The Bunun's Imagining of the State

The article, Imagining the State: an Ethnographic Study (2005) written by Shu-Yuan Yang, explains how the Bunun indigenous people of Taiwan imagine the state. It is said anthropologists research the state differently compared to political scientists as they focus “on the everyday formation of the state, and on how the state is constructed through the cultural imagination and everyday practice of ordinary people” (Yang 2005: 489). This signifies the emphasis on individual ways rather than a top to bottom approach that is forced upon people from the state. I find this way of doing research allows for the voice of the peoples to be highlighted, as this is one main characteristic of anthropological studies. Additionally, it is essential to allow this type of state view to be recognized as it allows for a different perspective to be shown. Furthermore, this idea can be connected to Melissa Brown (2010), who explains how collective identity is created through shared experiences. This means the lived experience of a person is equally important to manifest the cultural notions of the state as referred to in Yang (2005). This is key to note because as the above quote stated, the cultural imagination of the state by ordinary people is emphasized within anthropological studies.

Yang explains the Bunun are an example of how the “choice between power and resistance does not have to be made, but rather that a serious look should be taken at the way different cultures, at different historical moments, have constructed their own forms of agency” (2005: 508). This means the idea of the state does not need to be seen as a coercive institution, but rather one that can be used by its people in effective ways. The state becomes effective through the people’s agency as they are able to use their individual cultural formulations into the larger state’s ways of being. One way this idea is shown is through the Bunun’s meaning of the state. The word used, sasaipuk, means ‘to take care of’ (Yang 2005: 491). Therefore, the Bunun view the state as being a protective essence when its people are in need of help. Furthermore, Yang explains there are three ways for Bunun to show their needs and to obtain subsidies from the government: “applying in writing through the official bureaucratic procedures; protest and public demonstration; and making requests to government officials in person” (2005: 492). Each one of these methods is based solely on a person’s agency as they must act upon themselves to go to the government for help. The preferred method is to negotiate with the state, because of their historical experiences (Yang 2005: 493). It is known to the Bunun, the most effective method is to sit with government officials to establish personal relationships as they can negotiate and cooperate with one another (Yang 2005: 493). Therefore, this leads to the state as being imagined by the people as a tool to increase the standards of the Bunun people through their peaceful negotiations. 

References 

Brown, Melissa. 2010. “Changing Authentic Identities: Evidence from Taiwan and China.”Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16 (3): 459-479.

Yang, Shu-Yuan. 2005. “Imagining the State: an Ethnographic Study.” Ethnography 6 (4): 487-516.

Taiwanese Policemen

Jeffrey Martin’s article,  A Reasonable Balance of Law and Sentiment: Social Order in Democratic Taiwan from the Policeman’s Point of View (2007), is written through his ethnographical study of neighbourhood police in Taiwan. His focus within his research was participant observation, which allowed him to gain an in-depth exposure to the field (Martin 2007: 667). This increases the researcher’s validity as he was able to spend four years within this field as well. Furthermore, Martin argues that there are social constructions in creating legitimacy within Taiwan which can constrain the rule of law and social order (Martin 2007: 666). As a result of this formation of policing, there are obscurities. Martin concludes by saying a main obscurity is the authority of police can be questioned by other authorities which does not make the rule of law as the final word (Martin 2007: 694). Thus this leaves the state of Taiwan in a problematic position as the social order does not allow for the authority to be taken as seriously. One way this obscurity is shown is through police patrolling of the street vendors, who continually take up public space that they are not to be in. Thus, the policemen are to enforce the clean up of the streets, which takes a lot more time as they must continually tell merchants to remove their goods from the sidewalks (Martin 2007: 682). It is the policemen’s job to produce a picture of the clean space (Martin 2007: 682). Martin (2007) points out, “It soon became obvious that the practical goal of our team was not to dispose of material, but rather to provoke the owners to move it (temporarily) back into officially private space so that a picture of a clean street could be produced” (682). This shows that the policemen are not taken seriously as they do not use power to restrict the merchants from the street. For a limited time they have some authority to tell merchants to remove the goods, however as mentioned above, it is only temporarily. The owners move their goods for a limited time so that the police can take their required photograph to prove to they did their job. It seems this is a norm within Taiwanese culture that the street vendors do not view the street patrollers with respect as they do not hold enough power and authority over them. Martin (2007) reiterates what one policeman explained to him, “‘It’s impossible to make any difference,’’ he sighed, ‘‘all you do is get into arguments with people. And then they go get their popular representatives, and it’s nothing but trouble.’” (683). This clearly shows the social order which policemen are to create and enforce cannot happen as they are undermined by institutions of higher power and authority. It is said that Taiwanese street police patrols must determine if they should interfere as there are more powerful social forces within the imbalance of positions (Martin 2007: 676). 

