ABSTRACT
As argued previously, if an actor desires to seek membership of a social group, she needs to gain sufficient knowledge of the rules of her social environment for successful reproduction that will enable her acceptance by the members of the group. Perceptions – what actors ‘believe’ the rules to be – will thus play a crucial role in shaping the process of socialization. Investigations into initial perceptions of European International Society are, then, an integral part of obtaining a better understanding of China and Japan’s socialization into the Society. This chapter thus seeks to gain a deeper understanding of the Chinese and Japanese interpretations of European International Society. The period under investigation is between the 1840s (when the Chinese experienced their first full encounter with the Society) to the 1890s. In the case of Japan, the period covers both the end of the Tokugawa era (also known as the bakumatsu period 幕末) and the Meiji era (which began in 1868). The empirical examinations here correspond to the stage of socialization of acquiring ‘knowledge’: they investigate Chinese and Japanese interpretations of the Society, its institutions and its social rules. In the case of China, the discussions surrounding the Chinese elites’
adoption of certain institutions of the Society are most relevant to our investigation. This took place primarily after the military fiasco of the Arrow War (1856-60), when the Xianfeng (咸豐) emperor and his conservative entourage were forced to flee the capital and a group of moderates headed by Prince Gong took control of foreign affairs in the ensuing power vacuum. As a result of this development, a new office, the Zongli yamen (總理衙門), was established in 1861 to deal specifically with the European powers. China began to use international law in its dealings with the European powers, and in 1877 Guo Songtao was sent to Britain as China’s first Minister overseas. For Japan, the focus is more on the Meiji period, when the elite were making a concerted effort to adapt to their new international environment. Discussions of European International Society are often found in the written works of leading intellectuals, as well as official records such as those of the
Iwakura Mission (which was dispatched in 1871), the Japanese leaders’ factfinding trip to Europe and the United States (U.S.). While previous studies of China and Japan’s entry have concentrated pri-
marily on the acceptance of European-style diplomacy and international law, this chapter aims to present a more nuanced depiction of this process. In their conceptualization of the expansion of European International Society, works by English School scholars have assumed that a Society that aimed for some form of order and coexistence expanded to East Asia.1 As the empirical investigations will show, however, China and Japan’s engagement with European International Society was by no means an uncritical acceptance of its institutions and moral purpose, but a complex process. Their perceptions of the Society were multifaceted, and sometimes contradictory: this reflected the dualistic existence of imperialism and ‘civilized’ order within European International Society, as well as the historical context of the late nineteenth century, when tensions between European states were never far from the surface. Initially, however, both states’ encounter with the Society began with a full confrontation with its ‘civilizing’ mode of interaction. Consequently, the institutions of the Society were initially seen in a coercive light, rather than promoting order or coexistence within international politics. One of the consequences of the expansion of the ‘civilizing’ mode of interaction to East Asia was, however, to force both China and Japan into entering much more intense diplomatic relations with the European powers. As both states’ knowledge of the European world began to increase as a result, the mode of interaction that supposedly governed the ‘civilized’ members became known to them. The consequence was an ambivalent and dualistic interpretation of European International Society and its institutions. This, in turn, highlights the fact that both China and Japan did not believe themselves to be engaging with a Society which aimed for ‘coexistence’. This fact also challenges English School assumptions that these states were socialized into an International Society with a single mode of interaction.
