Qin and Han China

Introduction

Ancient China was subjected to periods of different political ideologies dependent on the emperors ruling each dynasty. The Qin dynasty was succeeded by the Han Dynasty. The works attributed to Han Fei and Li Si serve as a credible starting point from which to determine the significant characteristics occurring between the two dynasties[1]. The document titled “A record of the debate on Salt and Iron” also avails critical information relative to the society, politics, and culture dissimilarities between the Qin and Han dynasties[2]. It emerges that there were radical changes in Han China as its leaders opted for a heavy handed form of administration that cared little for the humanistic ideals of society in favor for sustainable enforcement of law and order. It denounced cultural and philosophical underpinnings held dear by politicians present before the Qin Dynasty in favor of Legalist thinking that was brutally authoritarian[3]. The society during this time was subjugated to conform to the laws of the land or suffer severe punishment and shame at the hands of state administrators. It encouraged strict adherence to the will of the emperor such that the economy, military, politics, and the entire society responded in strict conformity to the rule of law. Conversely, the Han dynasty was governed by rulers who once more began admiring Confucianism to the extent that the society allowed for a political landscape informed by admirable virtues required of men and called for economic policies that were compassionate to the stability of the empire[4]. This essay aims at providing an understanding of the authors’ depiction of the society, culture, and politics characterizing each of the periods when the two dynasties existed.

Society

The Qin Dynasty progressed from a society guided by Confucian principles of humaneness to one where following the rule of law to extreme ends was implemented. This translated to effective state administration. As provided for in the “Selections from the Han Feizi”, there was a radical change in the way the aristocracy perceived general society[5]. For instance, the author noted that it was impossible for “ten men of true integrity and good faith” to be found in the expansive lands during this period[6]. Equally, the administrative offices had increased significantly to the point that these needed to be filled by officials who could only be coerced to perform the will of the leadership through stringent laws that enforced strict punishment to lawbreakers. In this way, the society was efficiently transformed into one where deceit and felonies amongst public officials were significantly diminished. People acknowledged that gaining even the smallest responsibilities working for the state bureaucracies translated to immense benefits[7]. The society experienced good economic growth and stability so that the population was content with the stern leadership. This accomplished fetes that the family, community, and teachers were unable to achieve given that they often exercised Confucianism which was overly lenient while the law gave no room for social decadence. The private societal member was subordinate to the state.

The state of the general society during the Han Dynasty exuded an aura of prosperity. In the document titled, “a record of the Debate on Salt and Iron”, it is clear that trade emerged as the principal economic driver to the extent that there was a foreseeable trouble that fundamental practices such as agriculture were significantly threatened[8]. The outcome was a growing divide between the traders and the farmers where the more affluent people began giving way for social decadence and an inclination towards defending rightness and humaneness[9]. The Han Dynasty sought to ensure control over monopolies that ensured great sources of profit with the aim of guaranteeing the military was appropriately endowed to combat attacks in the society’s border regions. The taxes imposed on the people were overbearing as the Literati noted pointing out that, “Nowadays, the government disregards what people have and requires them to meet the demands from above. … The farmer suffers double hardships and the weaving women are taxed twice.”[10] Corruption began permeating through the bureaucratic system with state officials bearing the capacity to purchase whatever they wished to have while also informing rich merchants and racketeers on times to hoard commodities in wait for higher prices. There was a general disregard for the socially underprivileged people within the Han society.

Culture

Prior to the emergence of the Qin Dynasty, there existed large of books and many well learned scholars. As Li Si pointed out through written records provided by Sima Qian, the previous culture, where intellectual discourses and debates were highly regarded was radically transformed to one where the Qin Emperor held all authority[11]. The result was a decrease in the number of intellectuals eliminating a culture of progressive thinking all across the state. The advisers to the emperor imagined that the presence of learned people undermined the authority that strict laws and instructions had on the people. Confucianism which supported the development of philosophical trains of thought was suppressed significantly to the effect that a culture of fear reined over the lands. People who failed to heed decrees by the emperor suffered being put to death or being branded and sent off to the frontier regions as slaves to manually labor in the construction of the Great Wall[12]. The culture of learning was inadvertently controlled by the state where officials came to be accepted as the dynasty’s teachers.