Unfortunately to me, it seems this process is just going through the motions rather than improving any social order within Taiwan. For the future, I see this continually being worsened as the street vendors will continue to get their way while policemen are taken for granted within this Taiwanese social order they are ultimately lacking control over. 

Reference

Martin, Jeffrey. 2007. “A Reasonable Balance of Law and Sentiment: Social Order in Democratic Taiwan from the Policeman’s Point of View.” Law & Society Review 41 (3): 665-697.

The Mediums' Association in Taiwan

I’ve decided to choose specific topics within the article for today’s blog, which caught my attention. First is the idea that traditional religions becoming more popular than foreign religions. Secondly, subject talking about the levels of mediums within Taiwan and thirdly, speaking of Chinese emphasis within Taiwan. The article by Yi-jia Tsai, called The Writing of History: The Religious Practices of the Mediums’ Association in Taiwan (2004), explains much more towards this subject than what I will comment on. However, as mentioned, these topics were most interesting to me to discuss in a larger Taiwanese anthropology context.

Tsai (2004) mentions popular religion has risen compared to foreign religions, because of the increase in the numbers of mediums (46). I find this interesting to see this rise in these types of religions rather than foreign religions because globalization usually opens up ties and allows for a flow of more “modern” Western religions. Traditionalism usually contains the connotations of old and backward to some people. However, it seems there is a continuation of traditionalism within this modern country that is a key characteristic. I think it is best to note this increased localization that can be seen in Taiwan. However, it must be remembered that traditionalism within Taiwan usually refers to Chinese ways. 

This article also explains the three types of mediums in Taiwan, which I had never heard of before. The first is jitong, a medium who mediates through their body, while the second called shenji, mediates through their heart-mind (Tsai 2004: 46). Lastly, the third medium called lingji, mediates through their spirit and is a representative for traditional Taiwanese religions, as well as within the Mediums’ Association (Tsai 2004: 46). It is interesting to see mediumship through the body is classified as the lowest order compared to the other two (Tsai 2004: 46). This also makes me wonder, because mediums worldwide, are usually concerned with doing all three aspects of the mediums spoken of above (as I had learned this through other anthropology classes). Additionally, it is interesting to see that the manifestation of the body, jitong, is the lowest order because I would think that to be able to transcend through the body, would be more elaborate compared to the mind. My perception of this also comes from a viewpoint of the body and mind being together as one. However, I also see the mind having to be used in order for the body to be used, which would essentially incorporate more work than just mediums for the heart-mind or spirit. 

Tsai (2004) talks about the flag formation for the Mediums’ Association within Taiwan. However, I find it interesting that the flag’s explanation for symbolism only really relates to China. It explains entirely its connection to China through its various selected symbols, such as plums and the number five (Tsai 2004: 49). I find this intriguing as it is to be a Taiwanese Association, however it is based solely on Chinese characteristics. I understand that the Mediums’ Association focuses on a religious point, which is based on traditional Chinese religion. However, if advertised as a Taiwanese association, it must at least relate to Taiwanese characteristics as well. Furthermore, within the article, it states the Association’s flag is for nationalistic concerns (Tsai 2004: 49). Clearly, there is a Chinese nationalistic tone within the association only. Thus, it entirely ignores the diversity of Taiwan. 

References

Tsai, Yi-jia. 2004. “The Writing of History: The Religious Practices of the Medium’s Association in Taiwan.” Taiwan Journal of Anthropology 2 (2): 43-80.

