David Strand. Rickshaw
Beijing: City People and Politics in the 1920s. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1989.
David Strand presents his
readers with a meticulous account of urban politics in Beijing in the tumultuous
decade of the 1920s. But beyond an analysis of urban politics, this book is
also a social commentary as well as an examination of the evolution of labor
dynamics and identities. Strand uses as his point of departure the rickshaws
and their pullers; these dubious badges of modernity are his entry into the
complex world of Beijing politics, society, and labor. The rickshaw pullers
emerge as a class of men who were exploited by their social superiors, but who
were also able to “use their wiles and superior knowledge of the city to take
advantage of passengers” (p.51). Strand’s analysis of the rickshaw men leads
into an examination of other urban figures who affected them – the nascent
police force, local leaders, labor leaders and unions. These figures all shaped
and reacted to the inconstant cityscape of the 1920s Beijing that was
struggling to hold itself together.
Strand uses these elements of
urban life to illuminate the various aspects of Beijing. The rickshaw men and
the police force were symbols of Beijing’s somewhat inconsistent attempts to
modernize; Strand details tensions within and between those groups to
illustrate the interesting complications Beijing faced in its foray into
modernity. For example, Strand points out the contradictory nature of the
rickshaw as the representation of technical progress and modernity, yet at the
same time “the sight of one human being pulling another also became a symbol of
backwardness” (36). Strand’s analysis of rickshaw pullers and policemen is also
rich for the social politics that informed and guided their actions, and Strand
carries his social commentary further by showing that rickshaw men struggled to
assert their “humanness” in a society that often regarded them as tools.
Along with rickshaw men, the
different political players Strand details all illustrate the complexity of
Beijing politics. His focus on local political leaders and labor bosses such as
An Disheng, Zhou Zoumin, and Zhang Yiqing is instrumental in revealing the
ability of such leaders to maneuver in and control (to an extent) Beijing in a
time when Beijing was torn by power struggles between warlords. Even in this
chaotic and unordered atmosphere, there was a remarkable amount of cohesion;
when national governments failed, local forms of government stepped in.
Strand also discusses chambers
of commerce, guilds and unions; the tension between guilds and unions
exemplifies not only Beijing’s intricate politics and the tension between
tradition and modernity, but it also points to Beijing’s struggles to find a
political identity as well as a labor consciousness. Finally, the complicated
politics and interactions of all those groups exploded in 1929. The rickshaw
men were at the center of this political storm that encompassed political infighting,
worker’s rights, and the ever-present push for modernity; this storm catalyzed
in the explosive riot by the rickshaw men against the streetcars in 1929. At a
time when the central government was disjointed, even the rickshaw men – the
lowest of the low – were able to, through political processes, “rule the
streets for a day.”
Strand’s book is rich for its
multiplicity of meanings, but this also makes it hard to follow at times.
Furthermore, as Mary Backus Rankin puts it, “`modern’ is used repeatedly but
never defined” (The Journal of Asian Studies, 49.2:384-5). However,
these are minor issues in light of all that Strand offers. Not only does he
present comprehensive insight into Beijing politics of the 1920s, but he also
highlights the tension between tradition and modernity and the difficulties of
fostering an emerging labor and political consciousness.
Sharon Chen
© Copyright 2003. All rights
reserved.