Urban Modernities in Colonial Korea and Taiwan by Jina E. Kim (review)

Published by the Harvard-Yenching Institute HJAS 81 (2021): 364–370 the Board of Rites was a key organization in determining both the form and function of power, authority, and legitimacy in the early Qing state” (p. 194). What he has written in the book’s main chapters does not substantiate this statement. While it is totally justified and critical to give rites and symbols their deserved position in the Qing dynasty—this study is thus valuable in bringing these elements to the fore—overestimating or idealizing their role does not serve the purpose of explicating the Manchu’s state-building process. Keliher’s book skips the violent dimensions involved in building and legitimizing Qing rule in China and downplays “external constraints and punishments” (p. 193). For instance, the book does not mention at all the hair-shaving orders and their bloody fallout. Since the dawn of civilization, rituals and symbolism have played an important role in state building in nearly all societies. However, rituals usually went hand-in-hand with other measures. Without the support of political forces, no rites alone, no matter how sophisticatedly designed and attentively displayed they were, could single-handedly uphold the authority of a sovereign. When he chides earlier scholarship for overlooking rituals and symbols, Keliher exhorts that “the Qing political system as a whole needs to come into focus, not just a single aspect divorced from the totality of its operations” (p. 8). He should have applied this awareness in his own work.