An Understanding of the Waishengren

In Dominic Meng-Hsuan Yang and Mau-Kuei Chang’s article, Understanding the Nuances of Waishengren: History and Agency, they look at how to understand the situations of the Mainlanders in Taiwan. They suggest through a broad research base through notions of both historical and social, will allow for a better understanding to this selected group as well as Taiwan as a whole. 

What was most interesting was the direct translation of Waishengren, which means “‘people from outside the province’ (of Taiwan)” (Yang & Chang 2010: 111). This is helpful to know as it contrasts with the English word “mainlanders,” meaning “people from mainland China” (Yang & Chang 2010: 111). These two different words have differing connotations which play into the conceptualization of the group. While Waishengren has a negative connotation as it implies that someone is from the outside, signifying they do not belong. This is the very essence of connotation which leads to the problematic relations between the four ethnic groups of Taiwan. When one’s literal meaning of their name depicts an outside view then there will ultimately be troubles in forming a true Taiwan identity this way.

It is also interesting to note that this very distinction between the outsiders and the natives (insiders), was the means for a rise of indigenisation. This can be connected through a common identity and its formation of who is who. Thus, this also leads to social and political movements in search of power. However, in the end, this distinction is the very means of not be able to form a collective Taiwan identity, which is essential for the nation and its state. The authors explain that during the early 1990s, there was a paradigmatic shift from looking at people from a provincial association, which claims the outsider/insider approach toward a total ethnic emphasis (Yang & Chang 2010: 112). However, I would argue that while this is helpful to not exclude peoples, it is undermining the mainlander group as an ethnicity, while they are very diverse people within it. A common geographical location cannot always translate to a full ethnic identity. 

This can also be connected to the contested national identity of reuniting with China or gaining independence, which the authors conclude as being a critical dividing issue between Mainlanders and native Taiwanese peoples (Yang & Chang 2010: 113). This comes down to the diversification that Taiwan has been made of through the years. It is also through separation of ethnic groups that can be a seen as a cause for this I believe. How can one country have one national identity when there is an emphasis on multiple ethnic identities?

This can further relate to the rise of indigenisation. When one group rises to dominate the others, there will lack a coherent identity as there is little common basis. Also through this rise of indigenisation, the authors relate to Scott Simon’s work, he concluded that Mainlanders were using diasporic ways to maintain themselves within Taiwan (Yang & Chang 2010: 115). I agree with this idea as when diasporas create communities in countries that are not their own, they are minorities who are trying to stay connected to their identities, while also trying to adapt in some ways to their new cultural setting. It is within diasporas that people can experience identities crises as they decipher how to maintain both old and new ways of life, which ultimately affects their identity. 

I think it is important, as this article shows, that there are many ways to approach Taiwanese identity and especially its relation to the Mainlanders. I believe understanding one’s ethnicity, cultural traditions, historical processes, are all important aspects in gaining knowledge of the larger picture which can be associated to other Taiwan ethnic groups, or in general to Taiwan as a whole. By approaching situations on an individual contextual level to gain an understanding of one particular part and then applying it to the larger context is essential in making the connections to each. I think these authors do a proper job in showing the reader the approaches and information to do this. 

Reference

Yang, Dominic Meng-Hsuan and Mau-Kuei Chang. 2010. “Understanding the Nuances of Waishengren: History and Agency.” China Perspectives 3:108-122.

Experience-Based Identity

Within Melissa Brown’s article, Changing Authentic Identities: Evidence from Taiwan and China, what caught my attention most was this quote, “But how do collective identities emerge? No two individuals’ lived interactions are exactly alike, although the same forces may shape them” (Brown 2010: 463). I found this interesting as I had not asked myself this question before when learning about identity and especially nationalistic identity. I have long realized that a shared history, culture, language, etc., as mentioned by Anderson (2001) as well, is the common ground which people form collective identities through. However, I never looked at it from beginning with an individualistic starting point. I think part of this is because through schooling, we continually learn new terms as well as building on terms we have already studied. Through this constant learning, we sometimes take for granted something that is actually so simple once we look back on it. 

