Life in the Menagerie

                                                                                                       

Orientalism treated the entire "Orient" as an object to be dissected, defined and studied, and the West China Border Research Society took the same approach to its surroundings, transforming the cultural and physical landscape of West China into a single object for study.  Since the Orient and Orientals were something one could put under a microscope to study, it made sense to treat both the human and nonhuman elements as objects.  Rev. Thomas Torrance, a missionary and Society member, eloquently articulated this attitude in his article "Notes on the West China Aboriginal Tribes," albeit eschewing the microscope for a cage.  Ideally, researchers could construct a "human menagerie" through which a scientist could "at his ease... study all by measuring their skulls, comparing their chatter, studying their habits, recording their diseases and noting their religious tendencies."  Torrance noted that any such project would not be attempted for some time, and humbly offered his notes and observations of the people in its place.

 

Torrance's ideal of a "human menagerie" was essentially an anthropological museum, which allowed viewers to access truth through careful scrutiny of the human object.  Steven Conn has discussed the importance of museums to American intellectual culture during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, arguing that museums were premised on an "object-based epistemology."  This way of knowing emphasized material objects as points of access for truth.  "Late nineteenth century Americans held a belief that objects, at least as much as texts, were sources of knowledge and meaning," Conn wrote.[1]  "Many believed that objects, systematically arranged, could make perfect sense of the world."[2]  This epistemology defined much of the work of the West China Border Research Society; members sought after artifacts, anthropometric measurements, and specimens (human and otherwise) to fill the pages of their Journal and stock the Museum of the West China Union University.  Speaking of this Museum in 1936, J. Beech wrote, "Eleven thousand six hundred and thirty-four of these objects are in the archaeological division, largely representing the cultural history of Western China, Tibet, and the Border Aboriginal Races."[3]  All researchers needed to embody the various peoples of West China, their cultures, and their history were about 12,000 objects sitting in a museum.  This perspective implies that the people were equivalent to the objects.  Indeed, in Torrance's "menagerie" they were the objects, and Society research tended to treat humans in the same fashion as potsherds or ancient coins.

 

A dynamic of power inhered in this relationship between researcher and object.  The representations of objects in Society research frequently reflected Orientalist biases and assumptions.  For instance, Torrance urged readers to see the minority peoples of West China in a more sympathetic light by portraying them as damaged goods.  Chinese aggression and domination had brought many of the ethnic groups into a debased state, he argued, such that only "respectable remnants" remain of their cultures.  Torrance went on to conceptualize the Ch'iang, Miao and other groups as a decaying artifact.  "No one despises a piece of beautiful old porcelain though its colour may have lessened in brightness or it shows a crack at the edge or has a few brass rivets to prevent its falling apart," Torrance wrote.  "While much of their early learning and skill in the arts has been irretrievably lost in the resistless submerging tide of Chinese aggression, some things of worth and beauty remain."[4]  In some ways, Torrance offered a positive view of the minority groups, noting "worth and beauty" in their cultures.  Of course, even those worthy and beautiful aspects were "things," found in people who were little more than "remnants" of genuine humanity.  Indeed, the minorities were faded and damaged, "falling apart," compared to the observer - who we may assume was fully colored and in fine working condition. 

 

The notion of an earlier, superior state implies an innate potential for progress and creativity in the minority people, but this aspect of Torrance's thought also carries Orientialist overtones.  By fixing the realization of this potential in the past, the missionary reinforced an Orientalist stereotype that denied the people a contemporary existence.  As Stevan Harrell noted, Orientalists have traditionally conceived of the Other in a variety of demeaned positions with respect to themselves, including the characterization of Orientals as "ancient."  For Torrance, the minorities of West China were like a porcelain dish - specifically, an old one.  The real life of their culture occurred somewhere in the past, such that even the living, breathing members of the group today were "artifacts" themselves.  In studying the people of West China, Society members routinely sought after old evidence and attributed greater value to older objects.  When describing the contents of the WCUU Museum - for which he was curator from 1932 to 1948 - David Crockett Graham always noted the age of cultural specimens as an indicator of their value.  "The museum possesses the largest collection of Ch'iang artifacts to be found in any museum, which includes ancient garments and leather armor, embroidered shoes and belts, and pottery ranging in age between five hundred and two thousand years," Graham reported.[5] 

