The “Sino-barbarian dichotomy” amid the political chess of China’s dynasties: In the examples of the Song, Liao, and Jin dynasties

Abstract

The “Sino-barbarian dichotomy” (華夷之辨 Hua yi zhi bian) was a major theme in China’s ancient historical debates: even today, scholarly circles have produced a welter of opinions as to the merits of the “Sino-barbarian dichotomy,” and even as to the standards for differentiating between the “Chinese” (華 Hua) and the “barbarians” (夷 yi). In tracing the idea to its source, the Confucians noted correctly that the only standard for the “Sino-barbarian dichotomy” is cultural (not including race or geographical origin): this implies a veneration for “civilization” coupled with the denigration of “barbarism,” with the aim of constructing a “grand unified” order for “All Under Heaven” through ritual culture. In practicing the politico-cultural concept of “Sino-barbarian dichotomy,” dynastic rulers and the literati community frequently brought it into play on the basis of practical political considerations, and even deliberately blurred or distorted the broad and narrow connotations of the terms Chinese and barbarian. This is the origin of the many divergences in understanding and disagreements among scholarly circles regarding the “Sino-barbarian dichotomy.” We can clarify this understanding if we approach the intrinsic meaning of the “Sino-barbarian dichotomy” from a pragmatics’ perspective: political practices from the Song, Liao, and Jin dynasties amply reflect the active role played by the “Sino-barbarian dichotomy” in spurring the formation of the Chinese people.