Furthermore, continuing on Brown’s (2010) focus of individual lived interactions, she explains that a person’s experiences shape how they interact with others. Additionally, she shows how identities are made through social experiences specifically. Therefore, by having one’s own individual experiences, a person can then share these experiences with others, and thus creating a collective identity through common grounds. Brown (2010) also continues by stating these identities are not absolute as experiences are ever changing and growing (Brown 2010: 464). This is increasingly interesting as it leads to, how can multiple people, each having individual experiences, continues to grow as one? Brown (2010) provides the reasoning of experience-based identities. 

The author explains how Taiwanese people were able to fight assimilation to Japanese ways. She says it was because even though Taiwanese people were told they were Japanese, they knew they were not being treated like Japanese (Brown 2010: 476). It is through this exact non-experiential way of proper inclusion that allowed for Taiwanese to hold onto their own collective treatment. It is through experience that one can identify themselves to something, which is essential for Taiwanese culture. They have had a long struggle in showing themselves to a collective identity for full recognition. It seems that through this exact struggle, it is one form of the experience that they can use to become a collective. This also connects directly to a quote within Anderson’s article which explains a student in the struggle to self-identify by saying, “he was ‘trying to be Taiwanese’” (Anderson, 2001; 33). This student’s difficult shows that even self-identification through ones own experiences can be troublesome to make sense of without a sound collectivity to hold on to with. 

I would have to agree that experience-based ideas are a proper understanding to the construction of identities. While living abroad for a year, I could relate to this idea because as soon as you meet someone else who is Canadian, you automatically have a connection to that person whether you engage in an in-depth conversation or not. It is through this individual experience that I can further connect to others on a collective basis. 

References

Anderson, Benedict. 2001. “Western Nationalism and Eastern Nationalism.” New Left Review 9: 31-42.

Brown, Melissa. 2010. “Changing Authentic Identities: Evidence from Taiwan and China.”Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16 (3): 459-479.

An Insider's Perspective of Taiwan

The article, Experiences of Being a ‘Native’: Observing Anthropology by Keelung Hong shows an account of Taiwan by a Taiwanese whose creditability is as a scientist in America. His memories of how he was treated in a Chinese colonized Taiwan is fascinating. Furthermore, his understanding of how anthropologists study Taiwan shows an in-depth perception from Taiwan. I think it is important to read personal accounts by Taiwanese in addition to anthropological scholarly articles. Some anthropologists studying Taiwan may come to the country with specific mind-frames or motives for research that do not allow for a true depiction of Taiwan. As we have seen through other articles such as last week’s Greenhalgh (1994) and Gates (1979), who are both selective in what they included in their articles. This limitation of truth can really emphasize various aspects of Taiwan that may not need to be as highlighted.

An example is the emphasis on Chineseness. Hong writes, “I soon realized that anthropologists working on Taiwan were not interested in Taiwanese culture. They seemed to be looking at us, but were really looking through us to try to see 'traditional Chinese culture'” (1994: 7). Furthermore, Hong (1994) explains how Taiwan has used Chinese culture and transformed it into their own (1994: 7). This shows that they recognize their Chinese influences, however they have created something more from it to be distinct.

Hong continues his argument for the need to understand Taiwan culture from within Taiwan as he criticizes many anthropologists work, who he calls ‘strangers’ or ‘aliens’ to Taiwanese culture (1994: 8). His argument is clearly based on the frustration he sees with academia who study to represent Taiwan in a light that he sees as demeaning. His pursuit to clarify research done by outsiders is important to him as it should also be within the study of anthropology. However, he claims his questions have been left unanswered. It is important to show this side of the story as many professional researchers are deemed to be writing appropriately with good representation. I think it is key to look at issues from both an outsider perspective as well as from an insider perspective as these two views can differ. It is important for a person themselves to read, learn, understand, and form an opinion on their own terms towards a subject. It is evident Hong depicts a view of uncertainty and confusion as to where Taiwan anthropology will form within the future. 

I find it very unfortunate that Taiwanese people cannot be seen for who they are as Taiwanese rather than being associated with Chinese as much as they are. It is evident Chinese culture has influenced Taiwan greatly but it continues to restrict their progression as the outside cannot let go of this connection. Through Hong’s article, he gives a great account of how he, himself a Taiwanese person, can see beyond Chinese association and show readers how Taiwan can be its own entity. 

