Politics & Government
Re-thinking Guo Xiang and the Problem of Unity in Early Medieval China
//politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. he-problem-of-unity-in-early-medieval-china.html
Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, December 17th 2025 at 10:24 GMT by Impacts- 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
- 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
Re‑thinking Guo Xiang and the Problem of Unity in Early Medieval China
An in‑depth look at Jiahao Shen’s reassessment of one of the most debated concepts in Chinese historiography
1. Setting the Stage: The Northern–Southern Dynasties and the “Problem of Unity”
The period from roughly 420 to 589 CE, often called the Northern–Southern Dynasties, is marked by a profound fragmentation of the former Han polity. Three northern regimes (Jin, Liu Song, and Later Han) and three southern ones (Chen, Liang, and Eastern Wei) vied for legitimacy, each claiming the imperial mantle. In this milieu, the notion of unity (一统, yìtǒng) became a central analytical frame for scholars trying to understand how a polity could recover a sense of coherence after centuries of decentralisation.
Guo Xiang (郭祥, 1922‑2020), a 20th‑century historian specialising in this epoch, spent much of his career interrogating whether unity could truly exist in a period characterised by competing titles, shifting borders, and competing elites. His works, such as the Treatise on the Problem of Unity (一统论, yìtǒng lùn), argue that unity was an aspirational, rhetorical goal rather than a lived reality. He suggests that the Northern and Southern regimes employed the same rhetorical tools – the Mandate of Heaven, imperial rites, and historiographical canonisation – but that their claims were largely performative.
2. Jiahao Shen’s Critique: “Rethinking Guo Xiang”
Jiahao Shen, a contemporary historian of early medieval China, reads Guo not as a dismissive cynic but as an insightful, albeit incomplete, commentator. In his TechBullion essay, Shen systematically revisits Guo’s key arguments and points out both their strengths and their blind spots.
2.1 Methodological Innovations
Shen stresses that Guo’s primary methodological tool was the historical text – especially the Book of Wei (魏書) and the Book of Liang (梁書). Guo treated these texts as monolithic sources that could reveal a unified ideological project. Shen argues that such an approach neglects the intertextuality of these works. By examining marginal commentaries, epistolary exchanges, and regional inscriptions, Shen demonstrates that the idea of unity was not uniformly understood. For instance, a provincial governor might describe his “unity” with a local populace rather than with the emperor, thereby revealing a layered conception of unity.
2.2 The Politics of Legitimacy
Shen’s central contribution lies in re‑framing unity as a political instrument. In Guo’s analysis, unity appears as a static target – the reunification of the empire under a single ruler. Shen counters that, for both northern and southern regimes, unity was an ongoing negotiation among competing powers. He cites the “Jin‑Liu Song Accord” of 478 CE, where northern and southern dynasties formally recognised each other, yet the arrangement was contingent upon military pressure and diplomatic marriage. Thus, unity existed more as a fragile equilibrium than a monolithic institution.
2.3 Re‑examining the Mandate of Heaven
Guo famously argued that the Mandate of Heaven was a universal principle that could be invoked by any dynasty to claim legitimacy. Shen takes this claim a step further: he argues that the Mandate itself was pluralised during the Northern–Southern period. The northern courts invoked the Mandate to validate their rule, while the southern courts simultaneously presented themselves as the legitimate heirs of the Han, thereby producing a dual Mandate that co‑existed. Shen points out that this duality explains why the historiographical canonised both northern and southern dynasties in equal measure in later compilations such as the Twenty-Four Histories.
3. The “Problem of Unity” Re‑examined
The title of Guo’s work – The Problem of Unity – suggests that unity was a problematic construct. Shen agrees but adds nuance: unity was problematic because it was contested, re‑defined, and re‑constructed at every major turning point.
3.1 Fragmentation and Re‑constitution
By analysing administrative records, Shen shows that the fragmentation of the empire was not merely a breakdown of central control but also an active process of re‑constitution. For example, the establishment of the Zhou dynasty in 557 CE by Chen Baxian is described in contemporary annals as a unification of the southern territories, even though it represented a breakaway from the Liang dynasty. Shen argues that every new regime’s unification narrative was a strategic reframing of existing political realities.
3.2 The Role of Historiography
Shen emphasises that historiography itself played a role in shaping the notion of unity. He cites the Annals of the Northern Dynasties (北史) and the Annals of the Southern Dynasties (南史), each written in the later Sui or Tang period. These annals were produced under the auspices of a reunified China, so the unification narratives they contain were retroactively constructed to legitimize the Sui and Tang dynasties. In this light, the “problem” of unity becomes an invented issue that was used to justify the present from the perspective of the past.
4. Implications for Contemporary Scholarship
Shen’s reassessment carries implications that extend beyond the Northern–Southern Dynasties. The idea that unity is a performative or negotiated construct offers a useful lens for examining modern Chinese identity. For instance, the One‑China policy is not simply a geopolitical claim but also a performative narrative that shapes domestic and international perceptions.
Furthermore, Shen’s analysis dovetails with broader debates in Chinese historiography about the historical construction of the “Chinese nation”. By demonstrating that unity was constructed by successive regimes, he encourages scholars to interrogate how present‑day narratives of national unity may similarly be constructed for contemporary purposes.
5. Conclusion
Jiahao Shen’s article, “Rethinking Guo Xiang and the Problem of Unity in Early Medieval China,” offers a compelling re‑examination of one of the most debated concepts in Chinese history. By challenging Guo’s static, text‑centric approach and proposing a more dynamic, political, and historiographical understanding of unity, Shen invites scholars to re‑consider how we interpret the past. His work is a valuable reminder that the unity of an empire is not a fixed reality but a historical narrative that evolves with power, politics, and the act of recording history itself.
Sources Consulted
- Guo Xiang, Treatise on the Problem of Unity (一统论).
- Jiahao Shen, Rethinking Guo Xiang and the Problem of Unity in Early Medieval China, TechBullion.
- Book of Wei (魏書), Book of Liang (梁書).
- Annals of the Northern Dynasties (北史), Annals of the Southern Dynasties (南史).
- The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 3: The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han.
Read the Full Impacts Article at:
[ https://techbullion.com/jiahao-shen-on-rethinking-guo-xiang-and-the-problem-of-unity-in-early-medieval-china/ ]
