"For the next generation, we are all Taiwanese."
Really? In what way? There is no Taiwan state and the UN recognizes this land as a province of China. Your own government recognizes you as members of Han sub-ethnic groups, and your culture as Chinese with Taiwanese characteristics. So really, what does being Taiwanese mean? The one political movement that would give it real meaning you have said your generation holds in contempt. And by doing it seems to me you pretty much ensure that the other party, which will continue to ensure that identity is nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling, will stay in power.
That is comment #10 on this post on the so-called "strawberries" at Turton's place.
To treat the question as non-rhetorical for a moment and actually conjecture an answer to it - in what way are they all "Taiwanese" - they all live on the same island and therefore share common experiences, and perhaps have similar place attachments. Those things are visceral and have a psychological pull far greater than the now dry-bone debate on Taiwanese Statehood and diplomatic recognition from the U.S. and other countries (let alone the U.N.).
Of course however, the question was merely a crow-bar: no sense of shared identity can be possible - or have any "real meaning" (his term) - without the State. Yet that assertion is nothing more than a vicious twist on the meaning of the question: from one of shared identity to one of political power.
For the Statists, identity can never be anything more than a means to power, and this instrumentality infects their part in any discussion with a basic dishonesty: they are not interested in identity per se, they are only interested in power.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
5 comments:
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Beginning" it is not, really. This is a common argument from pan-blue supporters. I know you are familiar with one of their most ardent adherents, Mr. Fell. It is true, of course, that politically, at least for now, no political element exists on paper known to the world as Taiwan. Politically, Taiwanese need to align themselves with the Republic of China. This is a current, political reality. That said, I'm a Midwesterner (from the States), but there is no political entity, at least not at present, known as "Midwest." That may not suffice for a strong argument, and indeed it isn't meant to be, but it does say something about identity.
ReplyDeleteThat, and the pan-blue supporters often miss the other side of the coin they've minted: without the physical entity known as Taiwan, the Republic of China would have perished decades ago. Talk about sore spot of all sore spots. For this reason, I've always thought the pan-blue clan should be a little more forgiving of local sentiments. Of course, however, they haven't been--except when elections roll around.
Nate,
ReplyDelete"Politically, Taiwanese need to align themselves with the Republic of China."
Do they? There is always non-alignment as a choice is there not?
"This is a current, political reality."
I disagree. It is a political construct and it is entirely contingent upon human choice, nothing more. The use of the term "reality" to imply something like "non-negotiable" is, I think, an unnecessary error.
"I'm a Midwesterner (from the States), but there is no political entity, at least not at present, known as "Midwest." That may not suffice for a strong argument, and indeed it isn't meant to be, but it does say something about identity."
Place attachment, yes?
"...without the physical entity known as Taiwan, the Republic of China would have perished decades ago... For this reason, I've always thought the pan-blue clan should be a little more forgiving of local sentiments."
Absolutely - agreed.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteWell, perhaps they don't need to. That's strong language, looking back on it. My meaning was that it could be rejected, but the geographical-physical entity of Taiwan would still, at least at present, be governed politically by the ROC-KMT Constitution. Easily could they align with something else--or nothing at all. This is basically what I meant by political reality. Then again, I don't see many Taiwanese willing to die to make a major change, and I think the PRC would put major clamps down on any form of constitutional revision that would widen the gulf between Taiwan and China.
That is a constructed reality. I'll not begrudge you that. That Taiwan today is still governed by the ROC-KMT Constitution remains the reality today nonetheless.
Ironically, and this is where I feel my language may have been chosen better, I've argued with Fell and his friends that identity is a social and psychological--in effect, a very fluid--construct. He seems to believe it is stationary and created for one and one merely has to accept it. This is revolting to me. You and I are not so separate in our understandings here, so excuse the language issue.
On a totally different note, it appears you poor folks up in Tainan took a bit of a harder smack from the latest typhoon than we down here did. Hope all is fine up where you are.
"I don't see many Taiwanese willing to die to make a major change..."
ReplyDeleteThat really ought not to be necessary. It is a very interesting point to consider... the "hallowing" of death. Why should this succeed in persuasion (assuming such persuasion takes place at all) where reasoning alone fails? I think it may be one of those things in which aesthetic categories (like the sublime) might have some explanatory power.
"I've argued with Fell and his friends that identity is a social and psychological--in effect, a very fluid--construct. He seems to believe it is stationary and created for one and one merely has to accept it."
I dunno Nate. I see the point you're getting at, but I think you overlook something - describing identity as "social" doesn't necessarily imply fluidity, and I think that more often than not, the "social" bit tends to act as a reinforcement filter making identity more rigid in fact. The fact that some people are committed to this or that identity through their social networks may mean that they have more to lose from any change. But the point you were making was that because identity is not natural but constructed, it is therefore fluid over time non? So the scale of that time period is important and the social changes that occur during that time.
"On a totally different note, it appears you poor folks up in Tainan took a bit of a harder smack from the latest typhoon than we down here did."
No it was fine, really. Just a lot of wind and hardly any rain. I was glad that I brought the dogs home from the park because they would have been terrified. Fanapi in 2010 had similar winds but brought more rain. We're all right.
My point was that identity is in some aspects based on comparison with what one perceives from his or her outside environment. I think this can be just as innovating from a psychological aspect as it can be restraining. For example, some of the finer points made by Rothbard, for instance, may not have even come to my mind had I not cracked one of his books. Social aspects of identity formation need not by necessity be negative (although they can be, and the ones we most keenly perceive often are). That, too (the Rothbard example), is a social effect, just as the more negative aspects of "groupthink" and related constraining factors are. But I certainly see your point and thank you for the critique.
ReplyDeleteOn the first point, the "willing to die" ties into my point about current reality. It summarizes the PRC's deterrent*: should the people and leadership of Taiwan face a decision on independence, what they are really deciding is whether they will be attacked. That's the gist of it. (In 2000, the PRC's Defensive White Paper added the third "if," that of Taiwan indefinitely refusing unification, and the 2005 Anti-Secession Law of the PRC reworded the "third if" but left the meaning intact.) Anyway, this deterrent was what I was referring to and not some otherworldly love of death: choose a change in political identity, and choose war and death.
*This is assuming, of course, that the deterrent is credible. Whether you or I believe it to be is one thing. Whether Taiwanese voters and their leaders do is completely another. So far, the deterrent seems to, along with other "carrots," have been effective in general, at least in the latter case.