References

Hong, Keelung. 1994. “Experiences of Being a ‘Native’: Observing Anthropology.” Anthropology Today 10 (3): 6-9.

Other mentioned articles:

Gates, Hill. 1979. “Dependency and the Part-time Proletariat in Taiwan.” Modern China 5 (3): 381-408. 

Greenhalgh, Susan. 1994. “De-Orientalizing the Chinese Family Firm.” American Ethnologist 21 (4): 746-775.

Taiwanese Social Classes

Hill Gates’ article, Dependency and the Part-time Proletariat in Taiwan, focuses on the idea of Taiwan’s paradox of being dependent but also be economically well off. The identification of Taiwan’s social classes and how they are created, is helpful to situate the basis for Gates’ argument. That will be what I will focus on as I found it to be interesting and informative to Taiwanese culture.

It is said that classes within Taiwan are constructed on two basis: level of education and ethnicity (Gates, 1979: 387). Since education opportunities are said to be essentially equal for all, the level of education insinuates individual success. Education also relates to social status as it creates groupings of people. Through the achievement of various education levels, it is shown through social status as some are at more advantageous positions. It is important to note here that different languages create advantages, such as Taiwanese and Hakka languages, which are not used within national schools. Essentially, one’s education is dependent on one’s social status, thus not making it very equal. Furthermore, ethnicity is seen as a marker for social class as well. Gates argues, “the sense of ethnicity is exaggerated in Taiwan” (388). This is because ethnicity can consequentially translate into social placement. Thus, there is an emphasis on the separation of ethnicities and clear self-identifications. 

Through these two conceptualizations, Gates states there are five social classes within Taiwan (389). Each class, similar to Marxist views, is associated with means of production, such as capital, production, labour, etc. The five groups are known as: the grand bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, the proletariat, the “new middle class”, and the poor (389). The first two categories are created through capital, while the third and forth do not. An interesting point is Gates’ exclusion of the poor in the analysis. It is understandable for the exclusion as the poor may not fit into her thesis of understanding the economical dependency of Taiwan. However, the poor should not be entirely excluded as they are part of the entirety of Taiwan. This is a downfall to Gates’ analysis. 

Furthermore, the understanding of the four other groups are through closer economical ties. 

It is interesting to notice the subdivisions of capital categories. The grand bourgeoisie includes those who have large sums of private, industrial, and/or financial capital, as well as top government officials who have control. Meanwhile, the petty bourgeoisie are those who own within the agricultural field. This is interesting to see that those who just own and operate the land are seen as a lower classification compared to the more elite of Taiwan. This could possibility be linked to the idea that those who work on land, are lower class anyways. Or the link to aboriginal heritage whose lifestyle emphasizing land more so, and thus they are also seen as lower class. The petty bourgeoisie also includes small-scale business people, as well as artisans. Nonetheless, the focus of these people are on capital gain as a whole to maintain their social class.

The subdivision of those who sell skills and labour. The proletariats sell their skills for manual work, which is not based on education. Furthermore, the “new middle class” is based on educational standings who sell their skills to government and businesses to establish themselves as educators, civil servants, technicians, etc.. Consequently, they receive higher wages than the proletariats as their skills are seen as higher value. 

Through the classification of social classes within Taiwan, we can see a parallel to Canadian society. The five classes in Taiwan, are all classes that can be identified within Canada as well. It is noted that Taiwanese society has yet to be levelled to American standards (392). However, I would say that the central idea of these social classes can be seen within Canada. By understanding a country in association with another, it allows for a person to identify with it better. It is also through this identification, we can see that the idea of Taiwan’s dependency and its paradox, which Gates explores, can be shown through a parallel of Canada. The historical processes are obviously varying, but on a small scale identification, we can begin to understand it more fully by bringing it closer to us. 

References 

Gates, Hill. 1979. “Dependency and the Part-time Proletariat in Taiwan.” Modern China, 5 (3): 381-408. 

Wolf's Gods, Ghosts, and Ancestors

Arthur P. Wolf’s article Gods, Ghosts, and Ancestors, shows Chinese religion significance through the eyes of the worshippers and their social construction of the social world. This is important to explain as this shows the religion is able to adapt to various people and their world views. It is mentioned that a poorer person’s religious views will be different compared to a businessperson's. This adaptivity is interesting to further explore as it a characteristic of this specific religion that is not always found in other kinds. I think this is an important quality of Chinese religion. 

