East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute

Contemporary Asia in the World

by David C. Kang

From the founding of the Ming dynasty in 1368 to the start of the Opium Wars in 1841, China has engaged in only two large-scale conflicts with its principal neighbors, Korea, Vietnam, and Japan. These four territorial and centralized states have otherwise fostered peaceful and long-lasting relationships with one another, and as they have grown more powerful, the atmosphere around them has stabilized.

Focusing on the role of the "tribute system" in maintaining stability in East Asia and in fostering diplomatic and commercial exchange, Kang contrasts this history against the example of Europe and the East Asian states' skirmishes with nomadic peoples to the north and west. Although China has been the unquestioned hegemon in the region, with other political units always considered secondary, the tributary order entailed military, cultural, and economic dimensions that afforded its participants immense latitude. Europe's "Westphalian" system, on the other hand, was based on formal equality among states and balance-of-power politics, resulting in incessant interstate conflict.

Scholars tend to view Europe's experience as universal, but Kang upends this tradition, emphasizing East Asia's formal hierarchy as an international system with its own history and character. This approach not only recasts our understanding of East Asian relations but also defines a model that applies to other hegemonies outside the European order.

Genres: History, China, Nonfiction, Asia, International Relations, Japan, Politics

240 pages, Hardcover

First published September 22, 2010

Reviews

[TG Lin · Rating 4 out of 5]

這本簡體中文譯本的《西方之前的東亞︰朝貢貿易五百年（East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trading and Tribute）》，是由美國南加州大學韓國研究所主任「康燦雄（David C.Kang）」、對「中國朝貢制度」的研究作品。作者一開始便提出一個比較性的問題︰為何在近代早期的時期，重視國家主權的歐洲各國彼此征戰不已，但實施國家等級的「朝貢制度」的東亞，卻在相較之下呈現大體的和平景象？
　
若順著作者所提出的「大哉問」，歐洲依著「威斯特伐利亞和約」之後開始重視「國家主權」、各個主權國之間在國際上處於平等的地位，各方依照「均勢」原則架構起國際局勢。而東亞，卻有「中國」這麼一個超級強權存在，而想當然耳，缺乏制裁的強權將會持續地欺壓周邊的弱國，而外圍的崛起力量也應該會不斷地挑戰中國霸權地位想取而代之。但歷史真實的發展卻恰恰相反︰近代的歐洲各國之間很少有所謂的和平（四十年的和平已是難能可貴的奇蹟了……）；而近代的東亞國際卻相當和平，僅僅出現幾場國際戰爭、而且戰後立即重歸原有的秩序。
　
這種東亞秩序的建立與延續，自然與以中國為頂點的「朝貢制度」有關。而朝貢制度的參與者，西方學者曾經提出各式各樣的理論，對於比較「弱勢」的國家（特別是朝鮮與越南），通常不外乎各種「陽奉陰違」的說法，最通行的是「貿易利益遮掩民族自尊」。但作者在書中以各種層面加以分析，尤其在最後一章作出結論，認為今天大家所認定的價值觀（主權國家的自尊），在當時不見得有其重要性。作者舉越南和朝鮮在近代政權為例，向外認同中國朝貢制度，同時也等於對內認定其國內的身份等級秩序。在東亞以中國為主的儒家文化之下，「文化」程度的高低，遠遠超過現代人才出現的民族主義思想。而這種朝貢制度建立在儒家秩序的基礎上，對於中國的約束力並不小於次一等的國家政體，所以不會有西方武人傳統中的帝國無限制擴張的情況——中朝、中越的邊界，在元明之際便已大致確立下來（雖然明初和清初出現過越南戰爭，但那與其說是征服，不如說是天朝介入越南的政爭；後來越南也認同了中國朝貢體系，雙方關係回到戰前）。各安其位之後，反倒造成比歐洲同期歷史更穩定的和平。
　
關於作者所列出的各種文化與經貿方面的事證，我個人不禁想到，人類社會集體所建構的「意識形態」，絕對沒有超越時代的正確或錯誤可見。我們早已知道「民族主義」是近代晚期才「發明」出來的概念，而這想像出來的共同體「民族」究竟要怎麼劃分，從來也沒有個客觀準則。另外，各個社會原本就有「服從權威」的習性——我認為這根植在人類物種的生物天性之中，端看該社群要拿神明或某政治家族來套用——所以強國與弱國認同於某種秩序，也就是東亞諸國所認同於儒家文化，權力責任各自和諧安排，完全是對大家有利、合情合理的事。因此，便無需再像先前那樣，用「強國打腫臉充胖子」或「弱國口服心不服」之類的分析︰這便是用今日世界觀去厚誣古人了。
　
自然地，自從西方列強進入東亞之後，原先的朝貢秩序再也不可能重現了。因此我們可以看到，今日的各個民族國家，無不重新依著現代的思想引導，重新「詮釋」過去的歷史。所以今日的韓國與越南，便拋棄了祖先們的生活情境，重新以「反中／抗中」為其民族精神的主旨。當然中國也不例外，同樣以鴉片戰爭作為民族主義的新訴求起點。對過去歷史的認知，也是透過現代重新塑造出來的︰有句大家常用的話，就是「任何歷史都是當代史」。由於作者的本行應該是「國際關係」，所以無可避免地對於東亞的歷史有許多細節會因其所選的資料而出錯（中譯者有作修正），但他所詮釋的大體方向，我個人是非常認同的。與其拿一兩件過去的歷史事件，作為今天意識形態的佐證資料，不如看懂這當中的操作。作為歷史閱讀的愛好者，能與古代的真實生活環境「同理」，遠比被現代政客們動員，更值得我個人的精力灌注。
　
值得一讀的書。

