Abstract
Through ethnographic observations of funerary practices and everyday life, this article highlights how courtyards function as in-between modes in social cohesion, economic production, and political negotiations. The paper-offering economy, particularly among households engaged in mortuary rituals, exemplifies how courtyards enable small-scale capitalist production. Additionally, the article explores the âcourtyard political practice modeâ, where village governance often takes place in domestic courtyards rather than formal administrative spaces. Courtyards also serve as arenas for performing li (social and ritual protocols), reinforcing social hierarchies and community relationships through hospitality practices. The symbolic significance of courtyards extends into funerary rituals, where paper-offering representations replicate real-life spatial and social arrangements. By conceptualising courtyards as transitional spaces, this article deepens our understanding of their multifaceted role in rural Chinese society, demonstrating their embeddedness in both the living world and the afterlife.
1 Introduction
In the summers of 2011 and 2019, I observed two âcoldâ funerals in southwestern Shandong, each involving the incineration of a complete set of paper-offerings representing a courtyard-structured household. These rare events, occurring only after the passing of both elderly parents, provided a unique opportunity to examine local mortuary customs and their implications for social organisation. Local tradition dictates that upon the death of one elderly parent, a paper banchu yuanzi ååºé¢å (half of the courtyard-structured household) is incinerated, including the paper tangwu å å± (main house) and sometimes the paper gatehouse. The complete set of zhengchu yuanzi æ´åºé¢å (the entire courtyard-structured household) is incinerated during the Third Anniversary rite commemorating the other parentâs passing. This comprehensive offering encompasses the dongwu ä¸å± (the eastern wing-house) and xiwu è¥¿å± (the western wing-house), gatehouse, and courtyard walls. Locals regard this practice as symbolising the completion of the jia 家 (family/household) and the reunion of parents in the afterlife within the domestic sphere. The intimate entanglement of paper-offering practices with daily life in this region necessitates a systematic examination of the courtyard as a structuring element of village sociality and as a key mediator of funerary and commemorative ritual. Rather than merely reproducing domestic space, these practices condense, formalise, and materialise it, thereby foregrounding a broader analytical problem: why does the courtyard, both as inhabited architecture and as its paper analogue within mortuary ritual, retain such a central and enduring salience in rural Shandong?
Courtyards have long occupied a foundational position within Chinese architectural and moral order, with material antecedents traceable to Han dynasty mingqi æå¨ (funerary objects) (Steinhardt 2005, 26; Ruan 2021, 69). Over time, they became embedded within Confucian normative frameworks, spatially articulating familial hierarchy, gendered relations, and ideals of domestic order and propriety (Bray 1997; Ruan 2021, 69). Ethnographic scholarship further underscores that, for rural households, the courtyard is inseparable from everyday social reproduction, household labour, and religious practice (Judd 1994; Bray 1997; Liu 2000; Yan 2005; Chau 2006a; Ruan 2021). Regional research shows that courtyards organise kinship-related property relations in Shaanbei (Liu 2000, 39), serve as essential sites of household production in Shandong (Layton et al. 2015; Layton n.d.), and facilitate semi-public neighbourly interaction in Yanxia Village, Zhejiang (Zhao 2023, 170). Despite this substantial literature, the courtyard has most often been conceptualised as either a private domestic space or a site of household production. Its role as a dynamic social interfaceâmediating relations with neighbours, markets, religious institutions, and state authorities, and shaping broader social, economic, and political processesâhas garnered comparatively limited analytical attention.
This article addresses this gap through long-term, multi-sited ethnographic research in Shandong Province (2011â2019). Following preliminary surveys in 2011, eleven months of intensive fieldwork were undertaken between March 2015 and February 2016, supplemented by repeated return visits until 2019. Primary sites included Liugang and Wangtang Villages in Cao Prefecture, Heze Municipality, together with three neighbouring settlements. Sustained relationships were established with two core paper-offering households, and approximately ninety households across sixteen villages were visited, accompanying producers on daily deliveries and material procurement within a twenty-five-kilometre radius. Data collection integrated participant observation, semi-structured interviews, household questionnaires, and spatial documentation. Participant observation centred on paper-offering production, everyday courtyard activities, and village-level political practices such as dispute mediation and official visits. Interviews were conducted with villagers, itinerant traders, visiting relatives, cadres, and teachers. A semi-structured household questionnaire on composition, production, religious practice, and local customs was administered primarily in Liugang Village through the local middle school to approximately 150 teachers, students, and their families. Most surveyed households were small nuclear units, typically a married couple and unmarried children. Collectively, these materials illuminate the courtyard as a socially generative space, shaping everyday interaction, economic practice, governance, and ritual life, while extending its significance into mortuary and cosmological domains.
This study conceptualises the rural courtyard as a paradigmatic in-between space, simultaneously semi-private and semi-public, whose social meanings are continually reproduced through everyday practice. While the house interior shelters the intimate moral domain of the jia, the courtyard mediates and projects domestic relations into wider social, political, economic, and ritual arenas, linking households with villages, markets, temple networks, and state institutions. Within spatial theory, the Shandong courtyard exemplifies Lefebvreâs insight that space is socially produced through the dynamic interplay of actors and practices, rather than existing as a neutral architectural container (Lefebvre 1991). It materialises through quotidian interactions among households, neighbours, religious economies, and state agents, and is continually reconfigured through their engagements.
The courtyardâs ambiguous positioning resonates with classic formulations of liminality as a state of being âbetwixt and betweenâ social categories (van Gennep 1960; Turner 1969, 95), yet it departs from the episodic threshold of rites of passage. In rural Shandong, the courtyard functions as a permanent, routinised liminal zone: its liminality is chronic, embedded in the temporal rhythms of village life and instantiated through recurrent practices. Within this enduring in-between space, patterned activitiesâhosting, gossip, paper-offering production, dispute mediation, and political negotiation with cadresâconstitute and reproduce social relations. This spatial logic aligns with critiques of the public/private dichotomy that treat those categories as historically and culturally produced (Bray 1997; Yan 2003; 2005). From a material culture perspective, both the lived courtyard and its paper analogue in mortuary contexts operate as forms of material mediation (Miller 2005), through which social relations, moral expectations, gendered positions, and cosmological imaginaries are rendered tangible and operational in everyday practice. The paper courtyard thus provides evidence on how material forms actively organise ritual action and the relations between the living and the dead.
