The Pattern of the Chinese Past(VII)

Elvin starts chapter 15 by suggesting that up to the late Ming period, manorial order with serfdom and the like continued to be a universal feature in the social and agricultural system in rural China.1 Throughout this chapter Elvin explains the social changes that had occurred and eventually led to the disappearance of serfdom in China in early Qing. He claims that such a change had important social consequences. Elvin asserts that there were several reasons for serfdom to disappear. The first was government policy. In 1681, Qing emperor issued an edict to the effect that '. . . when landlords are buying and selling land they must allow their tenants to do as they please. They may not sell them along with their fields or compel them to perform services'.2 Another reason was economic and social development related, and it also had a connection with the changing pattern of investment at that time. People with money began to shift their wealth from investing in rural land to activities such as trading, pawnbroking, and urban real estate buying because of the higher returns. It was also due to the fact that some land owners had found tenants resisted paying their rents.3 The decline in investment in rural land meant that land ownership started to fragment, and the countryside began to belong to small land holders. At the same time with the appearance of big cities, influential landowners moved into big cities, thus creating absentee landlords, with the consequence of giving out rights of permanent tenure to rural inhabitants, and making multiple land ownership possible.4 The demise of the manorial order had far reaching consequences socially and politically. One consequence was that it resulted in a huge a demographic upsurge: Chinese population jumped from 200 million in 1583 to about 410 million in 1850.5 It also made possible greater social mobility and geographical mobility. It created a new social group: the grassroots in the rural area. The nature and power structure in the countryside changed. Local gentry began to play an important role in the rural area. Their appearance was important in the evolution of the traditional Chinese social structure.6 Gentry and scholars began actively participated in local matters, for example the management of local hydraulic projects.7 Through these projects, the voice of the gentry in local policy-making was heard. Power in the countryside no longer fully tied to land ownership. Trade, finance, education and institutional position became more important as far as power and influence were concerned.8 (to be continued)

Notes:
1. Elvin, Mark. The Pattern of the Chinese Past. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973, page 235
2. page 248
3. page 249
4. page 253
5. page 255
6. page 260
7. page 263
8. page 267