 

D.C. Graham sometimes purchased cultural items for the University and Smithsonian collections, and he was careful to select items that were appropriately historical, rejecting contemporary cultural products - however similar - as inauthentic and useless.  "There are so many snuff bottles being made now just to sell that one has to very careful to get the genuine old ones," Graham wrote during his 1929 Smithsonian expedition to Chengdu.[6]  If a Chinese person produced a bottle in the present, Graham suggests, then it carried no meaning as a representation of her culture.  For an object to be genuine, it had to be old; and since objects offered the truth about a culture, the real culture must have only existed in the past.  "The imitations are terrible," Graham observed, "and one needs to be constantly on the lookout."[7]  Graham's statement insinuates that the imitations and the "genuine old ones" were sufficiently similar to confuse a buyer, since one had to be highly vigilant in purchasing the bottles.  However similar old and new may have been, though, the belief that age equaled authenticity was Graham's overriding concern in selecting objects.  Moreover, his evaluation of the people's modern material culture as "terrible" correlates with Torrance's notion of the broken porcelain.  In both representations the people are reduced to objects of - at least in the present - inferior quality.

 

Anthropometric measurement represented another important way in which the West China Border Research Society's work tended to objectify the local population.  In studying the Chinese and neighboring ethnic groups, researchers would make note of the skin-tone, eye color, and other characteristics of their human specimens.  Thomas Torrance alluded to a central part of this research when he spoke of "measuring [the] skulls" of the local people in his human menagerie.  Society members used anthropometrics to measure and record the physical features of people they studied.  In fact, early Society writings drew little distinction between anthropometrics and anthropology itself.  In his first Presidential Address, W.R. Morse announced that the West China Border Research Society would need "the chemist's laboratory, the astronomer's telescope, the mathematician's observations" and so on.  Among these skills were "the anthropologist's measurements," implying that the anthropologist's primary pursuit should be the measuring and recording of people's physical characteristics.[8]  Thus, researchers could discuss human beings in terms of weight, size and dimensions just as they might speak of a piece of pottery.

 

David Crockett Graham routinely employed anthropometrics during his own research, and he often encountered opposition among the people of West China in carrying out measurement.  Throughout Graham's collecting diaries, recorded during expeditions for the Smithsonian Institution, the missionary reported seeking measurements of the people he encountered, including Chinese, Lolo, Ch'uan Miao and Tibetan individuals.  Quantity was often a concern.  "I have now measured 140 Chinese men and about 35 women," Graham wrote during his 1930 expedition.  "I want to increase the number of Chinese men to 200 as rapidly as possible."[9]  The stark imbalance between male and female measurements points to one area where Graham encountered particularly strong resistance: women.  Further along on the same trip, Graham reported that he had increased his total of female measurements to 50.  "This is doing very well," he wrote, "for all over China it is very hard to measure Chinese women and girls."  Most likely, this related to a cultural reluctance to have a strange or foreign individual physically interacting with female members of the community. 

 

Many others felt discomfort at being sized up and treated as an object; cultural barriers and, perhaps, the individual's sense of personal dignity sometimes stood between him and Graham's measuring tape.  "The Lolos, full-bloods or half-breeds, are afraid to have me measure them with the anthropometrical instruments," Graham wrote.  "They are afraid it may do them harm, or even cause their death.  I think that if I can get measurements enough it well prove quite interesting.  It seems evident now that Lolos are both darker and taller than Chinese."[10]  Although many of his subjects were clearly uncomfortable with the process, Graham pressed ahead in the interest of science; as this quotation indicates, a major purpose for anthropometrics was comparison, which assumed that different racial "types" could be studied and contrasted with each other.  Graham took little interest in measuring specimens of mixed "stock."  During his 1929 collecting trip, Graham wrote: "Because there has been so extensive inter-breeding between the Chinese and the aborigines about Mupin that you can never be sure that you are measuring a half-breed, I did not take any anthropometrical measurements this summer."[11]  Graham's language in these collecting diaries often constructs the Other as something "bred," like a dog or a horse.  The practice of anthropometrics, then, carried an implication that those measured were inferior or even less human than the measurer.  Sometimes Graham's efforts with anthropometrics went too far and individuals entirely rejected the possibility.  "I saw a Chinese with red whiskers today," Graham wrote, during a 1930 visit to the village of Huang Sa Chi.  His interest piqued by the unusual sight, Graham tried to cut off some of the man's facial hair "as a sample," but the man refused.[12]