The courtyard also functions as a key site of grassroots state formation, where governance is enacted through quotidian encounters rather than formal institutions. Following Das and Pooleâs formulation of the state as constituted in everyday practices, the courtyard provides a crucial interface through which state authority is translated, negotiated, and occasionally resisted at the household level (Das and Poole 2004). I therefore propose the concept of a âcourtyard-centred in-between modeâ to capture this spatial logic. Anchored in the moral language of li (social and ritual protocols), and the organisational form of the jia, this mode foregrounds how courtyards mediate between the âTributary Mode of Productionâ (TMP) and the âPetty-Capitalist Mode of Productionâ (PCMP) (Gates 1996), extending the spatial and social agency of households into village society and the afterlife. This framing guides the ensuing ethnographic analysis, clarifying how the courtyard emerges as a central site where everyday life, political authority, economic practice, material form, and cosmological imaginaries are continually negotiated and reproduced.
2 The Courtyard as an In-Between Space: Social and Symbolic Foundations
In rural settlements such as Wangtang Village, the architectural configuration of courtyard-structured households facilitates a binary spatial division between public and private domains. The dichotomy is evident in the juxtaposition of communal facilities (e.g., administrative offices, healthcare clinics, elementary schools, and religious temples) and individual farmhouses situated in close proximity. The south-facing orientation and linear arrangement of these courtyard structures along primary thoroughfares not only demarcate individual household boundaries but also foster social cohesion within what Chinese sociologists term the âacquaintance societyâ (Fei et al. 1992, 42).
A courtyard, known locally as dangyuanzi å½é¢å or yuanzi é¢å, functions as a central architectural feature in rural Shandong. This space is typically enclosed by a symmetrical compound comprising the tangwu å å± (main house) facing south, flanked by the dongwu ä¸å± (the east house) and xiwu è¥¿å± (west house), with ancillary structures such as the kitchen in the southeast corner, a toilet, and storage shelters in the southwest corner. The central area, defined by the surrounding buildings and walls, constitutes the courtyard. In everyday life, this outdoor space is utilised for various activities including drying clothes, boiling water, dining, leisure, and entertainment, as well as hosting guests. Additionally, households use this space for cultivating vegetables like chili peppers and green beans, along with ornamental plants such as bamboo and roses. For some families engaged in domestic sideline activities, such as paper-offering production, the courtyard is essential for both production and business operations. The courtyard also plays a significant role in hosting important events, including wedding and funeral ceremonies. The open and permeable nature of these spaces fosters a high degree of social transparency within the village community, encompassing guest visits, economic activities, family relationships, and ritual events.
In Chinese culture, a house is widely considered devoid of purpose or meaning without the family that inhabits it (Lo 2005, 171; Ruan 2021, 19; Zhao 2023). In Shandongâs village communities, the house and courtyard are intertwined as both physical and symbolic components of the jia. Locals emphasise that âa jia without a courtyard does not look like a real homeâ, and assert that âa courtyard is the face of a jia, while the house is its bodyâ. Based on the practical needs of daily life and production, they distinguish between the house and the courtyard as âinsideâ and âoutsideâ spaces.1 The house, perceived as âinwardâ, represents the private domain of the family, while the courtyard, viewed as âoutward,â connects the jia to the external world. The courtyard functions as a âsemi-private, semi-publicâ space, acting as a transitional zone between the jia and the broader environment. As a âsemi-privateâ space, it accommodates the familyâs private living activities, while as a âsemi-publicâ space, it is pivotal for managing relationships with other jia, the village community, and even the state.
This spatial differentiation becomes particularly salient in everyday practices of hosting (Figure 1). It encapsulates the âhospitality philosophy of inside and outsideâ. Within a siheyuan ååé¢ (a complete quadrangular dwelling), the courtyard is designated for public engagement, while the inner keting 客å (main hall) serves to receive visitors and entertain guests (Knapp 2000, 30â¯ff.; Yan 2005, 391). However, in rural southwestern Shandong, guest reception extends beyond the main hall. The courtyard emerges as an essential space for hosting. The jia adeptly navigates social relationships by dynamically utilising both interior and exterior spaces, orchestrating interactions between the house and courtyard to accommodate visitors of varying social statuses and manage diverse hosting activities. The main hall in the principal building serves as the formal hosting area, appropriate for extended stays, such as official meetings and important discussions. Esteemed guests, such as clan elders, close kin, trusted friends, and benefactors of the family, are received in the main hall. Hosting important guests in the courtyard is perceived as a breach of etiquette (a violation of li) for the jia. Conversely, the courtyard functions as an informal hosting area, suited to casual conversations and brief encounters. Visitors of less importance, namely first-time visitors, unfamiliar villagers, adversaries, and certain government officials, are only received in the courtyard. Absolute strangers, such as itinerant peddlers from other villages, are restricted to conducting transactions at the courtyard gate. Through the calibrated mobilisation of interior and exterior spaces, the jia activates the courtyard as a mechanism of social regulation, transforming architectural thresholds into morally and relationally meaningful distinctions.
Figure 1
The courtyard-structured household layout of the Zhang family
Citation: European Journal of East Asian Studies 2026; 10.1163/15700615-tat00008
drawn by the authorBeyond hosting, the courtyard is equally central to the maintenance of neighbourly ties and the reproduction of village cohesion. Since the 1990s, architectural modifications, such as the construction of higher courtyard walls and gates, have fostered a more private family life while diminishing the social cohesion of village communities (Yan 2003; 2005). Nevertheless, in Shandong, courtyard spaces continue to bolster social cohesion within villages. During daylight hours, open courtyard gates do not fully obstruct the view or access for outsiders (neighbours, fellow villagers). Households remain well-acquainted with one anotherâs daily routines and frequently engage in mutual visits. As villagers note, âIn the village, unlike city dwellers who do not know each other, living in courtyards means that neighbours are very familiar with one another.â Lao Wang, the village committee secretary, underscored this sentiment: âMajor events cannot be hidden from the village community, and minor matters cannot be concealed from the neighbours (大äºä¸çåºä¹¡ï¼å°äºä¸çåé»). Many things that happen within the jia cannot be hidden from the neighbours and the village community.â As a semi-private, semi-public in-between space, the courtyard serves as a primary venue for neighbourly interactions, preserving the intimacy of these relationships.
