What do you think?
Rate this book
Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China
Prasenjit Duara offers the first systematic account of the relationship between the nation-state, nationalism, and the concept of linear history. Focusing primarily on China and including discussion of India, Duara argues that many historians of postcolonial nation-states have adopted a linear, evolutionary history of the Enlightenment/colonial model. As a result, they have written repressive, exclusionary, and incomplete accounts.
The backlash against such histories has resulted in a tendency to view the past as largely constructed, imagined, or invented. In this book, Duara offers a way out of the impasse between constructionism and the evolving nation; he redefines history as a series of multiple, often conflicting narratives produced simultaneously at national, local, and transnational levels. In a series of closely linked case studies, he considers such examples as the very different histories produced by Chinese nationalist reformers and partisans of popular religions, the conflicting narratives of statist nationalists and of advocates of federalism in early twentieth-century China. He demonstrates the necessity of incorporating contestation, appropriation, repression, and the return of the repressed subject into any account of the past that will be meaningful to the present. Duara demonstrates how to write histories that resist being pressed into the service of the national subject in its progress—or stalled progress—toward modernity.
The backlash against such histories has resulted in a tendency to view the past as largely constructed, imagined, or invented. In this book, Duara offers a way out of the impasse between constructionism and the evolving nation; he redefines history as a series of multiple, often conflicting narratives produced simultaneously at national, local, and transnational levels. In a series of closely linked case studies, he considers such examples as the very different histories produced by Chinese nationalist reformers and partisans of popular religions, the conflicting narratives of statist nationalists and of advocates of federalism in early twentieth-century China. He demonstrates the necessity of incorporating contestation, appropriation, repression, and the return of the repressed subject into any account of the past that will be meaningful to the present. Duara demonstrates how to write histories that resist being pressed into the service of the national subject in its progress—or stalled progress—toward modernity.
286 pages, Paperback
First published October 15, 1995
11 people are currently reading
199 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
August 30, 2011
Interrogations into the discursive field for the history of modern china before it was set, bifurcating what may have been (history written by the losers) from the weight of the present interpretive regime. An intellectual prosopography: some Liang Qichao and some Liang Shuming, a little bit of Hu Shi and Lu Xun, some Sun Yat-Sen and some Mao Zedong, and other figures I don't know as well. Comparisons with India always, always appreciated.
Various chapters pursue the following themes-as-buzzwords:
*religion
*brotherhood
*fengjian
*federalism
*critiquing modernity (special appearance from Gandhi!)
Sometimes felt rushed.
Various chapters pursue the following themes-as-buzzwords:
*religion
*brotherhood
*fengjian
*federalism
*critiquing modernity (special appearance from Gandhi!)
Sometimes felt rushed.
May 28, 2024
Prasenjit Duara’s Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China is a postcolonial critique of nationalist historiography which argues that nationalist histories often simplify and distort complex historical realities to serve the interests of the nation-state (hardly a revolutionary thesis, despite what Duara would claim). Duara challenges linear “History” with a capital “H” (its origins ascribed to Hegel) in favour of a nuanced, “bifurcated history.”
Duara critiques the ways in which history is often written to promote a cohesive national identity, which leads to the marginalization or erasure of diverse experiences and perspectives, particularly in regards to China’s ethnic minorities. He suggests that, following Hegel, nationalist narratives tend to present history as a teleological progression towards the present, ignoring the contingencies and complexities of historical processes. Duara’s main critique focuses upon its social Darwinian and racial presentation in Chinese reformer and revolutionary discourse, particularly in Liang Qichao, Sun Zhongsan, Fu Sinian, Wang Jignwei, and others, with Lu Xun as the unsurprising revolutionary among them who rejected such categorization. Most interestingly, Duara contributes to the historiography surrounding the concept of the “nation” by arguing for the existence of a sort of culture-state which existed before Western intervention in India and China, challenging the works of Benedict Anderson and others who regard the nation as an Enlightenment concept. There is also a fascinating chapter on the federalist movement and an attempted rehabilitation of Chen Jiongming which Western historians have been slow to catch up to.