 

If Society members could identify "some things of worth and beauty" in the local cultures, then they also felt entitled to take these things for their own, in the name of science.  Missionary-researchers gathered material such as pottery, bricks, coins, and other cultural artifacts, which they analyzed in their Journal and eventually placed in the WCUU Museum.  D.C. Graham described his own findings in a variety of other journals, ranging from the missionary publication The Chinese Recorder to the British anthropological magazine Man.  An example of this cultural acquisition can be found in a 1938 article Graham wrote for Man, analyzing the Temmoku porcelain of Sichuan.  Graham came across the porcelain pieces during an April 1936 visit to Chungking, where he was conducting an excavation of tombs from the Han dynasty.  At the urging of friends, Graham wandered from the excavation site and discovered an old kiln, filled with "an abundance of the chien yao tea cups, black or brown with small bases."[13]  He described the teacups and bowls in detail in his Man article, and closed by noting that "all the objects 1-34 are in the West China Union University Museum of Archaeology, Chengtu."[14]  The process of research numbered, analyzed, and stored away physical elements of the local culture.  Much as Torrance accepted the idea of taking human beings and placing them in a menagerie for study, his peers assumed the validity of taking the local people's material culture from them and storing it in a museum.  Society members dug up ancient graves and freely took whatever objects they found, as in the aforementioned Chungking dig.  This cultural acquisition occurred parallel to the economic extraction of imperialism and could, in a sense, be said to resemble it. While colonial administrators may have taken rubber under the rubric of empire, progress, or economic development, men like Graham took from the Orient in the name of science. When Graham learned of the graves in Suifu - uncovered by local people during the creation of a parade ground - he postponed an imminent trip to Chengdu to work in the graves, since they were "of much scientific interest."[15]  A Westerner's museum, it was assumed, was a more appropriate place for the possessions of the Chinese ancestors than their own graves.

 

D.C. Graham's March 1936 excavation in Suifu shows how Orientalist assumptions supported the work of scientists in appropriating local property.  For researchers, the cause of science legitimized despoiling ancestral graves, but their own sense of the local people's ineptitude reinforced this attitude.  Graham had to excavate the graves and save the artifacts inside, because "it was quite certain that everything it contained would be destroyed by the workmen or carried away into private homes, so that in the future the objects would be of little or no scientific value."  It made more sense for Graham to pillage the grave if the locals would do so anyway.  Indeed, if the artifacts fell in the hands of the local population, they would lose their "value."  Torrance's Ch'iang people could not explain their own culture and, similarly, the Chinese of Suifu could not appreciate the value of theirs, making it necessary for a Westerner to rescue Chinese culture from the Chinese.  "Nobody in Suifu recognized the importance of the grave," Graham observed. [16]

 

