, " Writing Tibetan History : The

Introduction In his 1971 Journal of Asian Studies article, "Serfdom and Mobility: An Examination of the Institution of 'Human Lease' in Traditional Tibetan Society," Melvyn Goldstein proclaims, "Tibet was characterized by a form of institutionalized inequality that can be called pervasive serfdom," and thereby launched his narrative of serfdom. In this chapter I will deconstruct Goldstein's narrative of serfdom and, by privileging alternative characteristics of traditional Tibetan society, propose a counter-narrative that more comprehensively represents the dynamic nature of traditional Tibetan society. However, before I begin my critique it is necessary to outline the fundamental structure of traditional Tibetan society. Due to Tibet's extremely effective policy of isolation before the 20 century, research on traditional Tibetan society is sparse. Furthermore, that research which does exist either focuses on the philosophical and religious traditions of Tibet, and is therefore not very useful for understanding socioeconomic relations in Tibet, or is saturated with overt political motivations and rhetoric, and thereby calls into question its credibility as a valid source of knowledge. On one hand, Chinese Marxists portray traditional Tibet as characterized by a "feudal-serf" system (fengjian nongnu zhidu) in order to justify their "liberation" of Tibet in 1951. In contrast, many Tibetans in exile paint an overly idyllic picture of Tibetan society before the advent of direct Chinese governance in 1951. Significantly, neither group has explained clearly the characteristics of the traditional society and culture to which they make reference. Largely rising above the murky fields of ideologically-motivated scholarship on Tibet, Melvyn Goldstein's research and publications, based on intensive and lengthy fieldwork in Tibetan exile communities in India and in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China, represent the best attempt at well-rounded, dispassionate, independent, and, as best as can be hoped, "objective" scholarship on Tibet today. Therefore, the following introduction to the social structure of traditional Tibet relies primarily on his research. With the opening up of China in the early 1980's, in-depth research on both contemporary and historical Tibet