Southern Weekend essayist Chang Ping has written a piece on national responsibility in which he unpacks the term “guojia,” arguing that the multitude of meanings associated with the word have important ideological implications.
Translation by David Bandurski at China Media Project:
Before the National Holiday editors at Southern Weekend had asked me to explore a set of questions: “What have you done for your guojia? What has your guojia done for you? What more can your guojia do for you?” I felt I had no answers because I had no clear idea what these various guojia’s” pointed to. Subsequently, I discovered answers to this questionnaire by professor Ding Xueliang (丁学良) and I was again faced with these questions. On his blog, he wrote: “The concept of the guojia (国家) gives rises to four different words in English: state, country, land and nation. The differences between these are not readily discernible in Chinese. The word ‘country’ focuses on territory and the people while the word ‘state’ refers primarily to state political power.” As professor Ding answered each question [posed by Southern Weekend] he was specific in each case about his definition of guojia (国家).
Actually, this concept is often used vaguely. This has already resulted in messy thinking, and even constituted an ideological snare. Some people, for example, say things like: “The guojia has raised you, and you have the nerve to grumble about the guojia.” This sounds reasonable at first, until you realize that these two guojia’s are different concepts. The first one points to those people who live on this piece of land. The second one refers to a specific government organization.
When the students of “May 4th” accused the Duan Qirui (段祺瑞) government of selling out the nation, the nation (guo/国) they were speaking of was clearly not the government but the interests of the citizens. We call them the “patriotic youth” (爱国青年) because they opposed authorities who did not represent the interests of the people.
And from the original:
国庆前《南方周末》编辑发了几个问题给我：“你为国家做了什么？国家为你做了什么？你还要为国家做什么？国家还要为你做什么？”我觉得没法回答，因为我不知道这几个“国家”到底指什么。后来我发现丁学良教授在收到这份问卷时，也遇到同样的问题。他在博客中写道，“‘国家’这个概念，英文有四个词表达：State；Country；Land；Nation.其中的差别在中文里不易看清楚。Country强调国土和人民；State则主要指国家政权。”丁教授在回答每一个问题时，都对“国家”作了具体的限定。
事实上，这个概念经常被含混使用，已经导致一些思维混乱，甚至构成意识形态的思想圈套。比如有人说“国家养育了你，你还对国家满腹牢骚”，听起来很通顺，但这两个“国家”可能是两个概念，前一个泛指这片土地和人民，后一个是具体的政府组织。当“五四”学生痛斥段祺瑞政府卖国的时候，他们说的“国”显然不是政府，而是国民利益。我们称他们为“爱国青年”，是因为他们为了国民利益而反对不良当局。
I wrote an essay earlier this year at The China Beat on a similar theme: the conflation of government/nation/country/people in the state-building ideology of first the KMT and later the CCP, and Chang Ping’s linguistic observations add much to this discussion. A quick check of the Hanyu Dacidian shows a locus classicus in the Yijing,* but I also seem to remember that the term was one of many neologisms reimported from Japan in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in this case “guojia” was used to signify “nation-state” in its modern incarnation. Have to double-check that last bit and welcome any advice or suggestions from the linguistically-minded.
I highly recommend checking out Chang Ping’s essay in full.
——
*”君子安而不忘危，存而不忘亡，治而不忘亂，是以身安而國家可保也.”
11 responses so far ↓
1 Josh // Oct 17, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Like everything else in China, concepts are changing. I remember when learning Chinese, my teacher explained 国家 as being a uniquely Chinese concept, bringing the political (国/state) and the social (家/family) together to form the nation. This kind of jives I think with the traditional concepts of 三纲 and 五伦 Three Principles and Five Cardinal Relationships. However, as change happens, these relationships become blurred and the state no longer “raises” you…many young people now raise themselves.
Linguistically speaking, I have had discussions with Chinese friends about bi- or poly-syllabic words and most of them rarely actively think about the characters that make up “words” - 中国 is not the “middle kingdom,” it is simply China. However, the subconscious concept of the state being a mirror of the family still resonates and I would guess is supported by the word “guojia.”
2 Jeremiah // Oct 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm
FYI: the full definition in the CD-Rom version of the HYDC was:
【國家】1.统治阶级实行阶级压迫和实施统治的组织。古代诸侯的封地称国，大夫的封地称家。也以国家为国的通称。《易•繫辞下》：“君子安而不忘危，存而不忘亡，治而不忘亂，是以身安而國家可保也。”
3 Josh // Oct 17, 2008 at 3:19 pm
When was this HYCD definition published? Very old-school….
4 Brendan // Oct 17, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Interesting cite for the term 国家 — I wonder if it really is meaning what they say it means there. I’d guess that it would have been 国可保 if it weren’t for the need to have a pleasing four-syllable phrase there. Would be interesting to see what commentators had to say about that line.
