Inner Mongolia in the Philosophical Optics of Spatial Marginality Discourse

The relevance of the article is due to the spatial turn in the humanities which has fundamentally reoriented scholarly understandings of spatial marginality, moving away from economic and geographical determinism to conceptualizing it as a complex product of cultural and symbolic construction. The aim of the article is to identify and analyze the discursive mechanisms of constructing spatial marginality using the example of Inner Mongolia, China, as a complex, historically changing phenomenon. The stated goal predetermines the tasks: 1) to identify the mechanisms of discursive construction of Inner Mongolia as the Borderland in the imperial period; 2) to analyze the transformation of the Province mode in the republican period; 3) to trace how, after 1949, the Periphery and Province modes became dominant, conditioned by the logic of socialist construction; 4) to formulate the concept of integrative marginality as a hybrid regime of territory. The research materials include a corpus of official narratives of the Chinese authorities (government documents, legal acts, policy directives, and political rhetoric), as well as a wide pool of foreign and Russian works on the history of the integration of Inner Mongolia. Methodologically, the study utilizes a critical discourse analysis of official state narratives spanning three distinct historical-political formations — the Qing Empire (since 1636), the Republic of China, and the contemporary People's Republic of China — as well as a decomposition method based on the adapted version of Vladimir Kagansky's cultural landscape matrices model. The result of the study and its key empirical and theoretical contribution is the development of an original four-modal analytical model of spatial marginality and the formulation of its central theoretical concept integrative marginality, describing a sustainable reproduction of the subordinate status of Inner Mongolia through its gradual incorporation within the “homogenous” Chinese Nation. The study concludes that during the imperial period, marginality was constructed primarily through the Borderland mode, based on a Sino-centric perception of the region as a dangerous Other. During the republican period, the crisis of central authority led to a fierce struggle to define the Province mode, making the region a field of clashing external interests. With the establishment of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the logic of dual—economic and cultural-political — integration became dominant. The current stage is characterized by the formation of a hybrid regime of integrative marginality, where the full administrative-economic inclusion of the region is combined with the persistent reproduction of its symbolic subordination through the combination and fusion of all four modes.

1. Bassin, M. (2004) Imperial Visions: Nationalist Imagination and Geographical Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840–1865. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493638

2. Becquelin, N. (2000) ‘Xinjiang in the Nineties’, The China Journal, (44), pp. 65–90. https://doi. org/10.2307/2667477

3. Bliakher, L. E. and et al (2024) Zhizn’ v pustote: antropologicheskiye ocherki postoyannykh prostranstv za predelami vlastnogo regulirovaniya [Life in the Void: Anthropological Essays on Social Space Beyond Government Regulation]. Moscow: Fond podderzhki sotsial’nykh issledovaniy Khamovniki: Common Place Publ. (In Russian).

4. Bourdieu, P. (1987) ‘Espace social et pouvoir symbolique’, Les choises dites. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, pp. 147–166. (Russ. ed.: (1993) ‘Sotsial’noye prostranstvo i simvolicheskaya vlast’’, Thesis, (2), pp. 137–150.).

5. Bulag, U. (2002) The Mongols at China’s edge: history and the politics of national unity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

6. Cosgrove, D. E. (1984) Social formation and symbolic landscape. London: Croom Helm.

7. Crossley, P. K., Siu, H. F. and Sutton, D. S. (eds) (2006) Empire at the margins: culture, ethnicity, and frontier in early modern China. Berkeley: University of California Press.

8. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1980) Capitalisme et schizophrénie 2: Mille plateaux. Paris: Éditions de minuit. (Russ. ed.: (2010) Tysyacha plato: Kapitalizm i shizofreniya. Yekaterinburg: U-Factoria Publ.; Moscow: Astrel Publ.),

9. Detszidema (2021) ‘Language Policy in China: Creating a Language Environment and Preserving the Old Mongolian Script’, Baltic Humanitarian Journal, 10(1), pp. 103–106. (In Russian).https://doi.org/10.26140/ bgz3-2021-1001-0024

10. Dudin, P. N. (2024) Politicheskaya istoriya Vnutrenney Mongolii v kontse XIX – nachale XX veka [Political history of Inner Mongolia in the late 19th – first half of the 20th century]. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

11. Han, E. (2011) ‘The dog that hasn’t barked: assimilation and resistance in Inner Mongolia, China’, Asian Ethnicity, 12(1), pp. 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2011.538223

12. Kagansky, V. L. (2001) Cultural Landscape and Soviet Habitable Space. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ. (In Russian).

13. Khan, A. (1996) ‘Who Are the Mongols? State, Ethnicity, and the Politics of Representation in the PRC’, Negotiating Ethnicities in China and Taiwan. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, pp. 125–159. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.14904988.10

14. Kinzley, J. (2010) ‘Turning prospectors into settlers : gold, immigrant miners and the settlement of the frontier in late Qing Xinjiang’, China on the Margins. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University East Asia Program, pp. 17–42.

15. Klinovskiy, V. A. (2021) Political and Legal History of Language Reforms in People’s Republic of China. Moscow: Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Publ. (In Russian).

16. Kristeva, J. (1980) Pouvoirs de l’horreur: essai sur l’abjection. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (Russ. ed.: (2003) Sily uzhasa: sut’ ob otvrashchenii. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia; Kharkov: F-press.).

17. Kuras, L. V. (2016) ‘Inner Mongolia as Part of the Empire of the Great Qing’, The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series History, 15, pp. 126–136. (In Russian).

18. Lattimore, O. (1934) The Mongols of Manchuria: Their Tribal Divisions, Geographical Distribution, Historical Relations with Manchus and Chinese, and Present Political Problems; with Maps. New York: John Day Company.

