Abstract In the chapters on Tibet (Xizang) in The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 10, Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911 , Joseph Fletcher, following Luciano Petech’s theory of the protectorate, argued that the Qing dynasty possessed only “symbolic authority” in Xizang. Based on this premise, he offered a one-sided interpretation of relevant historical events. This article introduces ritual as an analytical tool and integrates it with the operation of the various institutions through which the Qing administered Xizang. It argues that Qing authority in Xizang was neither merely symbolic nor purely coercive, but was embedded in a distinctive mode of ritualized sovereignty. This mode incorporated Tibetan Buddhist institutions into the Qing political order while preserving a degree of autonomous space for their operation, thereby achieving effective rule over Xizang. This analytical framework transcends the binary opposition between the substantive and the symbolic, offering a new theoretical perspective for understanding frontier governance in the multi-ethnic Qing dynasty.
Jiang et al. (Thu,) studied this question.