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.
No comments:
Post a Comment