An Investigation into the Parameters of Buddhism in China: Hanhua 漢化 (Han ways transforming the barbarians) vs. Huahan 化漢 (Barbarian ways transforming the Han) and the Distinction between Han and Yi (Han Yi zhi bian 漢夷之辨)
Albert Welter, University of Arizona
Chinese classical works central to the Confucian tradition perceive the world as tianxia 天下 (all under Heaven), oriented toward a homogenous community termed the “great harmony” (datong 大同). The creation of this community entailed the negation of meaningful racial and ethnic differences, which were allegedly transformed under benevolent Chinese influences dictated by an elite representing the superiority of Han values, “using Han ways to transform the barbarians,” or “being transformed into Han” (hanhua 漢化). This unidimensional, Sino-colonial characterization is pervasive to an extent that tends to render it normative: Han is equated with China as determined by a Confucian orthodoxy. The monopolistic nature of this explanation undermines any counter narrative, whereby non-Han forces play a determinative role in transforming Han culture and values (化漢). Another framework, the “Sino-barbarian dichotomy” or distinction between Han and Yi (Han Yi zhi bian 漢夷之辨), also represents a determinative marker separating “Chinese-ness” from “foreign-ness,” validating the former at the expense of the latter. Like the Hanhua characterization, the Hua–Yi distinction asserted Chinese superiority, but implied that outsiders could become Hua by adopting Chinese values and customs.
My paper investigates the problematic nature of these characterizations as rooted in an orthodox nativism that equates Han ethnicity to an unaccommodating “Chinese-ness.” In fact, it was the resiliency of Chinese tradition, its ability to adopt and adapt outside innovations and incorporate these within a structure of “Chinese-ness” not bound by orthodox Confucian determinations, that fostered an evolving sense of the meaning of China. The investigation includes examples of how Buddhism, in spite of enduring repeated characterizations as “foreign” and “un-Chinese,” significantly helped contribute to a greater sense of “China” unbound by ethnic and ideological purities. Ultimately, I challenge the hanhua model (using Han ways to transform the barbarians), determinative of Confucian senses of a normative China, and posit a huahan model (transforming the Han) as an alternate framework for understanding Buddhist contributions to Chinese culture.
My paper investigates the problematic nature of these characterizations as rooted in an orthodox nativism that equates Han ethnicity to an unaccommodating “Chinese-ness.” In fact, it was the resiliency of Chinese tradition, its ability to adopt and adapt outside innovations and incorporate these within a structure of “Chinese-ness” not bound by orthodox Confucian determinations, that fostered an evolving sense of the meaning of China. The investigation includes examples of how Buddhism, in spite of enduring repeated characterizations as “foreign” and “un-Chinese,” significantly helped contribute to a greater sense of “China” unbound by ethnic and ideological purities. Ultimately, I challenge the hanhua model (using Han ways to transform the barbarians), determinative of Confucian senses of a normative China, and posit a huahan model (transforming the Han) as an alternate framework for understanding Buddhist contributions to Chinese culture.