5 Peony // Oct 18, 2008 at 8:31 am
I would bet it is a Japanese-import. Is there any real use of the word prior to the japan’s Meiji period in China? I actually thought the japanese term was one of the newer-derived Meiji period terms– and there was no real mention in the kojien– but checking wikipedia, I learned the term is quite old in japan appearing in ancient civil codes (!) as a term signifying the emperor. The article says, while it was written as 国家 it was pronounced as みかど （帝）…
This “conflation” of city/nation/race/civilzation etc. is seen in a lot more countries than China (modern or ancient) I will look forward to learning why this is in any way interesting in your future posts!!
Speaking of which, all this talk of the red sox- it is a real mysetry how you guys can really enjoy watching football (or is it golf?) anyway
6 wu ming // Oct 20, 2008 at 11:41 pm
my hunch is that like so many of the 19th century japanese coined terms, 國家 was a rededicated ancient/older chinese term, like 衛生 or 理學, both old and new, with the modern innovation easily forgotten because it was written in characters (and the collapse in classical education, which made sense of the old readings, in the face of the 19th and 20th century’s educational reforms).
one thing that may be leading all those nuances within 國家 to be conflated in chinese is the historical consequence of china not splintering (well, splintering much, if you don’t count taiwan [which is, i suspect, one reason for the beijing regime's continued upset with the existence of the taipei regime, much as the 宋 was furious about 遼 and 金 use of confucian ritual to claim centrality]) in the 20th century, where - as prasenjit duara has pointed out - could well have gone a different way in the decades following 1911 with the provincial assemblies, constitutions and warlords.
had china ended up a cultural region like europe, fragmented into hunanese, cantonese, sichuanese, northern republics, 國家 might have carried rather different connotations, perhaps defined against broader transnational ideas of 中國 or 天下.
but it didn’t, so it doesn’t. or something like that.
7 Peony // Oct 21, 2008 at 4:44 am
Hi Wu Ming– you are just the guy I was looking for! I uploaded a post at my place that I was hoping you could take a look at if you get a few minutesabout our mutual friend the 風流皇帝 as he is known around here.
Regarding 国家、I don’t have too much to add since I am not even sure if it is a Japanese borrowed term or not. Like I said, I personally was surprised to find out just how old the term is in Japan (signifying 帝). If you think about it though– there really is nothing particularly uniquely “chinese” or even all that philosophical (taoist?) about the term, though, is there? If you needed a handy term for “nation state” during the Meiji period– what would you choose– if not 国家 if you were on the new-word coining committee?
And further, I am not sure the word has any more nuances than the English term nation state? Actually, before I continue on this line, I’d love to know what the German term is, since Germany is where Japan received many of it’s ideas.
Indeed, I am now on a new secret mission to get Japan to join the EU- so perhaps the Japanese term 国家 will in the near future take on a new nuance… 笑。
And of course 宋 would have been annoyed with 金… wouldn’t you have been??
8 wu ming // Oct 21, 2008 at 6:55 pm
not half as annoyed as with the 元, although i suspect the 宋 didn’t really see that one coming until it was too late.
the process of meiji translations of modern terms has got to be a fascinating topic to study. in another life, i’d spend all my time just looking at 19th century east asian transnational word-coinings. and then maybe the history of chinese regional cuisines (o the research process!).
9 Peony // Oct 21, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I think the 金 were probably quite possibly the most annoying thing in the world– and bronzes was the least of their ( 宋) problems!
In another life, 19th century east Asian transnational word-coinings… give me that over a Red Sox soccer game anyday 笑
Where is our host? And, isn’t it very late at night in your part of the empire?
10 another Qing dude // Oct 21, 2008 at 11:52 pm
If you think in terms of emperors rather than geography, I think the pre-nineteenth century usage of the term might make a bit more sense. The compound expresses the notion of “dynasty” as comprised of both a political and familial relationship. The more recent confusions of the term are part of a much larger complex of difficulties of crowbaring the institutions of empire into the nation-state.
11 Peony // Oct 27, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Dear Jeremiah,
Please don’t tell me that you are still watching your baseball over there? How long can a baseball game possibly last??
I could really use your input at my place because I am trying to come at DDJ #60 by japanese but how far can I really go without a background in ancient Chinese? My questions (see comments)
1) Is Bill correct that 鬼神 or 鬼神者 just means 鬼?? Why would there be 3 words?
2) And what do you think about the line: 非其神不傷人
I cannot tell what to do with it because I am having trouble getting a handle on 「 非其神」 which in japanese would be 神ならず
Try and take a look ok?
**
I hope you see this!
Leave a Comment