In Collaborative Nationalism, awarded the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Social Sciences book prize, Bulag seeks to move the debate about how nations perceive and construct themselves from one based on oppositions—Us / Them, Self / Other—to one based on triadic relations: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. His study is on Mongolian-Chinese relations, and how Mongols were drawn into what he terms China's “community of intimacy” (pp. 19–20). Harking back to Simmel's distinction between dyadic and triadic relationships, Bulag argues it is not enough to think of groups as relational or in opposition, but rather “a party in a triad survives or becomes meaningful only insofar as it can be relevant to the other two” (p. 11). The triads Bulag explores in this thoughtful work are a series of shifting, contingent relations that seek to show relevance. The triad may be an external one, Mongolians and Japanese against Chinese, but it can also be a largely internal one, some Mongolians and the Chinese against other Mongolians (or Chinese). The triad also need not be explicit. The third can exist as a “phantasmal presence” (p. 19), invoked to cement the relationship between China and its minority groups. The danger with minority groups is not their potential separatism per se, but their ability to ally with outside powers. The third member of the triad can thus be a liability.
Bulag traces a number of triadic relationships through three sections of the book, each comprising two chapters and focusing on a particular aspect of the dynamic: “Subimperial desires”, “Collaborative nationalism” and “Interethnic intimacy.” A conclusion and introduction round out the volume.
Within the confines of “China's Mongolian frontier,” the topics are varied and include Chinggis Khan, Tibeto-Mongolian Buddhism, interethnic adoption, and the Mongolian working class, among others. They occur in roughly chronological order, covering most of the twentieth century, although much of the work focuses on the tumultuous period of the 1930s and 1940s. As Bulag notes of this period, the “Mongols in China were torn between three competing forces: the Japanese in Manchukuo, the Chinese Nationalist Party (GMD) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)” (p. 102). Other players who figure prominently in the case studies include the Mongolian nationalist, Prince De and the Communist leader, Ulanhu. The Mongols were plunged into this maelstrom, and at the other end, found themselves absorbed into the Chinese community of intimacy. The case studies look at different moments of this process and in doing so reveal its full complexity.
The ideas laid out here have a specific goal: “to understand the historical path along which the Mongols arrived at their present state in China” (p. 4). The book, like most good ethnographies, goes beyond this and offers a useful set of tools that can be brought to bear elsewhere. The idea of collaborative nationalism may have its roots in Mongol-Chinese relations, but it could easily transfer to other areas and times.
I do, however, have a few qualms. While I find Bulag's arguments convincing, I worry that the use of affective language analytically threatens to undermine the very case it makes. Terms like “friendship'” convey to me a sense of realpolitik that risks being blind to its own nature. Doubtless Prince De, Ulanhu and others were well aware of what they were doing, and Bulag seems aware of this aspect as well. Indeed he refers to the “spectre of friendship” in the conclusion, suggesting all is not as it seems (p. 245). Yet it seems that the complexity on the ground is muted through the choice of language. If we look at the Mongols in what was then Mongolian People's Republic, throughout the socialist period (1921–1990), the Soviet Union was Mongolia's “older brother,” and “friendship” was a much-deployed term. While there were doubtless many who did view the Soviets in such a light, it is also clear that, for the revolutionaries in 1921, friendship was largely a fig leaf for a tactical decision: it was the best choice, but not necessarily a friendly one. “Friendship” later glossed an almost colonial relationship. Using such language to describe these relations is an invitation to misread them, particularly as the concept of “friendship” is never subjected to rigorous analysis itself. At best, a friend is someone with whom you can work or forge an alliance (p.17). Such a central term deserves closer scrutiny. Finally, the analytical idea of a third “phantasmal presence” might be too readily deployed, a triad for the sake of a triad. I am not convinced it is needed, and at times it is an over-complication. Sometimes, binary models do indeed work. But these are relatively minor issues in an otherwise excellent book.
