If my posting becomes less frequent over the next week or the quality decreases drastically (if that's possible) it's because I have a week-long take-home comprehensive final exam.
It's two questions and I don't know the specifics yet. My professor told me that one question is on what we learned this semester. So that probably deals with the evolution and shifting definition of modern Chinese nationalism.
The other question deals with theorizing about rulers' legitimacy pre-nation-state and during the nation-state era. Here I can draw on my studies of Vijayanagara (14th-16th century south Indian kingdom) and the Qing Dynasty of China during the 19th century. There are actually parallels between the two. Both allowed much of their empire to remain autonomous. This limited any drastic uprooting of their subjects' lives.
Both Vijayanagara and the Qing dealt with a precarious multi-ethnic situation. Vijayanagara's rulers were religiously Hindu, but they bordered Muslim kingdoms and had a large Muslim quarter within the capital city. The rulers adopted a hybrid culture with culturally Hindu and culturally Islamic features. They wore clothes that resembled those of sultans and their buildings were a fusion of south Indian stairs-like domes and Islamic arched doorways. Muslims also held prominent positions within the military. The Qing were Manchus ruling over the dominant Han. They tried to preserve their own culture (only imposing the queue hairstyle) while finding legitimacy in orthodox Confucianism, which ironically only pushed a Han cultural dominance.
As far as legitimacy in the nation-state era, I can focus on China. But I can't really theorize about it until I get the actual question, because there have been so many shifts and turns even since 1911.
Maybe I'll use the blog to think things through more, or just blow some steam off. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
No comments:
Post a Comment