As condescending as this attitude may have been, D.C. Graham and his fellow missionary-researchers took from the people in the name of the people, although actual circumstances in West China complicated their vision in this regard.  As we have seen, the West China Border Research Society saw its work as a service to the local population, and the University museum was seen as a part of this process.  In his report on the Hanchow excavation of 1934, Graham wrote that the discoveries now resided in the West China Union University Museum, "for all the people of West China."  Thus, Graham and his peers were rescuing Chinese culture from the Chinese for the Chinese.  Preserving objects from an ancient tomb meant that all the people could enjoy and learn from them, instead of a few "private homes" having a monopoly on the goods.  This was an undeniably noble aim, but reality deemed that preservation did not necessarily ensure access for "all the people," as Graham suggested.  Being a missionary school, the West China Union University was a private institution and was not required to throw open its doors to any and all.  As Kristin Stapleton observed, "At times in the 1920's there was tension over the question of whether the Chengdu public had the right to walk around the campus and enjoy its beautiful grounds."[17]  Moreover, Graham and his fellow missionaries sought middle and upper class converts more eagerly than the poor, meaning that the masses may not have been entirely welcome at the University or its Museum.[18]  As such, removing "rare and valuable sacred objects" from a grave to the WCUU Museum did not necessarily fulfill a goal of preserving Chinese culture for the Chinese.[19]  Working in the name of science and of the people, the West China Border Research Society tended to take freely from West China's material culture, and this tendency reveals how Orientalist prejudices about the local population influenced the institution's activities.

 

Another peculiar pattern emerges in the West China Border Research Society's work: a desire among missionary-researchers to see similarity with themselves in their human objects of study.  Anthropological accounts by Graham and his colleagues frequently projected familiar qualities onto the local people and their culture, especially minority nationalities like the Lolos or Ch'iang.  One notorious example exists in the work of Reverend Thomas Torrance, a missionary, Society member, and Graham friend who worked among the Ch'iang people.  Torrance began to work with this ethnic group in 1915, preaching and building schools and churches.[20]  Certain Ch'iang told Torrance that they practiced monotheism and the missionary readily believed them.  He began to discern "Jewish-like type of features" among the Ch'iang "of pure stock,"[21] and saw in their religious culture an "Old Testament pattern of religion."[22]   Torrance gradually developed a theory that the modern Ch'iang were descendants of an ancient Jewish settlement in China, which he discussed in several articles for The Journal of the West China Border Research Society.

 

David Crockett Graham also demonstrated a desire to see similarity with himself and his own culture in the people he studied.  Many missionaries, including Graham, accepted the Torrance theory at the time, although Graham refuted it years later in his 1958 text Customs and Religion of the Ch'iang.  For instance, in his earliest article on the Ch'uan Miao people, Graham discussed the tribe's music primarily in comparison to Western musics.  "The tunes of these songs bear a slight resemblance to chants often heard in Christian worship," Graham asserted.  "When it is played the musician performs a dance much like that of a Scotch bagpipe player."[23]  Like Torrance, Graham sought to identify Western religious traits in the people he studied, as when he reported that the Lolos practiced monotheism in a 1929 article.  Pere Paul Vial, a Catholic missionary who worked among the Lolos decades before Graham, had been highly enthusiastic about the Lolos' supposed similarity to Europeans, but even he dismissed the possibility that they were monotheists.  Although some Lolos argued that their cultural hero Iesou was equivalent to Jesus, Vial dismissed the parallel as a merely "fortuitous resemblance."[24]  The scientists of the West China Border Research Society were often not so judicious.

 

This tendency was not unique to D.C. Graham's mission community, as many of their predecessors practiced the same sort of "wishful thinking."  For instance, the earliest Western account of the Lolo people, an 1881 paper by British diplomat E. Colbourne Baber, enthusiastically pursued the conception of the Lolos as quasi-Western.  Baber commended this ethnic group for being "joyous, timid, natural, open-aired, neatly-dressed... tall, graceful creatures with faces much whiter than their brothers," i.e. Han Chinese.  In Baber's eyes, they were "an oval-faced, Aryan-like race."[25]  Pere Vial too echoed this identification of the native minorities with European characteristics.  His perception of the people, however, was even more specific and personal.  "In their administration, their morals, their character, and their religion, the Lolo vividly recalls our [fore]fathers," Vial wrote, comparing the Lolos to "the Gallic tribes" of his own roots.[26]

 

Why then did the missionary-researchers of West China so determinedly see similarity with themselves in the people they studied, even when the truth was sometimes unavoidable?  There are several possible explanations, none mutually exclusive.  One may be a natural tendency to render intelligible what is unknown by comparison to the known.  D.C. Graham could describe the music of the Ch'uan Miao by referring to something his readers likely found familiar: Scottish music.  In this sense, it may be unsurprising that these researchers constituted identities of the local people from elements of their own culture.  However, a close reading of these texts suggests that several more complex motivations were at work, both with missionary-researchers like Graham and the people-objects themselves.