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

The centuries old hierarchical China-centric tribute system broke down in the 20th century due to the communist revolution and China being transformed from its Confucian structure to a modern hypernationalist country and the very brutal Japanese breach of the ancient hierarchical system during WW II. "'History' has been reduced to 'historical' memory" as Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and China de-emphasize the ancient East Asian political structure and highlight their own distinctive histories apart from that structure. Therefore much of the fascinating diplomatic and economic history of the past centuries that Kang writes about simply isn't valid anymore, as he acknowledges. He gives the amusing analogy of Greece's glorious past contrasted with its contemporary position as "Greece has no discernible "soft power," and few people look to Greece for leadership in international relations." In the same vein, China has lost the cultural superiority which carried so much weight in the past in East Asia. However, that doesn't mean that China and the above mentioned countries which were most influenced by China have completely accepted the so-called Westphalian sovereign state international order. Much depends on how much they, and especially China, can either work within the contemporary system or perhaps modify it using these nations' newfound economic and political power to accommodate East Asia's own unique hierarchical order, with China of course having traditionally been at the heart of it.

[Benjamin · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book's biggest disadvantage is that it feels more like an academic article or thesis work that's been turned out for public consumption with little done to make it more readable or accessible. The author can occasionally get a little lost in the details. On the other hand, the research is clearly very thorough and the underlying issues are quite fascinating. I've found that too often the complexity of societies that existed before Western domination get glossed over in research, as most academics are too busy falling over each other to condemn the evils of colonialism and Western imperialism. This book delivers that sort of research in spades and with a very dispassionate tone. The book could use a little more meat, however. What was most lacking for me was a more in depth comparison with prevalent trade and diplomatic systems in Europe at the time, given the eventual European domination of the Far East. While not directly the topic of the book, I would also have appreciated more coverage on the historic creation and unraveling of the Far East tribute system. As a small quibble, I also feel that more maps and graphs besides the numerous tables would not have been amiss.

[Ellie Kyesi]

"Yet history also works backward: after all, we learn about and remember events in the past by looking over our shoulders and shaping interpretations after the fact. And in this way, whose side of the story gets told in the present affects our knowledge of the past. Different stories emphasize, glorify, or condemn different people, events, and actions."

[Cory Lemke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Should be required reading for those seeking to understand the political history of East Asia

[Daniel Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brief and engaging book about the diplomatic relationship and shared Confucian relation system between the four East Asian states in the early modern period.

[J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've now only read the first few chapters of this book (for a class) but so far it is superbly written and takes a highly interesting perspective. In the author's own words: "[a]lthough scholars have expended considerable effort in studying early modern East Asian history, rarely have they explored it from the perspective of an international system."

Definitely looking forward to reading the rest of this book once I have a bit of spare time.

[Teresa Garcia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clear, concise, and easy to follow. I was actually able to enjoy reading this book without feeling like I was being too rushed to absorb the knowledge for class. This was less about the history and more about the historical politics, which was a good change. I would recommend this for those that are interested in pre-modern era East Asia.

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

Repeated chapter in there somewhere. Read if you don't want to be an ignorant result of the Western-ideology dominated US public school system