Numerous activities that nurture neighbourly bonds, such as socialising, entertainment, and mutual assistance, frequently take place in the courtyard, this âin-betweenâ space, rather than within the private confines of the domestic house. For instance, regarding mutual assistance, it is common to observe neighbouring courtyards sharing tools and resources, ranging from small items (like shovels and cooking pots) to large equipment (such as electric tricycles). When a household requires certain tools, its members can simply retrieve them from a neighbouring courtyard, notifying the owner by calling out, without the need to enter the house. Furthermore, courtyards also serve a protective function among neighbours. Villagers often remarked that they remain vigilant about who enters and exits their neighbourâs courtyard, particularly if the visitors are strangers from other villages. Even if courtyard gates are left unlocked during the day, neighbours assist in looking after each otherâs homes. At night, any unusual activity in a nearby courtyard alerts the neighbours. For example, in one instance, when the male head of a household was frequently away for work, leaving only the female head at home, an attempted theft in her courtyard prompted her to seek help from a neighbouring household. Thus, the courtyard plays a vital role in fostering mutual assistance and connectivity within village society, especially among neighbours, thereby reinforcing the social cohesion of the village.
The courtyard also functions as a key site for the production and regulation of gendered social relations. The distinction between the domestic interior and courtyard exterior structures everyday interactions between men and women and provides a practical framework through which norms of li are enacted, embodied, and internalised. When the male household head is absent, female visitors may be received indoors, whereas male visitors are routinely hosted in the courtyard. Women generally avoid entertaining unrelated men within the house, while male guests themselves observe this spatial boundary by remaining outside. In this respect, the courtyard operates not simply as a protective buffer but also as a morally charged arena in which gendered propriety is continuously rehearsed through habitual practice. Beyond such situational norms, it also constitutes a primary locus of womenâs everyday sociability and socialisation.
Figure 2
Residents congregating outside a household in the afternoon to engage in card games for recreational purposes in Wangtang Village, Cao Prefecture (south-western Shandong, November 2016)
Citation: European Journal of East Asian Studies 2026; 10.1163/15700615-tat00008
In village life, the courtyard and the area near its gate are central gathering points for women to converse, share news, and offer mutual support. Villagers have observed that âthe area near the courtyard gate is often where gossip spreads in the village. Whatever happens in the village today, as soon as villagers gather at someoneâs courtyard gate, the news quickly spreadsâ (Figure 2). This underscores the courtyard, especially the space near the gate, as a crucial information hub that links households with the broader village community. Women play a pivotal role in this process as primary participants, significantly facilitating the flow of information within the village.
Additionally, the courtyard is an essential space for women to connect with the outside world, establishing and sustaining social relationships.2 According to Li (2010, 62â63), in rural southwestern Shandong, young women primarily engage with female relatives and female neighbours. Through these daily interactions, they cultivate kinship and neighbourly ties and gradually internalise a set of gender-specific interpersonal norms and practices of li. These relationships form the foundation for managing social interactions in village society as adults. Such female-centred social relationships and practices predominantly occur within the courtyard or around its gate. In contrast, boys are encouraged to venture beyond the courtyard, engage with the wider village and external world, and practice li, thereby establishing social relationships crucial for their adult lives.
Ultimately, these interlocking practices demonstrate that the courtyard cannot be understood as a neutral domestic adjunct or a mere transitional zone. Rather, it emerges as a socially generative and morally saturated in-between space through which the jia is constituted as an integrated moral unit. The coordinated use of house and courtyard materialises hierarchies of age, seniority, and gender, while simultaneously projecting the practices of li beyond the domestic interior into the wider village social field. This spatial logic extends past everyday life into mortuary practice, where paper courtyard-structured households symbolically reconstitute the unity of the jia in the afterlife. It is precisely through these routinised practices that the courtyard becomes an embedded locus for the ritual intensification, political negotiation, and economic activities explored in the sections that follow.
3 Ritualising the In-Between: Courtyards, Funerals, and Paper Courtyard-Structured Households
While the preceding section has illustrated the courtyardâs function as an intermediary spatial form in everyday social life, ritual occasions render this mediating logic both intensified and explicit. Rather than suspending quotidian courtyard practices, funerals, weddings, and other major rites amplify and ritualise them. In such moments, the familiar courtyard of hospitality, neighbourly exchange, and moral surveillance is transfigured into a charged ritual arena. It is precisely through this passageâfrom mundane social mediation to ritual intensificationâthat the courtyardâs role as a hinge between households, village society, and broader moral-political orders becomes most apparent. This section, therefore, examines funerary rites as a privileged ethnographic site for apprehending how the courtyardâs mediatory form is condensed, materialised, and reproducedâboth in the spatial choreography of ritual performance and in the emergence of âpaper courtyard-structured householdsâ, which project this spatial logic into the cosmological realm.
Chau (2006b; 2014) has argued that the household constitutes a fundamental unit of religious engagement in rural China, with hosting serving as a central idiom of religious practice. Within this framework, the courtyard plays a pivotal role in ritual life, animating social interaction and facilitating a wide range of ceremonial activities (Ruan 2021, 20). In rural southwestern Shandong, the courtyard serves as the primary venue for household-based religious practices and related hosting activities. Regular worship, including ancestral veneration, deity worship, and kowtowing to senior family members during Chinese New Year, is typically conducted in the courtyard. Major life-cycle events such as weddings and funerals likewise centre on the courtyard as the key locus for ritual action and hospitality. Rather than remaining a static space reserved for household religion, the courtyard comes to life during rituals as a stage for interaction between hosts and guests, and as a site where li is publicly enacted. In this sense, the courtyard functions as an in-between space that enables the household, as a collective agent, to perform religious and li practices in public, thereby establishing social standing, sustaining reputations, and maintaining relationships with the wider community.
