New Qing history school: the Manchu turn in American historiography

The article gives a detailed overview of modern trends in the American Manchu studies. Special attention is given to the New Qing History historiographic school, which during the 1980s and 1990s criticized the Sinicization theory on entirely new levels of theorizing during the 1980s and the 1990s. Despite existing differences in views, the experts share common approaches to the Qing studies: importance of the Manchu sources, comparison of the Qing dynasty with the other Early Modern empires of Eurasia, refusal to identify the Manchu regime with China and considering China only as one of the parts of the Empire, close attention to the identities issue in the Qing empire. This article analyzes the ideas of such prominent American experts in Manchu studies as Pamela Kyle Crossley and Mark C. Elliott, as well as some concepts of their teachers and predecessors. The central position of the New Qing History school is a statement of the importance of the Manchu factor in the functioning of the Qing state. The article also gives the critical response of supporters of the Sinicization theory to the theses prevailing among the American scholars. They express doubts about the dichotomy claimed by the New Qing History scholars between Manchu and Chinese identities. In their opinion, the process of sinicization includes not only Chinese but also other minor forms of identities, so the Manchus could preserve their own identity but still think of themselves as part of the Chinese civilization. Such criticism undoubtedly has common points with the modern Chinese political concept of the «Chinese family of the united nations». The author believes both approaches should be taken into consideration when researching Manchu and Chinese sources as part of the Qing studies.