(Re)interpreting Harbin’s Russian colonial heritage: changing perceptions in a changing China
Abstract At the turn of the 20th century, Tsarist Russia constructed the Chinese Eastern Railway and its southern branch in the northeast region of Qing China. The area at the junction of the railways rapidly developed into Harbin city, a cosmopolitan metropolis and an effective Russian colony. Russ...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Built Heritage |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s43238-025-00184-1 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract At the turn of the 20th century, Tsarist Russia constructed the Chinese Eastern Railway and its southern branch in the northeast region of Qing China. The area at the junction of the railways rapidly developed into Harbin city, a cosmopolitan metropolis and an effective Russian colony. Russian colonial rule ended in the 1920s, yet many buildings and structures from that era still stand in Harbin. After the Second World War, Harbin served as China’s national industrial hub for nearly half a century, until it underwent rapid deindustrialisation during the nationwide economic reforms. To sustain the city’s economy and society, the local government revalued its Russian colonial remnants as cultural heritage, leveraging them for city branding, tourism development, and urban revitalisation. Since then, Harbin’s Russian colonial heritage has been subject to multiple (re)interpretations. Today, three distinct interpretations coexist: European-style heritage (since the 1990s), industrial heritage (since the 2010s), and revolutionary heritage (since the 2020s). Through observation, in-depth interviews, and qualitative content analysis, this paper examines how and why Harbin’s Russian colonial heritage is officially interpreted in various ways, and to what extent these (re)interpretations are embraced by the public. It argues that the evolving interpretations of heritage reflect Harbin’s changing expectations and agendas, as well as broader shifts in China. Chinese perceptions of and attitudes towards the West are crucial in this dynamic process. Furthermore, this paper suggests that heritage exists and persists primarily because of its compatibility with the ever-changing official (and popular) needs and demands, rather than the commonly cited notions of ‘heritage values’ and ‘authenticity’. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2662-6802 |