Critique essay Tibet: State & Society.
Leiden University.
Dr. Peter Verhagen
Tibet: State & Society
2019-2020
Submission date: 7-05-2020
Total amount of words: 1007.
Student: XXXXXXX
Student Number: XXXXXXX
Umail-adres: XXXXXXXXXX
, According to the People’s Republic of China’s, one of their most lauded achievement concerning
Tibetan livelihood is the abolition of serfdom. A Xinhua article from 2016 even called it ‘‘one of the
most comprehensive and profound social changes in human history.’’ 1 The Chinese government’s
stance about pre-1959 Tibetan society is made very clear. According to the official government line,
the majority of the Tibetan population was subjugated in a brutal feudal system with barely any
freedoms.2 However, labeling Tibetan society in Western terms such as feudalism and serfdom leaves
out any of the ambiguities and exceptions that were present. However, in this essay instead of
investigating said ambiguities, I want to shed light on the instances one could argue the Chinese
‘‘liberation’’ did free certain individuals from a repressive system. For my critique I will be using
parts of the chapters ‘‘Human Rights’’ and ‘‘Livelihood of the People’’ from the book: Authenticating
Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 questions for my critique.
Pre-1959 Tibet was undeniably a hierarchal society, and land could only be hold by three groups.
These were the Tibetan state, clergy and aristocracy, otherwise in Chinese propaganda named the
‘‘Three Great Lords.’’3 In order to efficiently administrate their holdings these groups made use of a
serf labor system. According to Goldstein, the serfs system was a system of economic exploitation. It
gave elites control over resources, and secured a consistent labor force for working their lands without
having the responsibility to provide sustenance for said serfs. 4 Serf-status was hereditary, and besides
around 300 aristocratic families, most of Tibetan laymen were serfs. 5 The system differs from a slave-
master relationship, as slaves are considered property of their masters and have no legal identity. The
Chinese stance is that all serfs were essentially slaves subjected to harsh conditions. However,
depending on the individual serf, they had rights, upward mobility capabilities, and freedom of
movement.6
Firstly, albeit not a major part of Tibetan society, real slavery did still exist in pre-1959 Tibet. It was
mostly in the form of domestic slavery, and situated in the border regions. 7 Secondly, it is important to
note that there were different types of serfs, namely those who were bound to land and those who were
unbound. The largest part of the unbound group consisted of serf children. 8 Infant mortality was high
and education for commoner children was almost non-existent. 9 In Authenticating Tibet, it is
1
Unknown, China Voice: Serfdom-free Tibet marches toward greater prosperity, 1.
2
Blondeau, Buffetrille, Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, 81.
3
Blondeau, Buffetrille, Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, 294.
4
Zrenner, The Mi-ser in Tibetan Society: Why is it Problematic to Refer to the Peasantry of Pre-1959 Tibet as
“serfs”?, 3.
5
Goldstein, Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of "Human Lease" in Traditional Tibetan
Society, 522.
6
Blondeau, Buffetrille, Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, 295.
7
Kapstein, The Tibetans, 198-199.
8
Goldstein, Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of "Human Lease" in Traditional Tibetan
Society, 528.
9
Kapstein, The Tibetans, 217-218.
Leiden University.
Dr. Peter Verhagen
Tibet: State & Society
2019-2020
Submission date: 7-05-2020
Total amount of words: 1007.
Student: XXXXXXX
Student Number: XXXXXXX
Umail-adres: XXXXXXXXXX
, According to the People’s Republic of China’s, one of their most lauded achievement concerning
Tibetan livelihood is the abolition of serfdom. A Xinhua article from 2016 even called it ‘‘one of the
most comprehensive and profound social changes in human history.’’ 1 The Chinese government’s
stance about pre-1959 Tibetan society is made very clear. According to the official government line,
the majority of the Tibetan population was subjugated in a brutal feudal system with barely any
freedoms.2 However, labeling Tibetan society in Western terms such as feudalism and serfdom leaves
out any of the ambiguities and exceptions that were present. However, in this essay instead of
investigating said ambiguities, I want to shed light on the instances one could argue the Chinese
‘‘liberation’’ did free certain individuals from a repressive system. For my critique I will be using
parts of the chapters ‘‘Human Rights’’ and ‘‘Livelihood of the People’’ from the book: Authenticating
Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 questions for my critique.
Pre-1959 Tibet was undeniably a hierarchal society, and land could only be hold by three groups.
These were the Tibetan state, clergy and aristocracy, otherwise in Chinese propaganda named the
‘‘Three Great Lords.’’3 In order to efficiently administrate their holdings these groups made use of a
serf labor system. According to Goldstein, the serfs system was a system of economic exploitation. It
gave elites control over resources, and secured a consistent labor force for working their lands without
having the responsibility to provide sustenance for said serfs. 4 Serf-status was hereditary, and besides
around 300 aristocratic families, most of Tibetan laymen were serfs. 5 The system differs from a slave-
master relationship, as slaves are considered property of their masters and have no legal identity. The
Chinese stance is that all serfs were essentially slaves subjected to harsh conditions. However,
depending on the individual serf, they had rights, upward mobility capabilities, and freedom of
movement.6
Firstly, albeit not a major part of Tibetan society, real slavery did still exist in pre-1959 Tibet. It was
mostly in the form of domestic slavery, and situated in the border regions. 7 Secondly, it is important to
note that there were different types of serfs, namely those who were bound to land and those who were
unbound. The largest part of the unbound group consisted of serf children. 8 Infant mortality was high
and education for commoner children was almost non-existent. 9 In Authenticating Tibet, it is
1
Unknown, China Voice: Serfdom-free Tibet marches toward greater prosperity, 1.
2
Blondeau, Buffetrille, Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, 81.
3
Blondeau, Buffetrille, Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, 294.
4
Zrenner, The Mi-ser in Tibetan Society: Why is it Problematic to Refer to the Peasantry of Pre-1959 Tibet as
“serfs”?, 3.
5
Goldstein, Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of "Human Lease" in Traditional Tibetan
Society, 522.
6
Blondeau, Buffetrille, Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China’s 100 Questions, 295.
7
Kapstein, The Tibetans, 198-199.
8
Goldstein, Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of "Human Lease" in Traditional Tibetan
Society, 528.
9
Kapstein, The Tibetans, 217-218.
