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.