Funeral ceremonies provide a particularly illuminating case through which to examine the ritualisation of the courtyard. Based on the âhotâ funerals I attended in rural southwestern Shandong between 2011 to 2019, a typical funeral layout involves three interconnected spatial zones. First, the main house, where the coffin is placed, remains a relatively private space closely associated with the intimate domain of the jia. Second, the courtyard, where the lingpeng çµæ£ (spirit shed) is located. This space holds the spirit tablet used for the ritual, along with the ancestral tablet, the deceasedâs portrait, paper-offering towers, and other offerings. Near the table, paper money trees and paper figures (âservantsâ for the deceased) are arranged. In front of the table, mats are placed for visitors to pay their respects and for the bereaved family members to reciprocate the gesture. Third, the area near the entrance to the courtyard, where the lifang ç¤¼æ¿ (registration room) is situated for recording guests and their gifts. The post-funeral banquet tables are typically set up in a more spacious area outside the courtyard. This spatial arrangement highlights the courtyardâs role as the intermediary space connecting the main house and the public ceremonial areas. While the main house remains a private space, the courtyard accommodates public ceremonial practices, including diaoxiao li åå礼 (condolence ceremonies) and jidian li ç¥å¥ 礼 (memorial rites). Some memorial rites also occur in public spaces outside the courtyard, such as the main village road and the entrance to the tomb. Funerary rituals make manifest the same spatial gradationsâbetween private, semi-public, and public domainsâthat organise everyday courtyard life, albeit in a more codified and morally heightened register.
Specifically, the courtyard serves as a crucial space where the bereaved family displays the practices of li, interacts with the public, and where all participants (including the deceased) collectively perform rituals. Through these performances in the courtyard, the bereaved family affirms and differentiates the identities and relationships of household members and mourners, encompassing gender identity and the closeness of their relationships with the household (and the deceased). Female household members primarily congregate in the main house, surrounding the coffin, weeping, and keeping vigil over the deceased. In contrast, male members kneel beside the offering table in the courtyard, also keeping vigil and, with the assistance of helpers, engage in ritual interactions with male mourners. The order rituals are performed and li is practiced distinguishes the identities and relationships of mourners. Small flags adorning the offering gifts on the spirit tablet indicate the visitorâs relationship to the deceased and the amount of their monetary gift. The courtyard thus becomes a site where the household and participants collective fulfil li. This includes not only the display of xiaoli å礼 (filial piety) by male household members, such as continuously kneeling beside the spirit tablet, but also the hosting rituals for visitors. Assisted by helpers, they reciprocate the kowtows performed by mourners. At the same time, mourners pay their respects to the deceased by bowing, followed by kneeling and lamentation with heads bowed. It is noteworthy that the courtyard is a space where male participants engage in the village power dynamics through ritual performance. The proper execution of funeral rituals directly influences their reputation and their relationship with the bereaved household. Through the adept performance of ritual actions, male villagers reinforce the practices of li, thereby establishing their authority and accruing power and status within the village. The active involvement of these performers is indispensable for the bereaved household to effectively fulfil the funeral rites. These ritual practices are inextricably connected to the courtyard, a pivotal intermediary space.
The ritual role of the courtyard extends further with the growing prominence of paper courtyard-structured households in funerary practice. With the emergence of âcoldâ funerals, these paper courtyards have increasingly supplanted real courtyards, engaging with other ritual spaces during such ceremonies. For example, at the Zhao jia funeral in 2019, a paper courtyard-structured household was constructed to closely match the height of actual courtyard walls. Its intricate and grand design effectively replaced the real courtyard, transforming it, along with the public space of the village street, into the ritual setting for both the condolence ceremony and memorial rites. The spirit shed, traditionally housing the spirit table, portrait of the deceased, offerings, and incense burner, was set up in the paper courtyard. This arrangement also supplanted the main house as the location where female family members kept vigil over the deceased, while male members maintained their vigil outside the paper courtyard.
Together with the memorial archway, the paper courtyard-structured household demarcated the ritual space of the Zhao jia from the surrounding village social space, effectively separating participants from onlookers positioned beyond the archway. In this way, the paper courtyard served not only as the deceasedâs abode in the afterlife but also assumed additional roles that engaged with the living community. These functions include ritual engagement, gender division of labour, and the spatial differentiation within the village. The increasingly elaborate paper courtyards symbolise local residentsâ conceptualisation of the jia and, as non-human agents, assist the bereaved household in reproducing the practices of li, managing social relationships, and ensuring the successful completion of funeral ceremonies. Through the material condensation of the âcourtyard-centred in-between modeâ, paper courtyard-structured households transmute the spatial and moral architectures of life into a ritual form that both extends into the afterlife and reaffirms the living social order.
4 Governing the In-Between: Courtyard Political Practice Modes
Since the 1950s, the household has been established as the fundamental unit within the âhousehold registration systemâ by the state, evolving into a crucial locus for cultural development and social interaction (Judd 1994, 165; Chau 2006b; 2014). Following the introduction of the âDouble Connection, Double Creation åèååâ policy3 in southwestern Shandong in 2016, party cadres have established seamless connections with village households. Consequently, the political behaviours and responses of households to state policies and village cadres have gained particular significance. The household, as an interactive entity between the state and village society, not only illustrates how the state leverages this organisational unit to merge governmental administration with grassroots village self-governance, but also demonstrates how households, as active agents, strategically utilise spatial arrangements and other tactics to negotiate with the government and cadres to protect their own interests.
In comparison to the village committee office, the household courtyard, as an in-between space, has become the site of more village political activities. Within the dynamic interactions between the village self-governance and state power, a spontaneous âcourtyard political practice modeâ has emerged within the âacquaintance societyâ. This model positions the courtyard as the epicentre of political action among households, between households and the village community, and between households and local government. This mode is both utilised and reproduced by the state, becoming one of the mechanisms through which local governments gradually extend state power into households at the implementation level. For example, village cadres employ the âhousehold visitsâ approach, transforming courtyards into specific sites for the implementation of government policies. Moreover, this mode embodies the daily practices of grassroots village self-governance. A prominent example is the tendency for the village party secretaryâs courtyard to replace the village committee office as the central space for villagers to manage village affairs. It is crucial to note that this mode is not always under the control of state power. In interactions between local government and households, the latter actively employ their courtyards as semi-public spaces to debate and negotiate with visiting cadres, thereby asserting and safeguarding their rights. The practical role and function of the âcourtyard political practice modeâ in the political lives of local residents will be illustrated in the following section.