As the Qin Dynasty gave way to the Han Dynasty, the provinces that existed in the previous regime were accorded greater authority to govern their jurisdictions. This led to a more decentralized culture of governance towards a culture that was less repressive in comparison to the earlier one. As provided for in “a record of the Debate on Salt and Iron”, it is evident that the author enjoyed a period where once more, decision making at the emperor’s court was arrived at through efforts to attain common consensus[13]. However, the culture consistent with the Qin Dynasty still dominated the manner with which the leadership within the Hand Dynasty determined the execution of state affairs. For instance, the general population especially the farmers were looked upon with an overall degree of disdain while the growing populations of affluent people like the traders and soldiers were considered highly.

Politics

The Qin Dynasty was careful not to involve the aristocracy from the previous empire. The aim was to ensure that the new emperor had supreme control over all affairs of the state’s expansive provinces. As posited in “Selections from The Han Feizi”, this was to ensure “traitorous ministers like Tian Chang and Zihan would not dare to deceive him” (6).[14] Through a focus on agriculture and denouncing of intellectual schools of thought, the people were subjugated to labor for the emperor resulting in the establishment of a military and bureaucratic system that reinforced his authority. The outcome was a period of peace which fostered the appropriate environment for the empire to grow in wealth. Corruption was eliminated supporting well-coordinated, effective and efficient running of the state from a centralized command center.

The Han Dynasty took on numerous political characteristics of the Qin Dynasty before it. However, it implemented a number of radical changes that allowed for a diversification of sources of income not only for the people but also for the state. For instance, it preferred to subscribe to a decentralized form of administration thereby empowering officials ruling over provinces to run affairs as it was deemed fit[15]. The outcome was rulers of the provinces having the opportunity to question the legalist train of thought towards supporting greater emphasis for a support to lower classes of people like the farming communities. As provinces competed amongst each other, the politics of the land became more inclined to the ability to generate profit rather than sustain political stability.

Conclusion

As this essay has provided, the authors’ depiction of the society, culture, and politics characterizing each of the periods note that the Qin Dynasty was instrumental to overall stability that resulted in the erosion of previous cultural ideals. Under the Qin Dynasty, the heavy handed emperor sidelined the aristocracy enabling him to eliminate incidence of revolts. This also eradicated corruption and encouraged greater advances towards an agriculture based society. As the empire blossomed, its military grew to secure its frontier regions.[16] However, it disregard for the masses resulted in its demise allowing for the Han Dynasty to take over leadership. The newer dynasty supported trade, a decentralized form of bureaucratic administration, and a growing divide amongst social classes[17]. The more affluent people gradually tended towards Confucianism though it the state still unfairly taxed the working class people, especially the farmers and weavers.

Bibliography

de Bary, Wm. Theodore, and Irene Bloom. “A Record of the Debate on Salt
and Iron”. In Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999.

de Bary, Wm. Theodore, and Irene Bloom. “Memorial on Annexation of Feudal States and Memorial on the Burning
of Books By
Li Si (as recorded by Sima Qian)”. In Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999.

de Bary, Wm. Theodore, and Irene Bloom. “Selections from The Han Feizi: Chapter 49, “The Five Vermin”. In Sources of Chinese Tradition. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Lewis, Mark Edward. The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Qiu, Shijing. “Local Clan Societies and Migrants to Cities in the Qin and Han Dynasties.” In China’s Urbanization and Socioeconomic Impact, pp. 199-206. Springer, Singapore, 2017.

[1] Wm. Theodore de Bary, and Irene Bloom, “A Record of the Debate on Salt
and Iron,” in Sources of Chinese Tradition, (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999): 199-203.

[2] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 199-203.

[3] Wm. Theodore de Bary, and Irene Bloom, “Memorial on Annexation of Feudal States and Memorial on the Burning
of Books By
Li Si (as recorded by Sima Qian in Sources of Chinese Tradition, (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999): 208-210.

[4] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 199-203.

[5] Wm. Theodore de Bary, and Irene Bloom, “Selections from The Han Feizi: Chapter 49, “The Five Vermin”, in Sources of Chinese Tradition, (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1999): 360-363.

[6] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 362.

[7] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 361.

[8] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 360.

[9] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 361.

[10] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 362.

[11] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 202.

[12] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 203.

[13] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 201.

[14] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 363.

[15] de Bary and Bloom, Sources of Chinese Tradition, 200.

[16] Mark Edward Lewis, The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han, Vol. 1. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 32.

[17] Shijing Qiu, “Local Clan Societies and Migrants to Cities in the Qin and Han Dynasties”, In China’s Urbanization and Socioeconomic Impact, (Springer, Singapore 2017). 200.