Botswana and found that even though it is relatively weak, its strong governance and moderate resources have enabled it to bargain with multinational corporations like DeBeers with confidence and enforce the terms of agreements. Its ability to manage its affairs effectively has also discouraged corruption and inequitable trade agreements. To be sure, they still have problems, but consistently rank within the top three best governed nations in Africa. When comparing Botswana to China and Japan, it seems clear that government matters.
I agree that the quality of imports for the Chinese in the time of Ch'ien Lung were not nearly the quality of export (e.g. tea) in relation to supply and demand. China's problem was their viewpoint on their global standing. One of the characterisitics of the modern nation state (Simone-67) is the realization that you are one of many - a global community. China's isolationist practice closed off this window. Japan also had isolationist policies as well, but unlike China they were not too proud (arrogant, really) to believe that they had the global-game figured out. They assimiliated the practices that were working for the Westerners and built of their citizens with the belief that they could compete with the West on its own footing. Rather than rely on centuries of greatness, they methodically took the time to study and adapt to their condition. As you stated, China was used to conquerors invading its vast lands and then over time assimilating into the Chinese culture. The British were not new to inhabiting new lands and establishing colonies; they also were not used to hearing the word "No". - China, windows closed, was simply unprepared to tackle a Western world that had modernized while the Chinese slumbered.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up a good point about China thinking too much of itself, but not having the sophistication to compliment that confidence in their own exceptionalism. This suggests a kind of hubris and illusion that led to complacency and isolationism. I suppose they thought that colonialism would be a passing nuisance. It would appear there is a lesson to learn about isolationism in this case and what may happen if nations are not prepared to take on challenges in a timely manner.
ReplyDeleteWhen we look though at how each country dealt with the West, we see that they each grappled with the ideas of whether or not they should let the West in and at various times embraced conflicting ideas. Ultimately though, when China allows Western traders in, it spells doom - would it have been better for it NOT to have reformed and to have remained isolationists?
ReplyDeleteBut had China put forth a more dominant position - something other than "We are the center of the universe and the rest of you are pathetic" which is basically what was sent back to the British king they could have faired better. The reason China's position with the West spelled doom was because China spit in the eyes of the British and the British replied with a nasty crate of opium. With good relations at the onset, I am not sure if Britain would have taken such a negative approach.
ReplyDeleteChina, in my opinion, could have probably done without the whole British trade fiasco. But, the British were able to use weak Chinese organization and administration to their advantage. Had the British encountered a more self-confident and competent state (which is more than simply being proud and arrogant), China could have more effectively dictated the terms of trade. However, it took over a hundred years, but China did learn and did realize its collective power – albeit at a tremendous price. If it were to be isolationist, it would have been an ineffective isolationist incapable of maintaining disengagement or repelling incursion. So, it would seem, history set China up for its eventual exploitation, but that same experience has also led it to be formidable today with reciprocal interests in the major world powers of today. It can’t provide a socialist state without the West and the West can’t provide a healthy capitalist system without China. It would seem that China has learned its lesson well.
ReplyDelete