On a winter afternoon in January 2016, I visited Wang Zhishu (Village Party Branch Secretary) and observed a land dispute being addressed in his courtyard. While we conversed in the courtyard, the male heads of two households, accompanied by the village production team leader, arrived, embroiled in a heated argument, seeking Wang Zhishuâs jia adjudication. The two men first argued at the gate before entering the courtyard in search of him. Wang Zhishu, evidently experienced in handling such sudden disputes, did not invite the disputants into the house but allowed them to continue their argument in the courtyard. He invited me into the living room, explaining that this would give the team leader time to mediate, thus clarifying the dispute and enabling Wang Zhishu to render a more informed judgement. After approximately 20 minutes, when the two villagers attempted to enter the house to find Wang Zhishu, he led them back to the courtyard. Following an additional ten minutes of further mediation, he escorted the villagers to the opposing partyâs courtyard to further address the issue.
This incident reveals two key points: first, the two villagers entering Wang Zhishuâs courtyard uninvited indicates that the Party Secretaryâs courtyard possesses a semi-public nature and functions as a site for handling village affairs; second, Wang Zhishuâs decision to keep the mediation in the courtyard, rather than inviting the disputants into the house, reflects his perception of the courtyard as a semi-public space for managing such matters, while the house remains a private domestic space.
In the various villages I visited, the working hours and locations of the village party secretaries were notably flexible, with their households often serving as the primary venues for handling village affairs. Typically, the village party secretary deals with more âpublicâ matters in the village committee office, such as collective political affairs or interactions with the township government. In contrast, more âprivateâ village matters, such as family disputes and inter-household conflicts, are frequently addressed at home, particularly in the courtyard.4 My investigations revealed5 that the village committee office is often locked, and villagers commonly go directly to the village party secretaryâs household to resolve their issues without the need for an appointment. The courtyard of the party secretaryâs household thus serves as a convenient, semi-public space for managing various village affairs.6
The households and courtyards of village party secretaries offer a crucial perspective for understanding the âcourtyard political practice modeâ. These household spaces, especially the courtyards, together with the public village committee office, form the central hub of village political practices. The households of party secretaries, much like their roles in village society,7 embody a semi-public, semi-private nature. Consequently, the village party secretaryâs household and courtyard become semi-public political spaces for addressing everyday village affairs. By centring on the party secretaryâs household and courtyard and connecting with other village households and courtyards, a political network within the village society is formed, collectively constructing the unique âcourtyard political practice modeâ of southwestern Shandong.
Next, I will explore how the âcourtyard political practice modeâ is further employed to reinforce state power at the village-level political implementation stage through the strategy of âhousehold visitsâ.8 As an implementation method, âhousehold visitsâ foster close connections between the village party branch, village committee, and township government cadres with dispersed village households, blending government management and village grassroots self-governance. The courtyard emerges as the core venue for these visits. There are generally two forms of âhousehold visitsâ: the âbottom-upâ household visits within the scope of village self-governance; and the âtop-downâ household visits within the scope of local government management.
At the level of village self-governance, âbottom-upâ household visits involve village cadres addressing the daily matters of villagersâ lives within the courtyards of various households. For example, the village party secretary may visit a household to resolve a particular issue. This method is primarily used for domestic matters and family disputes. Villagers hold the belief that âjiachou buke waiyang 家ä¸ä¸å¯å¤æ¬â (family scandals should not be made public), and if internal resolution is not possible, they seek the authority of village cadres, who are regarded as gongjiaren å ¬å®¶äºº (government officials). Liu, the village party secretary, shared that during his tenure, he often dealt with âdaily dramasâ arising from family trivialities. Even during the New Year, if someone got drunk and injured another person, he would be called to that household in the middle of the night to handle the situation. This approach complements the administrative structure of local government, enhancing the effectiveness of village management. The courtyard, with its semi-private, semi-public characteristics, becomes the ideal location for addressing matters of village self-governance.
For the government, âtop-downâ household visits represent a method by which the state extends its power to the grassroots level of the villageâthe household. Through this approach, village cadres use the courtyard as a unique space to communicate and implement government policies within each household. This method complements village committee meetings and public broadcasting, ensuring that government policies are effectively enacted at the household level. Retired village party secretary Wang noted that since the 1950s, cadres have been using âhousehold visitsâ to disseminate government policies. Many policies, especially those concerning family planning, exert considerable pressure on the government and cadres when implemented at the household level. Holding meetings in the public space of the village committee office can easily incite collective dissatisfaction, so the household courtyard becomes a critical space for communication and mitigation, addressing political issues between the local government and families.
During âhousehold visitâ interactions, households are not merely passive recipients of government power but actively engage in a power dynamic with the state. Yan (2003, 125) observed in his study of Xiajia Village that cadres complained about courtyard gates and walls, which separate families from public spaces, creating obstacles for government work. In my research, I found that local officials were not always warmly welcomed by peasant families. Cadres were typically neither treated as honoured guests nor completely turned away at the gate. In these situations, the courtyard becomes the most suitable space for both the household and the cadres to navigate these visits. Households often use the courtyard as a space to delay accepting policies, signalling potential resistance by how they receive the cadres in the courtyard. Cadres, in turn, attempt to utilise this semi-public space to convey their objectives and actions. From the householdâs perspective, the courtyard serves as a semi-private space that protects the familyâs interests while balancing relationships with local government and village cadres. From the perspective of local government and village cadres, the courtyard functions as a semi-public space used to implement policies and mitigate conflicts with villagers. This dynamic interaction renders the courtyard a critical site for negotiation between the âTributary Mode of Productionâ (TMP) and the âPetty-Capitalist Mode of Productionâ (PCMP) as proposed by Gates (1996). For example, when the state adopts the âcourtyard political practice modeâ for governance, it simultaneously employs this mode to regulate the PCMP. In the next section, I will discuss how the PCMP is enacted around the courtyard, further elucidating the interactive relationship between the TMP and PCMP in the economic life of Shandong.
