Conventional wisdom has it that dynastic China was both homogenous and isolated from

the outside world. How accurate is such a perception about the dominant trends within
China’s imperial past, and, how does the answer to such a question matter regarding
how we view the country’s more recent history?

China’s image as the secluded and dynastically cyclical Middle Kingdom was not in fact
the case—Chinese dynasties are not repeating characters nor was it spatially and temporally
isolated from the rest of the world. Different dynasties throughout Chinese history have had a
wide ranging interactions with the rest of the world at large, most notably the cosmopolitan city
of Chang’an during the Tang dynasty and the various groups of people (Hindu, Jewish,
Christian, Turks, Arabs, etc) that conducted trade there and subsequently, spread new fashions
(hair, garments) and forms of knowledge throughout the Chinese empire. During the Song
(especially Song maritime period), Ming, and Qing periods, trade was prolific and once again
the empire would have encountered many different peoples and cultures through the process.
The common misconception that Chinese dynasties are all the same and therefore
homogenous is also mistaken—both the Yuan and Qing dynasty were ruled by the non-Han
Mongols and Manchurians, both distinctly different in their culture and certainly not just another
dynasty. In religion, China both accepted Buddhism and its teachings through various Buddhist
pilgrims traveling east to India but also spread the religion and Confucianist ruling methods to
neighboring kingdoms including Korea, Japan, and Vietnam.
In contemporary history, it is tempting to view Chinese modern history as the most
current albeit in a different form, dynasty. The narrative that China was a closed empire that was
forced to open at the hands of the British, Japanese, and a modernizing Western world at large
obscures the slow but natural and (perhaps inevitable?) path towards revolution/modernization
throughout successive empires. The slow but gradual urbanization of the empire, movement
towards such urban centers, and peasant discontent with elites has long been underway. As
Miller writes, “The late imperial order was heading toward revolutionary change even before the
West “opened” China.”.
Finally, imperial China has long been regarded as a monolithic ruling power with stiff
control over the vast empire that is the Middle Kingdom, which translated into China’s current
nation-state, means a government that is similarly authoritarian. In fact, dynastic China was
fraught with territorial disputes, and an ambiguous system of tributes in which warlords and
other territorial rulers would acknowledge the suzerainty of the emperor. The emperor was
intended to rule through his moral superiority, setting an example for the empire rather than
dictating every happening. To be sure, there was no concrete sense of national identity or deep
conception of the empire as also related to one’s own identity. In contrast, modern China (aided
by technology) is much more involved in the affairs of its citizens. Along with developing a new
sense of national identity, the two ruling methods of a dynastic and post-dynastic China could
not be more different.

The end of the Qing dynasty was brought about by internal upheaval and external
pressures. However, alongside such developments this period also saw a wide ranging
normative/conceptual transformation occur regarding how those in China thought of
themselves (identity) and their place in the world (territory). What role did intellectuals,
especially those with transnational ties, play in these developments?
In a sense, China was introduced to the world stage at least in the intellectual sense
through figures such as Li Dachao, Chen Duxiu, Sun Yat-sen, Chiang Kai-shek, and others.
Much of how to conceive of “Chinese” identity and questions of sovereignty and nation state
post empire are interpreted through these figures and subsequently, their own learnings and
experiences while abroad. The modern Chinese nation was directly shaped by these
intellectuals, through the development of different intellectual groups and then political parties,
and in enduring issues of nationalism and concepts such as 爱国主义 and ⺠族主义.

Early intellectual discussions were focused on how best to adopt Western methods into
Chinese culture, backgrounded by the fact that thinkers were informed by different conceptions
of what Chinese history is and could be. As Jenco describes, through their arguments, both the
past and present become malleable concepts which are open to interpretation. For moderate
thinkers, China’s best way forward was to incorporate Western thought into existing Chinese
ideals, while for radical thinkers, it was best to reject tradition and instead thoroughly move
forward with new Western ideals.
It was not without the transnational ties of such intellectuals that they were able to
conceive of China on the world stage differently, and the publication and explosion of various
journals and political writings in the early 20th century also meant that such intellectuals were
the sole figures making sense of and in a way, defining the moral and political struggles of
China at the time. Figures such as Sun Yat-sen popularized new concepts of nationalism and a
shared identity of the Chinese people, notably basing his ideas of China as lacking a national
consciousness, unity, or sense of purpose. Similar thinking by Chiang Kai-shek also introduced
a racial angle to notions of Chinese-ness—new concepts of nation-state and its people required
new definitions of the nation and its people. Notably, such transnational ties are still apparent in
how modern Chinese history remembers such figures like Chiang Kai-shek: for some in the
PRC, his history and time in Japan makes him a modern traitor of sorts.
Importantly, that transnational intellectuals were making sense of a new Chinese identity
and state through their Western learnings meant that there was a great struggle to indigenize
and to make familiar/natural what would later become the party stances for the CCP and the
Republican party. After the establishment of the PRC, the hardline rejection of anything foreign
was complicated by the fact that revolutionary writing, arts, and sciences were all informed by
intellectuals learning abroad or Western methods of film and art.

What role/significance do sovereign borders have in the context of the global health
crisis as portrayed in the film? How do those on both sides of the Pacific define
themselves (as Chinese, as American) with particular reference to Covid-19, and what
about those who do not fit neatly into either category (including, possibly, the film maker
herself)?

The pandemic has become a magnifying glass for issues of personal autonomy and
national sovereignty the world over—from the opening and closing of borders, to the implication
of a national/spatially located struggle, and the never-ending questions about the virus’s origin,
it is a health crisis that is also deeply occupied with identities, locations, and labels.
Wang Nanfu begins her documentary with a shot of herself flying over a Chinese city,
followed by narrations of her journey traveling to China with her American husband and mixed-
race child. Viewers are reminded of the various travel bans imposed by countries upon other
countries, making stark and visible as if a physical manifestation, the real impact and meaning
of what it means to be a citizen of a certain country.
Later international news coverage of the Wuhan lockdown flashes by, with TV anchors
speaking over shots of an empty city. It is an implicit view into the power of the Chinese
government and its power over its citizens as a sovereign nation. Online, Chinese netizens are
shown to be scolding or berating others for “exposing” the nation and making China look bad on
the world stage. There is a sense of personal responsibility to the Chinese government, which
contrasted to American resistance to government interference, shows just how deeply personal
identity plays into a public health crisis. There is also a place-based aspect to the pandemic—
waves and new surges of the virus are located in specific places, leaving opportunities for the
public to label certain states, countries, or cities as irresponsible, particularly resilient, or any
other descriptor. New York City’s “New York Strong” campaign was just one of many ways the
location and identity of those during the pandemic figured into the history and narrative of the
pandemic.
Though the lockdown in Wuhan is long and brutal, it offers the Chinese government
supposed moral superiority in their handling of the pandemic compared to countries such as the
US. Like in other disasters that have struck China, the government is able to turn the tragedy
into a nation-building exercise of sorts, tying the struggle to what it means to be Chinese and
making the struggle against the virus a deeply Chinese one. For many of the interviewees in the
documentary, their conceptions of the crisis are deeply tied to how they view the government.
The wife of the deceased pharmacist praises the government for their actions, later repeating 我

国伟⼤. As Wuhan reopens, a husband and wife on a motorcycle cheer for China, and

specifically the CCP “我国伟⼤，党伟⼤！”.