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.