5 Economising the In-Between: Courtyards and the Moral Economies of Petty-Capitalism
In the context of household production in China, the spatial coordination of production activities within the household not only enhances adaptability, but also influences domestic gender divisions of labour, internal and external social organisation, and production methods. This coordination promotes interaction between household production, state policies, and the broader economy (Judd 1994; Gates 1996; Hsiung 1996; Bray 1997). The courtyard, as a vital component of the householdâs private space, occupies a significant position in these discussions. For instance, Bray (1997, 71â72; 2005, 266) highlights that, as early as late imperial China, courtyards were sites for technical and economic activities, such as spinning, husking, and food preparation. This utilisation underscores the multifunctional nature of courtyards, where domestic, economic, and social activities intersect, thereby emphasising the integration of domestic and economic roles, particularly for women within the household. In examining household-based commodity production in rural China post-1980s economic reforms, Judd (1994, 155) and Jacka (1997, 146) both observe that courtyards as critical spaces for collaborative work and resource management. The state-promoted and re-utilised âcourtyard economyâ has expanded womenâs traditional roles in household sideline businesses and oriented courtyard production towards the market.
While the âcourtyard economyâ links households to the state economy (Judd 1994; Jacka 1997), existing studies often perceive the courtyard primarily as a private space for household production, with a focus on its relationship with household members, particularly women. However, these studies rarely explore the courtyard as an âin-betweenâ space that connects households with various economic domains, such as small shops, temple festivals, and markets. The courtyard, functioning as a semi-public, semi-private economic space, is both flexible and multifunctional. It not only supports internal household economic activities, including production and business, but also facilitates economic interactions and networks with other households, the village community, and even the state.
In my research, these courtyard characteristics are especially evident in the religious economic practices of households engaged in paper-offering production. According to Chau (2006b, 185), household religious service providers can be categorised as petty capitalists, as described by Gates (2000). Their strategies of specialisation and niche marketing resemble those employed by household artisans and shopkeepers. The paper-offering producers, who are household religious service providers, epitomise the âpetty-capitalist mode of productionâ. Their work not only sustains local religious life but also drives the development of the religious economy. Unlike other villagers who use their courtyards for activities like raising chickens or growing vegetables, paper-offering households fully utilise their courtyards as critical areas for production and business. These courtyards operate as semi-private spaces for daily production and as semi-public spaces for commercial transactions. Importantly, this courtyard-based business model enables paper-offering households to navigate the âtributary mode of productionâ, allowing them to partially circumvent state taxes and control, sustain production, and increase private income. Within the local religious market networks, the dispersed courtyards of paper-offering households function as crucial nodes for the exchange of paper-offerings and religious items. These courtyards complement public spaces such as markets and temple festivals, which concentrate religious economic activities and collectively shape the spatial layout and network structure of religious economic life in rural southwestern Shandong.
In these rural areas, paper-offering households serve not only their own villages but also neighbouring communities within a 2.5-kilometres radius, with larger households extending their influence up to 25 kilometres. The household courtyard functions as the central hub for these activities, encompassing the sale of paper-offerings, procurement of materials, receipt of orders, and customer interactions. For instance, in Zhang Yuzhouâs courtyard, customers typically enter directly to place orders. Upon noticing a customer, Mr. Zhang halts his work to warmly greet them. As a seasoned paper-offering producer, he skilfully negotiates with clients, often beginning by offering them a cigarette before attentively inquiring about their specific needs, such as the deceasedâs gender, the types and quantities of offerings required, delivery schedules, pricing, and any special requests. He also displays samples and promotes new products. Although some transactions occur indoors (primarily with customers close to Mr. Zhang) most negotiations and sales transpire in the courtyard. Once the order details are confirmed, Mr. Zhang records the information on a slip of paper, which he attaches to the living room wall, before resuming production. Upon completing the order, he delivers the offerings to the bereaved family on the agreed date.9 In paper-offering households, the courtyardârather than public economic spaces such as markets or temple festivalsâfunctions as the primary venue for petty capitalist activities. This in-between space facilitates informal and flexible economic exchanges between producers and their familiar clientele, often through casual interactions. As a result, the courtyard has emerged as the nucleus of the paper-offering business network within the village and its surrounding regions.
Since 2015, many entrepreneurial paper-offering households have adopted a business model centred around the courtyard, known as âhouse-to-house visitsâ, to actively expand their market reach and boost sales. Liu Hansongâs household exemplifies this approach (Figures 3 and 4). Recognising that relying solely on nearby villagers visiting his courtyard would not generate significant profits, Mr. Liu began traveling to different villages in search of business opportunities. During these âhouse-to-house visitsâ, Mr. Liu identified another lucrative venture: purchasing paper-offering materials from the county town and reselling them to various village paper-offering households. Through these visits, he not only marketed his own products but also established himself as a regular supplier of materials to other households. His skills and knowledge were further honed through interactions with different clients. Mr. Liu proudly stated, âMy business now reaches villages 25 kilometres away. Moreover, by interacting with many people, I have innovated my techniques. Many paper-offering artisans learn new techniques and styles from me.â Between November 2016 and January 2017, I participated in Mr. Liuâs âhouse-to-house visitsâ. With the exception of households where he had established familiarity and extended invitations for meals, nearly all interactions occurred within the courtyard. This courtyard-based âhouse-to-house visitâ model significantly benefitted the production and business operations of paper-offering households.
Figure 3
Liu Hangsong conducting in a transaction at the entrance of Zhangâs paper-offering household in Wangtang Village, Cao Prefecture (south-western Shandong, November 2016)
Citation: European Journal of East Asian Studies 2026; 10.1163/15700615-tat00008
Aside from the âhouse-to-house visitsâ model, paper-offering households also integrate their courtyard-based production and business activities with the public economic sphere of temple festivals, thereby expanding their commercial networks. The households of Guo Zhihe and Mr. Ma illustrate this approach. They regularly produce and sell paper-offerings for funerals to surrounding villagers while also participating in temple festivals in the region, providing pilgrims with paper-offerings and ritual items. During these festivals, their courtyards are stocked with products intended for sale at the festivals, and they set up temporary tents at the fairgrounds to market their offerings. Customers have the option to customise and select products in their courtyards or purchase them directly at the festivals. During these periods, they frequently shuttle between their courtyards and the temple fair sites, managing production and business operations in both locations while navigating competition or cooperation with other households. The courtyard thus serves not only as a base for production and transactions but also as a vital link connecting them with other paper-offering households and the broader business networks of temple festivals. This integration strengthens the petty-capitalist production and commercial networks of paper-offering households.
