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.
No comments:
Post a Comment