Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine

2022 book about 18th-century China

Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine: The Administrative Revolution of the Eighteenth-Century Qing State is a book by Maura Dykstra, currently Assistant Professor of History at Yale University, published in 2022.[1] The work has been criticized by other historians for being methodologically unsound and engaging in widespread misrepresentation of sources.[2]

## Synopsis[edit]

The book argues that across the eighteenth century, Qing China witnessed an exponential increase in the volume of administrative paperwork out of a desire to combat corruption and centralize governance.[1][3] However, the Empire became a victim of its own success. The more the paperwork was produced as a result of this "administrative revolution", the more evidence of corruption and malfeasance could be located; by the late eighteenth century, the anxious Emperors were convinced that their decline had begun.[1][3]

## Reception and controversy[edit]

The book has gained significant notoriety for the negative reviews it received, and particularly "Was There an Administrative Revolution?" published in August 2023 by George Qiao, a historian specializing in late imperial China at Amherst College, who holds a competing historical perspective. Following Qiao's critique, multiple academics criticized Dykstra for misrepresenting and mistranslating key sources to advance its thesis.[2]

In his review, Qiao criticized Dykstra's narrative for being "groundless, self-contradictory, and ultimately untrue". He also accused her of having "consistently" misused and misinterpreted primary sources in the quest of a dramatic story.[1] Additionally, he criticized her thesis for containing, in his words, "factual blunders, a failure to engage existing scholarship, problematic choice of primary sources, and dubious citation practices."[1]

Bradly Reed, a historian specializing in bureaucratic records of Qing China at the University of Virginia, remarks that while Dykstra's book is a "tremendously ambitious study", it is laden with "methodological, conceptual, and evidentiary shortcomings", and that Dykstra's "grand theoretical constructs" ran divorced from "evidence, historical context, or conversation with previous scholarship."[3]

Zhou Lin—an acclaimed expert in late Qing China archives—writes that Dykstra's concept of the "information revolution" is novel and enlightening, but also suggests that Dykstra's thesis oversimplifies the historical record and cannot be substantiated by the sources she cites.[4] For an example, she claims that of the thirteen sources cited from the Ba County Archives, three were read correctly but misinterpreted; eight were read incorrectly and also misinterpreted; one was irrelevant to her argument.[4]

Macabe Keliher, a historian of early modern China at Southern Methodist University, raises similar issues.[5]

### Response[edit]

On December 21, 2023, Dykstra published a response to Qiao in the Journal of Chinese History.[6] In this response, Dykstra argues that Qiao engages in a bad faith "quibble-to-innuendo cycle”, in which any small quibble over translation or fact is presented as a "inexcusable fumble that invalidates the entire book and its intellectual project". Dykstra also argues that Qiao's arguments appeal frequently to "ridicule and insinuation" rather than scholarly criticism, and ultimately rest on blatant misrepresentations of her argument. Dykstra concludes that while Qiao did highlight a small number of "unremarkable mistakes", his criticism fundamentally rests on mischaracterizations and ad hominem attacks, leaving the central conclusions of her book unchallenged.

## References[edit]

1. ^ a b c d e Qiao, George Zhijian (2023-08-31). "Was There an Administrative Revolution?". Journal of Chinese History 中國歷史學刊: 1–20. doi:10.1017/jch.2023.19. ISSN 2059-1632.
2. ^ a b Raab, Ben (2023-10-26). "Peer colleagues slam history professor's book for 'systemically' misrepresenting sources". Yale Daily News. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
3. ^ a b c "Reed on Dykstra, 'Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine: The Administrative Revolution of the Eighteenth-Century Qing State' | H-Net". networks.h-net.org. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
4. ^ a b "关于戴史翠Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine一书中所引《巴县档案》的评议". 知乎专栏 (in Chinese). Retrieved 2023-11-14. "这个观点的确令人耳目一新，带来许多有冲击力的思考。然而，评议人对于原书引用的《巴县档案》的核查，得出的结论是：至少书中引用的清代《巴县档案》案卷并不能有力地证明，雍正以后的清朝州县衙门与更高层国家机构，建立起真实、有效的信息交互。"
5. ^ Keliher, Macabe (2023-11-24). "Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine: The Administrative Revolution of the Eighteenth-Century Qing State By Maura Dykstra. xxxv, 262 pp. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Asia Center, 2022". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: 1–5. doi:10.1017/S1356186323000469. ISSN 1356-1863.
6. ^ Dykstra, Maura. "Response to George Qiao's Review of Uncertainty in the Empire of Routine: The Administrative Revolution of the Eighteenth-Century Qing State." Journal of Chinese History, 2023, 1-13. doi:10.1017/jch.2023.35.