From alien land to inalienable parts of China: how Qing imperial possessions became the Chinese Frontiers

Abstract

Scholarship on the origins of modern territoriality and the modernist conception of territory has largely been confined to Europe and its colonial histories. Few attempts have been made to understand modern territoriality from an alternative epistemic starting point. This article moves beyond critiques of Eurocentrism by examining the territorial metamorphosis of the Qing Empire to modern China. Like the United States and Russia, China has retained its early modern continental colonial possessions. In order to explain the territorialisation of the multi-ethnic Qing empire, this article engages empirically with cartographic and textual representations of China from Confucian literati scholars, European Jesuit cartographers and the Manchu imperial court from the 17th to the early 19th centuries. The empirical study shows that by the early 19th century, a new territorialised conception of ‘China’ closely resembling that of modern territoriality had emerged. This ‘modern’ and Sinocentric form of territoriality encompassed areas that were hitherto seen as foreign and non-Chinese. In opposition to the extant Eurocentric historiography, this article traces the emergence of modern territoriality in imperial China to a nexus of European cartographic techniques, Qing imperial conquests and the literati synthesis of Manchu imperial and Sinocentric forms of territoriality. By showing the deep historical processes and global entanglements behind the emergence of modern China as a territorial state, the article makes a case for a polycentric account of modern territoriality

Reflections on Multidisciplinary Scholarship in the Study of Himalayan Borders and Borderlands

“…Though the Qing was China-centred, they were not a Chinese Empire. In their endeavours to mark the limits of their Empire, the Qing employed Jesuit missionaries, Manchu, Chinese and sometimes even Tibetan cartographers, who were often trained by British and Russian map-makers (Hostetler, 2007; Li, 2022). Much like European colonial maps, Qing imperial maps portrayed fluid boundaries as opaque administrative borders, and hence demarcating Qing boundaries was not just a territorial transformation but an ‘epistemic’ exercise as well.…”

Towards a global security studies: what can looking at China tell us about the concept of security?

“…The People’s Armed Police, which has duties centred on internal security, has also been restructured and incorporated under the Central Military Commission, strengthening party control. Consequently, analysing security in China through theory based on Western territoriality (see also Li, 2022) gives only a partial picture of what is happening. This shows the importance of history and culture in shaping the concept of security.…”

Seeing Digital Asia Spatially: Vignettes of Digital Sociospatial Relations

“…In this case, a Chinese digital territory is created in order to develop state sovereignty over digital relations (Davis 2020;Fang 2018;Morris 2022a). As Elden (2013Elden ( , 2017 and Li (2022) show, these developments highlight that territory is not a universal constant but, rather, something produced in specific contexts in ways that reflect the position of the institutions, humans, and non-humans involved in its production. The lodestone of China's digital territorialization project is the infrastructural apparatus often called the Great Firewall of China, an internet protocol blocking firewall that is part of a broader legal and infrastructural system involved in the production of digital territory (de Seta 2021; Griffiths 2019; Roberts 2018).…”