It would be impossible to overstate the importance of Frederic Wakeman to the field of Chinese history. He was simply one of the giants. This month UCTV has posted on Youtube a 3-part lecture series given by Professor Wakeman only months before he passed away in 2006.
Hosted by the Institute of International Cooperation and Area Studies at the University of California, San Diego, the series was titled “The Last Millennium of Chinese History: From Culture to Nation.” If there was anyone from US academia qualified to tackle such a such a broad and ambitious lecture topic, Fred Wakeman would have certainly topped the list.
Thematically, Professor Wakeman argues against the theory that the period from the Song to the Qing was characterized by relative continuity and progressive advancement of China’s economic, social, and cultural conditions, what historian Paul J. Smith refers to as the Song-Yuan-Ming transition. This narrative, suggests Professor Wakeman, downplays the importance of such ruptures as the loss of North China in the Song, the Mongol Invasion and the Sino-Mongol wars, and the conquest of China by the Manchus. It is Professor Wakeman’s view that China’s past millennium instead was a period rife with conflict, discontinuities, ethnic, economic, and social tension, and a series of cultural crises brought about by the shocks of foreign invasion, internal rebellion, and dynastic change.
I wonder if the differences of opinion here might not be along the fault lines of research specialization. The proponents of the Song-Yuan-Ming transition tend to be historians of the Song, whereas Professor Wakeman has focused mostly on Late Imperial China (Ming/Qing) and the Republican Period. I’d be interested to hear from Song historians on their evaluation of Professor Wakeman’s argument.
Even if you’re not a specialist or an academic, I highly recommend checking out these one-hour videos as a chance to hear Chinese history explained by one of the greats.
Part I: China’s Longue Durée and Mongol Occupation
Part II: Ming Nativism and the Local Turn
Part III: Qing Culturalism and Manchu Identity
sounds like an interesting resource. i haven’t listened to them yet, but i have a hard time with any sweeping statement attempting to sum up a thousand year period of history as either continuity or rupture. some stuff changed, some stuff didn’t. it all depends on what one’s foregrounding, really.
Wu Ming,
In general I agree with you. But it’s like the time I watched Evel Knievel try to jump 50 school buses on television. You knew it was a next to impossible stunt but if there was anyone who could do it, this was the guy, and even if he didn’t make it, it was worth it just to watch him make such an effort.
Frederic Wakeman was my Chinese history version of Evel Knievel.
“Prof. Jingcha” was right on. Ming Empire’s “restoration” efforts and Jerchen Empire’s “hyper-China” are evident of his hypothesis. I always enjoyed his frowning of Prof. Shi Jingqian’s (J. Spence’s) historiography.
[...] over at Granite Studio posted a series of three talks available online by the recently deceased historian Frederic [...]