There are some flaws with the work. I do not accept, as Duara attempts to do, the placing of the totality of the blame for national “History” at the feet of Hegel. Hegel’s concept of the nation and its status as the object of history is to be critiqued, of course, but to ascribe it solely to him borders on the absurd. Few, if any, of the Chinese or Indian figures Duara draws attention to even read or engaged with Hegel in any meaningful capacity. Duara’s work is postcolonial and condemns, if less forcefully or explicitly than his colleagues, the existence of meta-narratives, including Marxism. As a Marxist, I of course cannot accept this. This is connected to Duara’s call for “alternative histories” in contrast to the “History” he critiques, but Duara is loathe to actually present any example of these alternative histories aside from provincial/regional history or analysis of the anti-modernist thought of Gandhi.
Duara critiques the ways in which history is often written to promote a cohesive national identity, which leads to the marginalization or erasure of diverse experiences and perspectives, particularly in regards to China’s ethnic minorities. He suggests that, following Hegel, nationalist narratives tend to present history as a teleological progression towards the present, ignoring the contingencies and complexities of historical processes. Duara’s main critique focuses upon its social Darwinian and racial presentation in Chinese reformer and revolutionary discourse, particularly in Liang Qichao, Sun Zhongsan, Fu Sinian, Wang Jignwei, and others, with Lu Xun as the unsurprising revolutionary among them who rejected such categorization. Most interestingly, Duara contributes to the historiography surrounding the concept of the “nation” by arguing for the existence of a sort of culture-state which existed before Western intervention in India and China, challenging the works of Benedict Anderson and others who regard the nation as an Enlightenment concept. There is also a fascinating chapter on the federalist movement and an attempted rehabilitation of Chen Jiongming which Western historians have been slow to catch up to.
There are some flaws with the work. I do not accept, as Duara attempts to do, the placing of the totality of the blame for national “History” at the feet of Hegel. Hegel’s concept of the nation and its status as the object of history is to be critiqued, of course, but to ascribe it solely to him borders on the absurd. Few, if any, of the Chinese or Indian figures Duara draws attention to even read or engaged with Hegel in any meaningful capacity. Duara’s work is postcolonial and condemns, if less forcefully or explicitly than his colleagues, the existence of meta-narratives, including Marxism. As a Marxist, I of course cannot accept this. This is connected to Duara’s call for “alternative histories” in contrast to the “History” he critiques, but Duara is loathe to actually present any example of these alternative histories aside from provincial/regional history or analysis of the anti-modernist thought of Gandhi.
July 12, 2025
meh. read it for a class. maybe it was the professor that made me think of this as meh. but in any case though the history was interesting (though a bit hard to follow) since im not too well informed on chinese history, the theoretical intervention duara makes with “bifurcated history” and “discent” largely felt like reinventing the wheel wrt dialectics. when i pushed my professors further on this matter i was cindescendingly and authoritatively told that i misunderstand dialectics. and then upon confirming with a different professor who is more informed on marxist dialectics and several other well-read marxists i was told that my professor was muchhmore wronger than i am. so. idk maybe this book was unfairly ruined for me. maybe i was apalled that the internal logic of this book is consistent with a whiteguy scholar who used it to characterize falun gong positively. whatever.
August 9, 2021
A mixed-bad. Duara explores very important themes. His central thesis is convincing. This is not an issue limited to China (or India): Duara challenges us all to look beyond the simple nationalistically orientated stories of history, and explore the lost threads.
However, the book strikes me as simply an unskillful piece of writing. It reads more as an essay collection than an argument, which is all fine, except that the very reason the book is popular is the argument it is supposed to develop. The language is also difficult, sometimes obscurantist, and for little obvious reason. Some interesting anecdotes aside, I felt the material could have fitted a short article.
However, the book strikes me as simply an unskillful piece of writing. It reads more as an essay collection than an argument, which is all fine, except that the very reason the book is popular is the argument it is supposed to develop. The language is also difficult, sometimes obscurantist, and for little obvious reason. Some interesting anecdotes aside, I felt the material could have fitted a short article.