Figure 4
Liu Hangsong conducting a transaction within the courtyard of Zhaoâs paper-offering household in Wangtang Village, Cao Prefecture (south-western Shandong, November 2016)
Citation: European Journal of East Asian Studies 2026; 10.1163/15700615-tat00008
The courtyard business model affords paper-offering households a degree of insulation from government oversight. Among the eleven paper-offering households I surveyed, only three possessed business licences in county towns, while the others operated without licences in the villages, thereby avoiding taxation on their income. Households such as Liu Hansongâs, which utilise a courtyard-based âhouse-to-house visitsâ model, have successfully expanded their business networks and increased profits, with all earnings remaining untaxed due to the absence of government regulation. Even those with licences frequently evade taxes through private transactions. However, local governments have become increasingly aware of the substantial income generated by paper-offering businesses. Since the implementation of the âTransformation of Customs and Practicesâ policy in 2016, there has been intensified regulation of paper-offering households and the scale of funerals. A cadre from Liugang Village informed me that through âhousehold visitsâ, authorities monitor and restrict villagersâ use and production of paper-offerings. In response, these households have discreetly shifted production behind closed gates and conduct deliveries in the early morning hours to avoid detection, thereby engaging in a subtle power struggle with the state. In the end, the courtyard-based business economic model of paper-offering households adeptly navigates state economic policies and the authority associated with the âtributary mode of productionâ. This, in turn, contributes to the growth of the rural religious economy in China.
6 Conclusion
The ritual practice through which paper courtyard-structured households enable deceased parents to reunite and continue cohabiting in the afterlife is deeply rooted in the courtyardâs social and moral centrality in everyday life. For local residents, the courtyard is not a peripheral architectural feature but a constitutive component of the jia, a spatial and moral signifier of domestic wholeness. Everyday routines, productive activities, ritual observances, and social interactions are orchestrated through the courtyard and find their visibility there. As a semi-public and semi-private domain, it mediates relations among households, neighbours, lineage networks, village authorities, market actors, and state agents. In this capacity, the courtyard anchors the moral geography and social organisation of rural life.
This study has traced the courtyardâs mediating role across multiple domains of practice. In quotidian interaction, it structures hosting, gendered comportment, and neighbourly reciprocity. In the political sphere, it serves as a microcosm of governanceâan arena for visitation, mediation, and informal negotiation. Economically, it sustains petty-capitalist production and exchange, particularly in the paper-offering trade. Crucially, these activities thrive because of the courtyardâs semi-public quality, which allows authority to be exercised and negotiated, while enabling economic life to remain flexible and partially insulated from bureaucratic regulation.
The endurance of this spatial logic becomes most visible in funerary practice. Paper courtyard-structured households do not merely symbolise domestic unity; they reconstitute the spatial and relational order that organises quotidian life. Through ritual, these everyday mediations are intensified, formalised, and projected into the cosmological realm. Funerals, therefore, do not suspend ordinary social order; they render it explicit, ritually charged, and morally authoritative. In this way, paper courtyards exemplify the persistence of what this study has termed a âcourtyard-centred in-between modeâ.
Taken together, the Shandong courtyard demonstrates how architectural form operates as a durable interface between domestic life and broader institutional domains. Governance, economic exchange, and moral obligation are not confined to the dichotomy of public and private, but unfold within intermediate spaces where everyday practice bridges intimacy and regulation. Attending to such in-between modes illuminates how state power, market relations, and household autonomy are continually co-produced and recalibrated through material and spatial practices. Although grounded in rural southwestern Shandong, this perspective extends beyond the rural domain, offering a framework for examining urbanising and reconfigured contexts where households negotiate the thresholds between livelihood, morality, and institutional intervention. By foregrounding these liminal architectures, we gain sharper insight into how spatial form, moral order, and political power intersect under conditions of social transformation.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the journal editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have improved this article. I thank my supervisor, Professor Adam Chau, for his guidance on household studies. I am also indebted to Professor Robert Layton and Dr Tony Watling for their valuable advice. Finally, I thank my Cambridge colleague Shuai Li for helpful discussions.
It is crucial to note that although locals differentiate between the courtyard and the house as âinsideâ and âoutsideâ spaces, this division does not imply a hierarchy of importance. Both spaces hold equal significance. Furthermore, the distinction between âinsideâ and âoutsideâ is fluid: for instance, in contrast to public spaces beyond the jia, such as the village committee or ancestral temples, the courtyard is perceived as the âprivateâ or âinsideâ space of the jia.
Within a jia, family members collectively establish relationships with the village society. However, men and women cultivate distinct social networks, often creating separate interpersonal circles. While these circles may occasionally overlap, they typically operate independently. The practices involved in forming and maintaining these relationships are gender specific. For instance, womenâs social circles may emphasise internal family issues, such as a arranging a daughterâs dowry, whereas menâs circles might focus on livelihood concerns and village political affairs. Ultimately, it is through the combined efforts of both men and women, maintaining their respective social networks and practising different aspects of li, that the jia functions effectively as a cohesive entity within village society.
The specific elements of the âDouble Connection, Double Creationâ policy include âunits connecting villages, cadres connecting households, creating village-level service-oriented party organisations, and achieving results that satisfy the massesâ (from a township government morning meeting, November 2016, recorded in my fieldwork).
The village committee office occasionally handles relatively âprivateâ matters that cannot be resolved within the confines of villagersâ homes or cadresâ households, such as the division of family property. These issues, requiring the intervention of the village committee office, have already taken on a more âpublicâ and serious nature within the village community.