This article looks at three parts of Chinese religion, which are gods, ghosts and ancestors. Each one having their own perspective and individual association to each person. 

Pertaining to the gods category is Tu Ti Kung. This is a deity that is worshipped as an earth god as it reigns over agriculture (Wolf 1974: 134). Furthermore, Wolf states, “Tu Ti Kung serves localities, not kinship groups” (1974: 135). This shows that the gods manifest themselves into local levels, which are more accessible to everyone. A more localized connection through agriculture for the selected people within the article, we see that they are able to manifest their religion through this way. 

One’s perspective must switch now, as the topic of ghosts and ancestors is covered. These two topics go together as mentioned in the article, “one man’s ancestor is another man’s ghost (1974: 146). This is very interesting to note as it shows that each person has the ability to understand how ghosts and ancestors are similar but also differentiated. Also important to note regarding this quote is the maintained relationship that a person has with its relatives after death. The focus on relationship can be seen through this religion as one must respect it. This notion is further mentioned with the quote, “the ancestor, though dead, is a person with rights and duties; the ghost, also dead, is a person with neither rights nor duties. The one is usually a kinsman; the other is always a stranger” (1974: 146). It seems that a main focus in determining whether a person is a ancestor or a ghost is the obligation that one has in maintaining the relationship after death. There is a central focus on this obligation, however it can be completely disregarded if there is no proper lineage relationship. This can be connected to the marriage and lineage rules within the society as well. Women, once married, belong to the husband’s family and thus her rights and duties pertain to his lineage rather than her blood family. Ultimately, the idea of ancestor vs. ghost has relative meaning. The personal experience and relation one has to others is key to understanding their association of ghosts. 

All three parts of Chinese religion emphasize personal associations. This allows for an individualistic relationship through religion and its rules towards gods, ghosts, and ancestors. 

References

Wolf, Arthur. 1974. "Gods, Ghosts, and Ancestors" In Arthur Wolf (ed.). Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp.131-182.  

Leach's Portrayal of the Yami on Botel Tobago

The way a society counts time is an important part of their worldview, which is an essential aspect within anthropological studies. The organization of time by a society can lead to the understanding of various aspects of life. Temporal organization is used for hours, days, months, years, all relating to harvesting cycles. Harvesting is an essential part for indigenous communities as they rely on agriculture for food.

Edmund Leach’s, Primitive Calendars, he argues intercalation causes problems when used within a lunar calendar system as it does not run perfect with solar calendars (1950; 247). By having these two types of calendars match up, then it is easier to assign a day with a specific festival. Thus, this allows for a better understanding of time as there are correlations between days and moons. Leach (1950) shows that the Yami of Botel Tobago’s calendar system has the trouble of intercalation, however their system is also comparable from the lunar to solar calendars.

As we can see through this article (Leach, 1950), “primitive” calendars are based on the cyclical formation by the natural environment. This includes: weather of heavy rain, dry seasons or heavy winds, all play into the time of prime harvesting of agriculture and deep sea fishing. Also equally important are the migration patterns of animals at certain times of the year; when flying fish are more plentiful. The indigenous communities are very much in touch with the natural environment around them, and this is how they create their organization of time. In addition, an emphasis on moons is very important to signify the beginning of seasonal fishing or for celebrations. 

It is concluded that the Yami calendar can be comparable both lunar and solar calendars (Leach, 1950). Thus, this shows that the “primitive” are not so “primitive” after all as their long standing calendars are in accordance to the “normal” more advanced calendar that we use today. It seems that Leach’s emphasis to compare indigenous calendars to the European standard of calendar is important to show the linkages between the societies. Through the calendars, he is able to show us that indigenous societies are not so behind the advanced societies of this time. The “primitive” calendars are essentially alike to the “normal” calendars. There should not be a large distinction and hierarchical recognition between the two. 