 

Members of the West China Border Research Society aimed to produce knowledge about the local people that missionaries would find useful, and images that portrayed potential converts as quasi-Western served a distinct purpose.  The Ch'iang identity invented by Thomas Torrance, for instance, was far more "convertible" than an alternate conception of their culture, which might portray this ethnic group as intractably different from Europeans.  "An oval-faced, Aryan-like race," as Baber put it, had greater potential for conversion to the superior Christian culture.  Torrance conceived of the Ch'iang, with whom he personally worked, as "an attractive lovable people of non-Chinese origin… with gallant tenacity,"[27] unlike the "terrible Lolos" or "prowling robbing Bolotzse," among whom he did not missionize.[28] 

 

These images also rendered ethnic groups more convertible by providing the possibility of cultural continuity in conversion.  Finding a basis for Western culture among these people made it easier for missionaries to lay Christianity over existing traditions.  Graham, for one, commented that Ch'uan Miao music resembled some Christian hymns; this observation could lead to a useful cultural synthesis, Graham later argued, if a missionary could implant Christian themes in native music or reconfigure a Christian hymn to fit local musical traditions.[29]  Thomas Torrance did precisely this in his work with the Ch'iang.  He allowed his congregants to use a name by which their deity was known - "Jed-su" - in place of "Jesus" when singing "Jesus Loves Me," finding that this practice "adds great zest to the singing."[30]  This process did not entail a simple search for commonalities between cultures, however; missionaries sometimes had to push the limits of reason in order to conceptualize minorities as Western-like.  It took several leaps of logic for Torrance to equate the traditional name of a Ch'iang deity, Abba Malah, with elements of Hebrew tradition: 

 

Abba means Father: here, the Father in Heaven.  Malah is not known other than as a name.  They do not seem to be able to define or explain the term, but the pronunciation is very precise.  The 'lah' is spoken with a definite click, so much so that it is a virtually Malak, the Hebrew word for Angel.  Have we not in this another strong indication of the Semitic origin of the Chiang religious beliefs?[31]

 

Starting with the name of a Ch'iang god - the only one he was aware of - Torrance turned these people into Hebrews via several tenuous and creative linguistic connections.  Abba Malah only meant "father" for the Ch'iangs, but Torrance could make it mean "Father in Heaven" by asserting that "lah" was "virtually Malak." The Ch'iang may have not been able to explain themselves, but Rev. Torrance was fully capable of doing so on their behalf.  Indeed, he closely approximated Marx's dictum in the above passage: "They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented."

 

Of course, men like Torrance and Graham were not alone in creating these images, as the local people themselves often provided "evidence" that helped in constructing Western-like identities.  Although the missionary accounts probably distort the local people's reaction to Christianity to some degree, some native people eagerly participated in the process of identification with Western culture.  Kou P'in-shan, for instance, was a Ch'iang who actively took up the cause of explaining his people's ostensibly Israelite roots.  He authored and distributed a tract entitled "An Open Letter to the Ta Ch'iang People Concerning the Origin and End of Paying Vows"; in it, he explained that careful study of Genesis, Exodus, and the Four Gospels proved to him "that our sacrifices which worship the God of Heaven have the same roots as those methods of sacrifice of ancient Israel."[32]  The example of Pere Vial and the Lolos suggests that the local people were forthcoming in offering points of similarity.  They offered their own cultural hero "Jesamo" as a surrogate Jesus, despite Vial's basic rejection of the possibility; the Lolos' conflation of Jesamo with Jesus does not appear to have occurred at Vial's direct initiation.  This instance suggests that the idea of similarity between minority peoples and Europeans did not exist only in the imaginations of missionaries and their representations of the people.  Missionaries demonstrated enthusiasm for the similarity of minority peoples and Europeans in a wide variety of circumstances, and local people picked up on the desire of missionaries to see them as compatible to European culture.  A Ch'iang Christian once confided in Graham that some of his people intentionally misled Thomas Torrance into believing they were monotheists "because of Mr. Torrance's very strong disapproval of polytheism and idolatry."[33]

