The Fluid Concept of Ethnic Identity in Imperial China

Long before modern ID cards and household registries, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) developed complex systems to categorize its subjects. Unlike today’s fixed ethnic classifications, pre-modern China understood identity through cultural rather than strictly biological terms. The ancient concepts of “Huaxia” (civilized core) versus “Rong-Di” or “Man-Yi” (peripheral groups) described cultural practices rather than genetic lineages.

This fluidity creates challenges when applying modern labels to historical figures. The debate over whether Cao Xueqin (author of Dream of the Red Chamber) was “Han” or “Manchu” exemplifies this – both terms carried different meanings in his time. As a 1648 imperial edict reveals, the Qing government distinguished between “Manzhou” (Manchus) and “Hanren” (Han people), but these categories functioned more as administrative labels tied to the Eight Banners system than as ethnic identities in the contemporary sense.

The Four Pillars: Qing Household Registration System

Building upon Ming Dynasty precedents, Qing administrators classified subjects into four primary household registrations (siji), collectively called “Minren” (common people):

1. Minji (Civilian Registration)
The most widespread category, covering agricultural populations and administered by the Revenue Ministry. Registration followed ancestral hometowns (e.g., “Zhilí Province, Fengrun County”).

2. Shangji (Merchant Registration)
A privileged status created for salt merchants and their descendants. Unlike ordinary merchants (who fell under minji), this allowed families to take imperial exams outside their ancestral homes – a crucial concession for mobile commercial elites.

3. Zaoji (Salt Worker Registration)
A hereditary caste binding families to state salt production. The term derives from zao (hearth), reflecting their workshop-based labor.

4. Junji (Military Registration)
Administered by the War Ministry, this segregated military families into self-sufficient garrison communities, continuing the Ming weisuo system.

Surviving examination records, like those of officials Zhang Peilun (civilian registration) and Shen Zumao (merchant registration), showcase how these classifications appeared in official documents.

Beyond Han Subjects: The Banner System and Its Complexities

The Qing developed parallel systems for non-Han populations:

Eight Banner Households
Encompassing Manchus, Mongols, Han bannermen, and other groups, bannermen held registrations like “Under the XX Banner’s YY Company.” While often called “Manzhou” in documents, banners included diverse ethnicities:

– The Han Chinese Cao family (of Dream of the Red Chamber fame) belonged to the Plain White Banner
– Empress Xiaojingcheng (née Borjigit) descended from Mongol nobles but was registered in the Manchu Bordered Blue Banner

Mongol Banner vs. Mongol League System
A crucial distinction separated:
– Menggu qiren (Mongol bannermen): Urbanized, integrated into Eight Banners
– Menggu mengqi (League Mongols): Pastoralists governed through the aimag league system

This explains why Empress Xiaohuizhang (a Khorchin Mongol) symbolized “Manchu-Mongol alliance,” while the later Empress Xiaojingcheng (a bannermen) did not.

Marginalized Groups: From “Base Status” to Labor Categories

Three notable outcast systems coexisted with mainstream registrations:

1. “Base People” (Jianmin)
Including hereditary performers (yuehu) and beggars (gaihu), these were descendants of Ming loyalists or “polluting” professions. Emperor Yongzheng’s 1727-1730 emancipation edicts began dismantling this system.

2. Attached Households (Fuhu)
Enslaved persons (jiaren) lacked independent registration, existing as human property under masters’ documents. While excluded from Yongzheng’s reforms, they could theoretically buy freedom.

3. Hired Laborers
Legally ambiguous, long-term gugong occupied a gray zone between commoners and base people, whereas temporary workers enjoyed fuller rights. Court cases reveal nuanced judgments based on contract duration and offense type.

The Living Legacy of Qing Identity Systems

Modern China’s hukou system and ethnic policies inherit structural logics from Qing classifications:

– The tension between geographic origin and current residence persists in household registration
– Contemporary ethnic identification still grapples with historical fluidity (e.g., Manchu vs. Han bannermen descendants)
– Yongzheng’s emancipation precedents inform current debates about social mobility and discrimination

Understanding these systems allows us to appreciate how identity – whether in 18th-century Beijing or 21st-century Shanghai – remains both an administrative tool and a lived experience, constantly negotiated between state power and personal belonging.