In another of Leach’s articles, The Yami of Koto-sho: a Japanese Colonial Experiment, it is interesting to see that he explains the Yami society as “anything but indigenous” (1937; 420). Here, we see that the Yami are an isolated group on the island who strive for equality. I found it interesting that their focus on equality was so high that if they caught an uneven amount of fish they would release the extras to not cause a rift between the fishermen (Leach, 1937; 424). This emphasis on equality can also be detrimental for further economical growth for the island. The shared notion of many things can go as far as sharing the position of being police. Since there is a lack of money, there are no taxes, resulting in the due for men to take turns for a few days each year to be police officer (Leach, 1937; 431). This procedure is used as there are no taxes to pay for administration staff and thus, the community at large must be it. This is incredibly fascinating as this situation would not work in many parts of the world. I believe the emphasis on equality here is key to understanding their way of life. 

Through these two articles, written by the same man, Edmund Leach; we see a variation of how the Yami live. The ethnographic portrayal of the society is shown in a light that they are not very indigenous, but at the same time, some of their societal mechanisms clearly show a side to them that are not on trend with Western ways. Consequently, by not being “Western,” then they are likely lumped into the category of indigenous with their isolated ways.

References

Leach, Edmund. 1937. “The Yami of Koto-sho: a Japanese Colonial Experiment.” Geographical Magazine 5: 417-434.

Leach, Edmund. 1950. “Primitive Calendars.” Oceania 20 (4): 245-262.

Taiwan's Liminality

The anthropologist, Stéphane Corcuff, discusses the notion of liminality regarding Taiwan and its relationship with China in his article, The Liminality of Taiwan: A Case-Study in Geopolitics. He states that his reference of liminality is both of spatial and temporal status. He further explains that liminality in his referral is used as a synonym to marginality. However, it should be argued that Taiwan’s liminality is in Victor Turner’s notion of the word as well: an in-between state, regarding time. 

The notion of liminality has great importance within anthropology. This idea of being ‘betwixt and between’ can be referred to many cultures, persons, and even countries, as seen of Taiwan. By being in a liminal state, it does not hold a specific identity as it is in-between statuses. Thus, we can say Taiwan continues to lack a true independent identity through its lack of sovereign recognition throughout the world. It is through time that Taiwan can transform itself to achieve a non-liminal status.

While in class on Wednesday, we discussed the beginnings of Taiwan’s historical processes through its associations to both China and Japan. Thus, it is apparent Taiwan needs to be understood through the learnings of China and Japan too. These two countries are key in understanding Taiwan as a whole. This created confusion as why must the countries of China and Japan have such an emphasis on a class that is about Taiwan. The majority of countries are understood through their own autonomy in a contemporary context. Of course, each country has external influences and historical processes, that are needed to be noted in an overview of understanding. However, it seems the emphasis of external Chinese and Japanese forces within Taiwan have great importance, more so than in other countries. Therefore with this emphasis, after class, my friend said to me, “Why can’t Taiwan just be Taiwan?” This got me thinking why Taiwan cannot just be itself. 

The article by Corcuff shows insight on the situation of Taiwan and its relation to China specifically. The author’s idea of liminality begins to answer the question raised above. It is through liminality that we can see Taiwan is stuck in a position of ‘in-between-ness’ as it tries to develop itself through its continual struggles with its ties to China and Japan. 

Corcuff is helpful to show that Taiwan is held in Chinese culture to an extent that is difficult to separate. Both China and Taiwan are reliant on one another. Corcuff touches upon this as he explains the centre-periphery notion. Corcuff explains that the centre-periphery theory does not fit well here anymore as the relationship is of equal reliance. Thus, this reliance can restrict Taiwan from transitioning to a non-liminal status and becoming itself without Chinese influence. Since Taiwan is no longer the periphery to China, we see a transition, which can relate to its liminal status as its continues to change.

Taiwan’s pluralistic characteristics are the basis for its inability to just be Taiwan. Its heavy influences from China and Japan restrict the country of being its own self. Taiwan’s complex relationships with China and Japan determine its ongoing struggle of status. Thus, it is left in a liminal state of not attaining independence and its ‘own-ness’.

I understand that we cannot discard the historical processes that have made Taiwan, Taiwan. However, it is this same thinking and history that has restricted Taiwan from being actually just Taiwan.