It is well known that the long tradition of philanthropic activism in imperial Chinese history was dismissed by Christian missionaries in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as narrowly kin-based and inferior to Christian religious charity. Far-reaching projects for state socialism after 1949 meant that in the Mao era the topic was further marginalized. Handlin Smith's book, based on the writings of five well known late Ming literati, contributes to the correction of this interpretation. She argues that in the last thirty years of the Ming dynasty a number of innovative “benevolent societies” emerged in Jiangnan cities—societies that were not sponsored by lineage or religious organizations. Led by prominent local literati, they brought together men of official rank and commoners from the ranks of merchants, physicians, and minor gentry, and operated independently of the state (though with official approval). Although their spokespersons often discussed their motivation in the language of Buddhist charity, both the forms of their organization (often around urban wards) and their activities (soup kitchens, burial of the homeless dead) suggests civic consciousness was at work. Both giving and receiving operated within the framework of a money economy, and donors rejected Buddhist ideals of “hidden virtue,” publicizing their deeds as encouragement to others. This distinctive, urban style of philanthropy, Handlin Smith says, spread more widely in the succeeding Qing dynasty.
Handlin Smith's careful reading of the writings of Yang Dongming, Gao Panlong, Chen Longzheng, Lu Shiyi, and Qi Biaojia concerning activities in their hometowns yields fascinating details of the social relations underpinning late Ming philanthropy. A model for the new organizations came from clubs organized for the “liberation of animals” to acquire Buddhist merit by emphasizing frugal sociability as opposed to extravagant feasting. Philanthropy required donors to develop criteria to identify worthy recipients of aid, consider new norms for giving (tithing was suggested), keep accurate accounts, keep order at distribution points, and establish the boundaries of their mission. Benevolent society giving could be a conduit for recommending friends and relations for aid, and a way of buffering the inevitable rejection that occurred when petitioners had to be turned away. Throughout, the leaders of these societies retained the emphasis upon ritual gatherings and communal meals familiar within lineages and other kinds of community associations. Further, although these were not religious associations, temples and shrines served as public spaces for their activities, while the local monks routinely performed service tasks for them.
The second half of the book, on emergency relief measures, departs from the story of what might be called the everyday philanthropy of the early “benevolent societies.” Closer to the work of Fuma Susumu, Pierre-Etienne Will, and Bin Wong on state/society response to crises, it focuses on the city of Shaoxing in the late l630s and early 1640s, which had to cope with crop failure and famine, epidemic, surges of migrants seeking refuge, banditry, and piracy. Handlin Smith draws heavily upon the diaries of Qi Biaojia, retired official and one of the city's wealthiest and most cultivated residents. Inevitably, the sources place Qi at the center of a network of local activists who motivated donors in negotiation with officials, merchants, student volunteers, doctors, friends, and local lineage and ward leaders, organizing large-scale soup kitchens, grain distributions, and charity medical services. Qi emerges as a gifted organizer and policymaker who drew upon the resources of China's statecraft tradition to navigate thorny policy dilemmas: how far to rely upon market as opposed to state confiscations in stabilizing grain prices and assuring supplies; how to keep order among desperate relief seekers; how to balance the needs of rural villages and urban neighborhoods; how to make official power a resource without provoking local resistance to government intrusion.
This fascinating case study of urban elites and officialdom mobilizing to cope with multiple crises has much to offer scholars who struggle to adapt the concepts of civil society and public sphere to late imperial Chinese urban conditions. It may not modify historians' big picture of Ming “dynastic decline” as Handlin Smith proposes, but collectively these “benevolent societies” suggest how the money economy, merchant wealth, and interregional economic interdependence worked to legitimize wealth and open public roles to broader social groups. Its narrow chronological focus on the late Ming may short-change the broader historical context for charitable enterprises in imperial Chinese society, where many forms of state, religious, and community undertakings to promote the people's welfare have long been part of social fabric. For this historical depth, one might turn to Angela Ki-che Leung's excellent monograph, Shishan yu jiaohua: Ming Qing de cishan zuzhi 施善與教化 : 明清的慈善組織 (Philanthropy and moral transformation: the charitable organizations of Ming-Qing China) [Taibei: Lianjing chuban shiye gongsi, 1997].
