Essay 2 instructions
In 3 pages double-spaced, please write an essay on the readings (secondary sources) assigned for one of the weeks covered so far (you may also write on the readings assigned for week 4). Your essay should not only summarize the key themes and questions addressed in the readings, but also develop your own personal reflections on the arguments of the authors. This is the same assignment as essay 1, though you should pick a new set of readings this time.
Reading:
Joseph W. Esherick. “How the Qing Became China.” In Empire to Nation: Historical
Perspectives on the Making of the Modern World, edited by Joseph W. Esherick, et al.
(Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 229-59.
In a nutshell, the purpose of this exercise is twofold:
1) you must demonstrate that you have understood the secondary scholarship;
2) you must position yourself in a conversion with the authors of the readings.
You are not expected to follow a set “essay format” for this assignment, though your ideas must be well-structured, clearly articulated, and logically sound. There are many ways to approach this assignment, though your essay must have the following components:
1. Summary of the readings (can be organized by themes, questions, debates, etc.). The summaries need not be exhaustive, but we need to get a sense of the authors’ positions and arguments on some of the key issues addressed in your essay.
You should work with the mandatory readings, though you may be awarded bonus points if you incorporate suggested readings and documents in your essay. You are also strongly encouraged to draw some connections with the lectures.
2. Personal reflections. This is where you engage with the readings at a personal level by entering in a “conversation” with the authors. What aspects of the readings did you find striking? What surprised you? What arguments did you agree with, and what positions did you find more counterintuitive, implausible, or simply difficult to accept? In what ways have the readings changed your understanding of history? What are the important lingering questions that the readings failed to address? These are some of the questions you can consider when writing your personal reflections. Your reflections should at least make up 40% of your essay, though you are strongly encouraged to go beyond the required minimum.
Remember, you must always cite your sources whenever you are discussing the ideas of other scholars. Please cite your sources according to the Chicago style:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.htmlLinks to an external site.
You will be assessed for your comprehension of the readings, your ability to identify key issues, and your degree of critical engagement with the readings. You will also be evaluated for your capacity to express complex ideas with clarity, cogency, and logical rigour.
In “How the Qing Became China,” Joseph W. Esherick explores the formation of the Qing empire and its transformation into modern China. Esherick argues that the Qing dynasty was not inherently Chinese, but rather a multiethnic empire composed of Manchus, Mongols, and other groups. The Qing’s ruling ideology was based on Confucianism, which emphasized the emperor’s moral authority and the duty of subjects to obey him. Esherick contends that the Qing’s embrace of Confucianism and Chinese culture was a pragmatic decision to legitimize their rule and gain the support of the Han Chinese majority.
Esherick identifies three key factors that contributed to the Qing’s transformation into a Chinese nation-state. First, he argues that the Manchu rulers of the Qing empire gradually assimilated to Chinese culture and language, adopting Confucianism and embracing Chinese literary and artistic traditions. Second, Esherick contends that the Qing dynasty’s expansion into Central Asia and Tibet, which brought them into contact with non-Han peoples, forced them to adopt a more inclusive and pluralistic conception of empire. Third, Esherick maintains that the Qing’s efforts to modernize and reform their state in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries contributed to the creation of a Chinese national identity.
Esherick’s arguments raise important questions about the relationship between empire and nation-building. How do empires negotiate the tension between maintaining their diversity and integrating disparate populations into a cohesive national identity? How do imperial rulers balance the demands of legitimacy, stability, and security with the challenges of creating a sense of belonging and shared identity among their subjects? Esherick’s analysis also sheds light on the complex processes of cultural exchange, borrowing, and hybridization that occur in imperial contexts. How do empires absorb and transform the cultures of conquered peoples, and how do these cultural interactions shape the identities of both conquerors and conquered?
Esherick’s arguments resonate with my own experiences studying history, particularly in relation to questions of identity and belonging. As someone of mixed heritage, I have always been interested in how people navigate multiple cultural and national identities. Esherick’s analysis of the Qing’s assimilation to Chinese culture and language, as well as their adoption of Confucianism as a ruling ideology, reminds me of my own experiences of cultural adaptation and negotiation. However, I also find Esherick’s arguments challenging, particularly his contention that the Qing’s adoption of Chinese culture was a purely pragmatic decision. As someone who believes in the power of culture and identity to shape people’s beliefs and values, I find it difficult to accept that the Qing rulers’ embrace of Chinese culture was purely instrumental.
Overall, Esherick’s analysis of the Qing dynasty’s transformation into modern China offers important insights into the processes of empire-building and nation-building. His arguments highlight the complex interactions between culture, identity, power, and history, and raise important questions about how we understand the past and present. By engaging with Esherick’s ideas, I have gained a deeper appreciation for the complexities of historical change, as well as a renewed curiosity about the diverse experiences and perspectives that shape our world.
