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.