19. Lazareva, T. V. (2011) ‘Natsional’naya politika KPK (na primere Tibeta i Sin’tszyana) [National policy of the CPC (on the example of Tibet and Xinjiang)]’, Kitayskaya Narodnaya Respublika: politika, ekonomika, kul’tura: 2010–2011 [People’s Republic of China: politics, economics, culture: 2010-2011]. Moscow: Forum Publ. (In Russian).

20. Lefebvre, H. (1974) La production de l’espace. Paris: Éditions Anthropos. (Russ. ed.: (2015) Proizvodstvo prostranstva. Moscow: Strelka Press.).

21. Leimgruber, W. and Chang, C. D. (2019) ‘Rural Space Between Marginality and Centrality. Approaches to Marginality Issues in Rural Areas’, Rural Areas Between Regional Needs and Global Challenges. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Perspectives on Geographical Marginality), pp. 3–14. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-04393-3_1

22. Li Jing (2006) ‘The Current Situation and Measures of the Educational Development of Inner Mongolian Nationality’, Heilongjiang National Series, (6), pp. 106–111. (In Chinese).

23. Mazhinskiy, S. V. (2012) ‘Chinese Policy in Inner Mongolia: Historical and Political Excursus’, Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, (358), pp. 32–33. (In Russian).

24. Mazhinskiy, S. V. (2015) ‘Chinese government and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region during 1966–1969: from dialogue to political struggle’, Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, (401), pp. 139–144. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/401/21

25. McMahon, D. (2020) China’s Borderlands under the Qing, 1644–1912: Perspectives and Approaches in the Investigation of Imperial Boundary Regions. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003142737

26. Meliksetov, A. V. (1977) Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya politika gomin’dana v Kitaye (1927–1949) [Socioeconomic policy of the Kuomintang in China (1927–1949)]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

27. Mitin, I. (2005) ‘Mifogeografiya: prostranstvennyye mify i mnozhestvennaya real’nost’ [Mythogeography: Spatial Myths and Multiple Reality]’, Communitas, (2), pp. 12–25. (In Russian).

28. Moskalev, A. A. (1981) Politika KNR v natsional’no-yazykovom voprose (1949–1978) [The policy of the PRC in the national-language issue (1949–1978)]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

29. Nepomnin, O. E. (1974) Ekonomicheskaya istoriya Kitaya: 1864–1894 gg. [Economic history of China: 1864–1894]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

30. Preobrazhenskiy, Yu. V. (2020) ‘Spatial Marginalization: Approaches and Levels of Research’, Herald of Tver State University. Series: Geography and Geoecology, (2), pp. 5–12. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.26456/2226-7719-2020-2-5-12

31. Said, E. W. (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. (Russ. ed.: (2021) Orientalizm. Moscow: Muzej sovremennogo iskusstva Garazh.).

32. Savchenko, T. N. and et al (2024) Potentsial’nyy Dal’niy Vostok. Kak rastsvetayut i ugasayut proyekty razvitiya v samykh bol’shikh regionakh Rossii [Potential Far East. How development projects flourish and fade in Russia’s largest region]. Moscow: Common Place, Fond podderzhki sotsial’nykh issledovaniy Khamovniki Publ. (In Russian).

33. Shen, Y. and Shyu, L. (2023) ‘China’s Ethnic Relations in Historical Perspective: From the Qing to the People’s Republic’, The Historian’s Gaze Essays on Modern and Contemporary China in Honor of Guido

34. Samarani. Venice: Fondazione Università Ca’ Foscari, pp. 51–76. https://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-7234/004

35. Sneath, D. (2023) Changing Inner Mongolia: Pastoral Mongolian Society and the Chinese State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198234135.001.0001

36. Soja, E. W. (2000) ‘11 Simcities: Restructuring the Urban Imaginary’, Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 323–349. (Russ. ed.: (2003) ‘Postmetropolis. Kriticheskiye issledovaniya gorodov i regionov’, Logos, (6), pp. 133–150.).

37. Sun Yat-sen (1985) Izbrabbye proizvedenija [Selected Works]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

38. Syroezhkin, K. L. (2015) Sin’tszyan: bol’shoy vopros dlya Kitaya i Kazakhstana [Xinjiang: A Big Question for China and Kazakhstan]. Almaty: IMĖP pri Fonde Pervogo Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan Publ. (In Russian).

39. Urbansky, S. (2020) Beyond the steppe frontier: a history of the Sino-Russian border. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

40. Viljoen, H. (1998) ‘Marginalia on Marginality’, Alternation, 5(2), pp. 10–22.

41. Wang, J. (2022) ‘Regional and Local Approaches to the Frontiers in North China from the Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries’, Journal of Song-Yuan Studies, 51(1), pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1353/sys.2022.0004

42. Wang, L. (2015) ‘From Masterly Brokers to Compliant Protégées: The Frontier Governance System and the Rise of Ethnic Confrontation in China–Inner Mongolia, 1900–1930’, American Journal of Sociology, 120(6), pp. 1641–1689. https://doi.org/10.1086/682021

43. Wang, Y. (2021) Transforming Inner Mongolia: commerce, migration, and colonization on the Qing frontier. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

44. Xue, Z., Kappas, M. and Wyss, D. (2021) ‘Spatio-Temporal Grassland Development in Inner Mongolia after Implementation of the First Comprehensive Nation-Wide Grassland Conservation Program’, Land, 10(1), p. 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010038

45. Zatsepine, V. (2017) Beyond the Amur: Frontier Encounters Between China and Russia, 1850–1930. Vancouver: UBC Press.