 

This situation exemplifies part of the power dynamic existing in the religious and scientific projects taken on by David Crockett Graham and his colleagues, in which indigenous people deliberately misrepresented themselves in order to curry favor and resist Western analysis simultaneously.  Some local people understood that these foreign visitors were powerful people whose wealth could be accessed through cooperative and pleasing behavior.  Late in his career, Graham observed the problem this dynamic posed for research: "The task of studying and interpreting as accurately as possible the lives and customs of these people is not an easy one... The researcher cannot always tell when he is being deceived, and he needs to be extremely careful, checking and rechecking the information he is given."[34]  More specifically, Graham identified the locals' "willingness to give illusive and inaccurate answers that they believe will satisfy the inquirer" as a roadblock to accurate research.  Thus, the people whom Graham studied were often willing to distort and possibly even transform their own culture in order to please a Western outsider.

 



[1] Steven Conn, Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. 4

[2] Ibid., p. 31

[3] Beech, "University Beginnings," p. 92

[4] Thomas Torrance, "Notes of the West China Aboriginal Tribes," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 5 (1932): p. 11

[5] David C. Graham, "The West China Union University Museums," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 6 (1934): p. 134

[6] David C. Graham, “Diary Eight,” Smithsonian Institution Archives, David Crockett Graham Papers, 1923-1936 (SIA RU007148), Box 2, Folder 2, p. 34

[7] Ibid.

[8] Morse, "President's Address," p. 3

[9] David C. Graham, “Diary Nine,” Smithsonian Institution Archives, David Crockett Graham Papers, 1923-1936 (SIA RU007148), Box 2, Folder 2, p. 2

[10] David C. Graham, “Diary Four,” Smithsonian Institution Archives, David Crockett Graham Papers, 1923-1936 (SIA RU007148), Box 1, Folder 6, p. 14

[11] David C. Graham, “Diary Seven,” Smithsonian Institution Archives, David Crockett Graham Papers, 1923-1936 (SIA RU007148), Box 1, Folder 7, p. 22

[12] Graham, “Diary Nine,” p. 4

[13] David C. Graham, "Temmoku Poerclain in Szechwan Province, China," Man 38 (1938), p. 177

[14] Ibid., p. 178

[15] David C. Graham, "An Excavation at Suifu," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 8 (1936): p. 88

[16] Ibid.

[17] Kristin Stapleton, Civilizing Chengdu (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000) p. 214

[18] American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, "Rev. D.C. Graham" p. 1

[19] Graham, "The West China Union University Museums," p. 134

[20] David C. Graham, Customs and Religion of the Ch'iang (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1958), p. 96

[21] Thomas Torrance, "Notes of the West China Aboriginal Tribes," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 5 (1932): p. 17

[22] Thomas Torrance, "The Basic Spiritual Conceptions of the Ch'iang People," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 6 (1934): p. 31

[23] David C. Graham, "The Ch'uan Miao of Southern Szechuen," Journal of the West China Border Research Society 1 (1923): p. 56

[24] Margaret Byrne Swain, "Pere Vial and the Gni-P'a," in Stevan Harrell ed., Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995) p. 163

[25] Ibid., p. 148

[26] Ibid., p. 161

[27] Torrance, "Notes on the West China Aboriginal Tribes," p. 18

[28] Ibid., p. 10

[29] Graham, Folk Religion, p. 217

[30] Torrance, "The Basic Spiritual Conceptions of the Ch'iang People," p. 39

[31] Ibid.

[32] Graham, Customs and Religion of the Ch'iang, p. 99

[33] Ibid., p. 101

[34] Ibid.