These villages include Wangtang Village, Liugang Village, Yangtang, Mazhuang, and Zhangzhuang. I also inquired with villagers about the working habits of village party secretaries in nearby villages within a 15- kilometre radius. Generally, they indicated that village party secretaries usually work from home.
Some villagers informed me that they closely monitor the daily activities at the village party secretaryâs household to deduce which family in the village might be facing difficulties. To bribe the village party secretary, some individuals opt to visit their household at night, delivering gifts and discussing solutions to avoid being noticed by other villagers during the day.
During my 2016 fieldwork, villagers consistently referred to officials on the Village Committee, particularly the Village Party Branch Secretary as gongjiaren å ¬å®¶äºº (state representative). This title embodies both the authority of the State and the role of yijiazhizhang ä¸å®¶ä¹é¿ (head of the village lineage), who is responsible for overseeing all village matters, from mediating family disputes to managing property divisions. In an interview, Wang Zhishu emphasised the significance of yemenguanxi ç·ä»¬å ³ç³» (brotherhood ties) in village governance, noting how these relationships permeate the communityâs social fabric. The Secretary thus operates as an intermediary for both the state and the local lineage in rural southwest Shandong, implementing state policies and coordinating village affairs. This dual role accentuates the Secretaryâs complex identity as both a state official and a lineage leader, providing a nuanced understanding of the intersection between social relations and political activities in rural China.
In November 2016, I accompanied township cadres to weekly township government meetings and visited Liugang Village with them to carry out political tasks at both the county and township levels, including the management of villagersâ medical insurance and poverty alleviation efforts. During this period, the village committee office functioned as the cadresâ operational base. I also participated in the implementation of the âDouble Connection, Double Creation åèååâ policy within villagersâ households, accompanying township government cadres on these âhousehold visitsâ.
In 2011, Zhang Yuzhou primarily relied on villagers to collect their customised paper-offerings. After 2015, to enhance customer service and increase competitiveness, he began offering home delivery services.
References
Bray, Francesca. 1997. Technology and Gender: Fabrics of Power in Late Imperial China. Berkeley and London: California University Press.
Bray, Francesca. 2005. âThe Inner Quarters: Oppression or Freedom?â In House, Home, Family: Living and Being Chinese, edited by Ronald G. Knapp and Kai-Yin. Lo, 259â280. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii University Press.
Chau, Adam Yuet. 2006a. Miraculous Response: Doing Popular Religion in Contemporary China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Chau, Adam Yuet. 2006b. âSuperstition Specialist Households?: The Household Idiom in Chinese Religious Practices.â Min-su châü-i (Special Issue on Religious Specialists in Theatre, and Folklore, the Journal of Chinese Ritual) 153: 157â202.
Chau, Adam Yuet. 2014. âHousehold Sovereignty and Religious Subjectification: China and the Christian West Compared.â Studies in Church History 50: 492â504.
Das, Veena, and Deborah Poole, eds. 2004. Anthropology in the Margins of the State. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Fei, Xiaotong., Gary Hamilton., and Wang Zheng. 1992. From the Soil, the Foundations of Chinese Society: A Translation of Fei Xiaotongâs Xiangtu Zhongguo, with an Introduction and Epilogue. Berkeley: California University Press.
Gates, Hill. 1996. Chinaâs Motor: A Thousand Years of Petty Capitalism. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Gates, Hill. 2000. âReligious Real Estate as Indigenous Civil Space.â Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica. Special Issue in Honor of Professor Li Yih-yuanâs Retirement (I), 313â333.
Hsiung, Ping-chun. 1996. Living Rooms as Factories: Class, Gender, and the Satellite Factory System in Taiwan. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Jacka, Tamara. 1997. Womenâs Work in Rural China: Change and Continuity in an Era of Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Judd, Ellen. 1994. Gender and Power in Rural North China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Knapp, Ronald G. 2000. Chinaâs Old Dwellings. Honolulu, HI: Hawaiâi University Press.
Layton, Robert, Tehrani Jamsid, Zhao Yi, Tang J-L. and Tian Yuan. 2015. âAfter the Deluge: The Survival of Traditional Arts in Shandong Province, China.â Folk Culture Forum 2015 (2): 92â106 (Chinese translation).
Layton, Robert. n.d. The Folk Art and Shandong Society. Unpublished Manuscript.
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991 (1974). The Production of Space. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell.
Li, Xia. æé. 2010. Niangjia yu pojia: huabeinongcun funv de shenghuokongjian he houtaiquanli å¨å®¶ä¸å©å®¶: åååæå¦å¥³çç活空é´ååå°æå [Niangjia and Pojia: Womenâs Living Space and Backstage Power in a North China Village]. Beijing: Shehui kexuewenxian chubanshe.
Liu, Xin. 2000. In Oneâs Own Shadow: An Ethnographic Account of the Condition of Post- Reform Rural China. Berkeley and London: California University Press.
Lo, Kai-Yin. 2005. âTraditional Chinese Architecture and Furniture a Cultural Interpretation.â In House, Home, Family: Living and Being Chinese, edited by Ronald G. Knapp and Kai-Yin. Lo, 161â204. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii University Press.
Miller, Daniel. 2005. âMateriality: An Introduction.â In Materiality, edited by Daniel Miller, 1â50. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ruan, Xing. 2021. Confuciusâ Courtyard: Architecture, Philosophy and the Good Life in China. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Steinhardt, Nancy S. 2005. âThe House: An Introduction.â In House, Home, Family: Living and Being Chinese, edited by Ronald G. Knapp and Kai-Yin. Lo, 13â36. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii University Press.
Turner, Victor. 1969. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine.
van Gennep, Arnold. 1960 (1909). The Rites of Passage. Translated by Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yan, Yunxiang. 2003. Private Life under Socialism: Love, Intimacy, and Family Change in a Chinese Village, 1949â1999. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Yan, Yunxiang. 2005. âMaking Room for Intimacy: Domestic Space and Conjugal Privacy in Rural North China.â In House, Home, Family: Living and Being Chinese, edited by Ronald G. Knapp and Kai-Yin. Lo, 373â396. Honolulu, HI: Hawaii University Press.
Zhao, Wei. 2023. Home beyond the House: Transformation of Life, Place, and Tradition in Rural China. London: Routledge Press.