July 2, 2024
杜赞奇对历史及其客观性的看法，与其说更像福柯，更像布迪厄，各种主体（政权、历史学家、个人等）用“对历史的叙述”在“历史叙事场域”中竞争。简而言之，就是需要认识到History背后潜藏的话语霸权以及斗争的性质。
于是“辨别是谁支配了历史？”就成了问题的关键。chapter6里，杜赞奇涉及到了晚清兴起的对“封建制”的讨论，而同样秦晖也在《走出帝制》涉及到了同样的话题。在杜赞奇的书中，他肯定了蕴涵在“封建”（周制封建）中的可以克制下渗中央皇权的积极因素，但由于日本明治维新（从封建到皇权集中）的影响以及由于“全球的民族国家体系”压力下要把中国打造成集权的民族国家的目的，封建一词逐渐被赋予了消极含义，甚至从晚清时的积极意义彻底逆转为消极意义。而秦晖在《走出帝制》中同样也发现了晚清时郭嵩焘与陈锡鸿等人“援西救儒”的思想，不过秦晖也指出，“为什么晚清时期的文人重提封建/三代”，原因正是西方的影响，因为晚清的儒家文人和西方接触之后，发现原来孔夫子的三代是可以实现的，而西洋的民主制度就是孔夫子的三代，而在这里晚清文人的敌友关系是“周制/三代/封建VS秦制”，同样的秦晖在书中也提及了“日式（忠于天皇的）个人主义”对晚清历史走向的不利影响。于此，我们就能看到二者对历史描述的“承异”之处，秦晖肯定了晚清受到西方民主的正向影响（以及其后发生的“世界第二波民主化”），而杜赞奇则否定西方民族国家的国际体系（代表了社会达尔文主义的、进化论的）对晚清历史走向的制约（不利影响），当然，这是同一枚故事的正反面，只是二者的视角不同了，杜赞奇更少地意识到中国传统的“秦制”（同样也反映在他的第一本著作文化权力与国家中），甚至把毛泽东的文革也认为是中了西方启蒙之毒（P216），而忽略了中国意识形态“内外之别”的“传统”（儒表法里的说一套做一套），从这里看，还是秦晖的历史论述更高一筹。 但诡异的是，二者又在“中国向何处去”这里达成了某种共识，用秦晖的话来说就是“小共同体与公民的联合vs大共同体”。不过大共同体的内涵就究竟是什么？也就是要打倒什么？就是要从nation中拯救历史？还是从party中拯救历史？还是二者兼有之？这恐怕是刘仲敬的论述了。
补：看Goodreads有个给杜赞奇打三星的是个自称“马克思主义者”的洋人，于此也可见“后殖民主义”的解构会解构到“马克思主义”本身的。
于是“辨别是谁支配了历史？”就成了问题的关键。chapter6里，杜赞奇涉及到了晚清兴起的对“封建制”的讨论，而同样秦晖也在《走出帝制》涉及到了同样的话题。在杜赞奇的书中，他肯定了蕴涵在“封建”（周制封建）中的可以克制下渗中央皇权的积极因素，但由于日本明治维新（从封建到皇权集中）的影响以及由于“全球的民族国家体系”压力下要把中国打造成集权的民族国家的目的，封建一词逐渐被赋予了消极含义，甚至从晚清时的积极意义彻底逆转为消极意义。而秦晖在《走出帝制》中同样也发现了晚清时郭嵩焘与陈锡鸿等人“援西救儒”的思想，不过秦晖也指出，“为什么晚清时期的文人重提封建/三代”，原因正是西方的影响，因为晚清的儒家文人和西方接触之后，发现原来孔夫子的三代是可以实现的，而西洋的民主制度就是孔夫子的三代，而在这里晚清文人的敌友关系是“周制/三代/封建VS秦制”，同样的秦晖在书中也提及了“日式（忠于天皇的）个人主义”对晚清历史走向的不利影响。于此，我们就能看到二者对历史描述的“承异”之处，秦晖肯定了晚清受到西方民主的正向影响（以及其后发生的“世界第二波民主化”），而杜赞奇则否定西方民族国家的国际体系（代表了社会达尔文主义的、进化论的）对晚清历史走向的制约（不利影响），当然，这是同一枚故事的正反面，只是二者的视角不同了，杜赞奇更少地意识到中国传统的“秦制”（同样也反映在他的第一本著作文化权力与国家中），甚至把毛泽东的文革也认为是中了西方启蒙之毒（P216），而忽略了中国意识形态“内外之别”的“传统”（儒表法里的说一套做一套），从这里看，还是秦晖的历史论述更高一筹。 但诡异的是，二者又在“中国向何处去”这里达成了某种共识，用秦晖的话来说就是“小共同体与公民的联合vs大共同体”。不过大共同体的内涵就究竟是什么？也就是要打倒什么？就是要从nation中拯救历史？还是从party中拯救历史？还是二者兼有之？这恐怕是刘仲敬的论述了。
补：看Goodreads有个给杜赞奇打三星的是个自称“马克思主义者”的洋人，于此也可见“后殖民主义”的解构会解构到“马克思主义”本身的。
February 21, 2013
Continuing my dark journey through the seedy underbelly of academia, I step over the festering mass of this confusing book. Duara thinks there is a "repressive connection" between History (yes, with an H, which also stands for Hegel) and the "nation". Enlightenment historiography has dominated the world! Completely! And we must rescue history (with a little h) from...well, from someone, apparently. This is one of those hilarious books in which concepts are anthropomorphized, categories of analysis are not ill-chosen and/or ill-defined, and the author himself falls into the traps that he is criticizing. So if teleological progress in writing history is bad, then why do it, Prasenjit? Why is the modern nation-state system so pernicious? Haven't polities delineated themselves in the past? Of course there are alternative histories within nations, do we need this guy to tell us that? Yes, other people have historicality, pal. Sigh...
Currently reading
April 25, 2007my advisor's most well known book, on chinese nationalism. ive picked apart the index for references in a research project, but need to read the whole thing. ive heard it called a "field-changing" book...
March 24, 2008
Is it really that interesting to point out that there are alternatives to national history? Maybe it was in 1995 (though it's hard to see that being the case), but now it just feels like harping on a point that no one would disagree with.
August 28, 2015
A true classic! Will re-read. Read the Chinese translation this time. another layer of understanding!
April 30, 2017
“If it is true that that which lives in history cannot be defined, then it is ironic that the nation seeks its ultimate moorings in history.” (p.3)
Duara not only paints an alternative and much needed picture of Chinese history, he also makes a mould for a complete rework of historiography. It's not just a Deconstructionist argument, history is more than just interpretation; the reader as author. Rather, Duara argues that true historiographical work requires knowledge that history is a “bifurcated movement of transmission and dispersion” and that “Any transmission is also a reinvention” (p.71).
Nationalism, which sees itself as a radical break in history, ironically connects itself to history in a peculiar way. This is rooted in a strain of Hegelian history that permeates everything from Marx to Social Darwinism to Benedict Anderson. However I won't go too much into his argument here, Duara explains it thoroughly without wasting any space blabbing on about it. Perhaps this density to his writing is the only criticism I can offer.
With 'national consciousness' on the rise, this book makes a very powerful argument. It is funny that when he wrote it in 1995 he hypothesised a Europe that had dissolved into one, yet still depending on its uniqueness from its "others" by the formation of a particular "European identity". Yet we all know where Europe has come since that that time, 23 years ago.
Duara not only paints an alternative and much needed picture of Chinese history, he also makes a mould for a complete rework of historiography. It's not just a Deconstructionist argument, history is more than just interpretation; the reader as author. Rather, Duara argues that true historiographical work requires knowledge that history is a “bifurcated movement of transmission and dispersion” and that “Any transmission is also a reinvention” (p.71).
Nationalism, which sees itself as a radical break in history, ironically connects itself to history in a peculiar way. This is rooted in a strain of Hegelian history that permeates everything from Marx to Social Darwinism to Benedict Anderson. However I won't go too much into his argument here, Duara explains it thoroughly without wasting any space blabbing on about it. Perhaps this density to his writing is the only criticism I can offer.
With 'national consciousness' on the rise, this book makes a very powerful argument. It is funny that when he wrote it in 1995 he hypothesised a Europe that had dissolved into one, yet still depending on its uniqueness from its "others" by the formation of a particular "European identity". Yet we all know where Europe has come since that that time, 23 years ago.
Read
May 21, 2017Densely argued, but very intriguing.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews