Published by the Cetre of Contemporary China Studies.
A Workshop Venue: Beit Room, Rhodes House University of Oxford 24 July 2014, 13:30 – 17:30 Theme: Reflexivity This workshop, held on 24 July 2014 at Rhodes House, Oxford, focused on the reflexive analysis of nationalism and the complexity of multi-cultural identities, with particular attention to the context of contemporary Asia. Scholars have long discussed nations as “imagined communities”, the most universally legitimate value for the collective humanity in our time. At the same time, on a personal level, the right to narrate our own personal or collective identity in a globalised world, demands that we revise our sense of symbolic citizenship, our myths of belonging, by identifying ourselves with the “starting-points” of other national and international histories and geographies. How do individuals understand and relate to the political concepts that define who they are, and how do individuals as scholars reflect on these ways of defining and relating? Taking both theories and individual reflexivities into account, this workshop asked the following question: As researchers, how do our own experiences of cultural and national identities influence our research and academic viewpoints? Workshop Format
- Prologue: Growing up in a De-Sinocised Household with “Cosmopolitan” Patriotic Legacy (T. Guo).
- From Scottish Nationalist to East Asian Anti-Nationalist and Beyond: Experiences of Fighting and Working with National Narratives (M. C.).
- Contemporary Asian Identities on the Popular Screen: Authenticity and Cosmopolitanism in Rapidly Developing India and China (Danielle de Feo-Giet, Oriental Studies, Oxford).
- The Emotions of Identities (FY Chu, Oriental Studies, Oxford).
- The Changing Contour of the Imagined “Chinese” Community to the “Taiwanese” (Ming-li Yao, Sociology, Edinburgh).
- Religious Influences on Ethnic and Cultural Identities for Aborigines in Taiwan (Nicole Wang, Anthropology, Durham).
- The Need for Multiple Identities: Reflections of a “Canadian Hong Kong Chinese” (L).
This workshop was sponsored by the Contemporary China Studies Programme (CCSP), University of Oxford. 2014年7月24日，在朋友相幫下，得到牛津當代中國研究中心（Contemporary China Studies Programme）的資助，於儸德院（Rhodes House）舉行了一場工作坊，其主題為：國家認同的反身性思考。 1980年代，美國學者本尼迪克特·安德森提出“想像的共同體”這一概念，以解釋現代“國家”(nation) 和“民族/國族主義”（nationalism）。安德森認為既有的馬克思主義和自由主義理論都無法透徹的解釋民族主義；對他而言，民族國家是政治的產物，它是一種想象的政治共同體——并且，它是被想象為本質上有限的，同時也享有主權的共同體（安德森 1991）。 當政治、社會學、法律等研究被分配到地域研究之後，我們發現反身性——學者結合研究發現對自身觀點的反思——經常被忽略。而這種忽略，非常容易造成對既定意識形態不假思索的強調，恰為治學之大忌。因此，我們希望以工作坊的形式，與諸位學人一同探討和反思，並希望結果對與會者、更多對此題目有所關注的學者之進一步研究及合作有所幫助。也希望通過一個實驗性的合作，抛磚引玉，聽到更多反思和交流的聲音。 Ting’s paper argued that during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), family ties and personal sentiments were played down in favour of national commitment and class struggles, which compromised individuals’ quest for composure and collective memories regarding religious and social identity. Yet, there are always those who live to tell the stories that challenge the official voice as well as scholarly speculations, an area that demands particular attention in the study of contemporary China. She investigates the past and present of Protestant house churches in Shanghai, the most distinctive cosmopolitan city in mainland China with a critical biographical methods to identify a type of local elite house church which she coins as “cosmopolitan church”, a transformed continuation of what historically emerged as an active instrumentalisation and appropriation of bourgeois cosmopolitanism. During 1920-30s, the YMCA, the Episcopal Church and St. John’s University in Shanghai, and Union Theological Seminary in New York were all constitutive to the global liberal Christianity and activism movement, which provided not only a political ideal for the then burgeoning Chinese patriotism, but also a haven for personal belonging and a mirror for the quest for composure. More significantly, this historical legacy shaped both cosmopolitan church and the state-sanctioned Three Self Protestant Movement (TSPM) church, suggesting a dialectical relationship between the “official” and the “underground” organisations. By examining how the past is remembered and transformed, she seeks to highlight the synergy amongst patriotism, Protestantism and selfhood. Her ongoing research further analyses the ways in which religious, political and personal identities are rendered between adaptation and cynicism in post-Mao era. 我（T）從回憶錄和神學研究中分析中國的聖公會（Anglican/Episcopal Church）如何受20－40年代的社會環境和紐約協和神學院 (Union Theological Seminary)的進步（progressive）意識影響，從而形成獨特的社會責任感、民族身份和愛國心，因而與早期共產黨合作。表現形式大致有三：聖公會組織基督教青年會（YMCA）的網絡，有教會背景或聯繫的愛國知識份子，及有教會背景的教育機構（如民國時期最好的大學之一聖約翰「St John’s University」即由美國聖公會在上海開設）和系統的委身。中共欲從農村基地打入城市時便是通過青年會網絡，中國基督教愛國會也由當時的聖公會主教丁光訓提出，如今看來可笑的牆頭草，有當時的理想主義語境，「愛國主義」也是歷史的動態生成。中國聖公會的國族意識與共產黨的淵源，亦可從黨員牧師、如在文革中喪生的董健吾身上看出。 M.C. reviewed the Scottish nationalist education that he received at school, and “an early epiphany” into the constructed nature of all identities, which motivated him to fight national narratives of all kinds. During his years studying in China, this led to many (fruitless) arguments with those he felt to be nationalist. His zeal to deconstruct “China” also drove him to research historical national identity in China (and later also Korea and Japan). Thus his experience of national identity has been a major driving force behind my academic pursuits. Having drawn from East and West in equal measures philosophically, and having spent as much time in East Asia as in the UK in his adult life, he admitted that he preferred to thinking of himself as not being defined by attachment to a single nation. However, every new meeting with someone in China or elsewhere is also a creation of national identity: “which country are you from?”, the conversation often begins. Latterly, he has begun to consider the new “British” identity that he has been accorded to be a potential asset rather than a burden. Personal experience and study of mass psychology has also given me an appreciation of the “reality” of identities born from the belief placed in them. 好友M是促使我發起此次工作坊的初始動力之一。通常被評價為“最不蘇格蘭/最英格蘭紳士的蘇格蘭人”的他，通曉漢、韓、日語，古文尤其好。語言上的天分只是錦上添花罷了，M對亞洲最初的興趣來自於莊子哲學。有趣的是，M曾表示，他第一次當面遇到民族主義，是他在亞洲學習語言時，發現中日韓三國對某些問題尤其敏感，對歷史的理解通常被當下政治形勢所左右，感情非常強烈。M之後的研究就是關於此東亞三國民族意識的興起，標誌為16世紀的萬厲朝鮮之役（1592-1598；英語世界稱之為The Japanese invasions of Korea）。在M對自身經歷的回顧中，他表示自己因爲蘇格蘭民族主義教育而對英格蘭及世界歷史曾經有過頗爲偏激的看法，但與外界接觸更多之後，意識到政治話語的狹隘之処，也反思戰爭和殖民史對一個民族的影響——後現代轉向，英國如今對建立在殖民之上的帝國輝煌多消極評論，也影響了國家認同（national identity）的再建構（近來伯明翰學校的穆斯林紛爭引發討論，首相所指代的英國性：包容，多元等，被批評是全球價值而非國家認同）。對M自己、及他的研究而言，一味的追捧和否定都有失偏頗，民族主義在不同語境中，可以有一定必要性和積極性。 Danielle, as someone who speaks several languages fluently, is dedicated to the study of popular, commercial cinema as a force within the discourse of national and personal identity, in India and China and their diasporas, since 1990. Its purpose is to reveal, through a juxtapositional comparative approach, close visual analysis, and the development of theoretical tools, differences and similarities emerging from the unique pattern of like and unlike that exists between the “Social Representations” (Moscovici ) of contemporary India and China on screen. She also considered entertainment film to be one manifestation of the confluence of interests (State, Market, Filmmaker, and Public) that have a stake in the creation of new concepts of national identity that resolve cosmopolitanism and authenticity in this period of rapid development, and that can interpolate the “greater” cultural spheres of the diaspora. Thus, she argued, that the ways of meaning revealed contribute to an emerging cultural nationalism beyond national borders, and quest for contemporary articulations of “indigenous” “values”. She further contemplated the effect of the history of pan-Asianist philosophy including newer, but related iterations as conceived by Lee Kwan Yew and Mahathir bin Mohammed, suggesting the possibility of a new, flexible political and cultural model that allows for both distinct cultural nationalist identities and “Asianist” discourse in the face of global change. 另一位好友D研究如何從大衆娛樂片中探尋當代中國與印度的民族主義邏輯。她曾笑道，自己曾經嘗試在華人爲主的會議上播放印度寳萊塢電影並作分析，結果大部分與會者都表示無趣，可見華人世界，尤其是中國大陸對印度的誤解和偏見之普遍。但中印兩個國家有太多的可比性：歷史淵遠，疆域廣闊，被通常認爲是“文明國家”（civilisation state；D本人極其討厭這個詞）；然兩國的現代化進程可謂步履艱辛，人口衆多，經歷過戰敗和殖民；但兩國經濟又在近幾十年騰飛，大衆文化是表現和陳述國家話語和人民意見的最好媒介。D認爲從中印大衆電影的變化可以發現國家認同的轉向，在中國表現為重構傳統文化及傳統文化所喻涵的道德意義（與習近平在今年年初關於復興傳統宗教[道教等]的一番講話不謀而合），在印度則表現為多元文化的並列。 FY, who grew up in “the most agitated era of political reform and nationalist development” in Taiwan (Chu, 2014, unpublished workshop paper), has developed an interest in politics and nationalism through the study of sociology. For him, an identity incapable of arousing emotions is just a conceptual term and can hardly mobilize political actions. He has conducted 105 interviews in different regions of Taiwan from 2010 to 2013, and formed his argument that (Chinese/Taiwanese) identity politics works when the identities are associated with certain discourses capable of provoking one’s feelings. His research identifies and gives explicit discussions on three types of discourse of emotion: ethical narratives, imagined nostalgia, and cultural hierarchies. Yet, the research does not imply that identity politics is purely politics of emotion; people also claim or reject identities because of certain ideals and/or personal interests. Therefore his research also takes “ideology” (i.e. one’s worldview and his/her sets of value preferences) on board, probing how one’s political ideology may give influence on his/her identity formation. In conclusion, his research deems identity as discourse and casts doubt both on its necessity and adequacy as a means to emancipatory politics. 另一位朋友F可謂是臺灣解嚴後的新一代代表：熱衷政治議題，關注民生，相信民主和普世價值，同時有強烈的臺灣民族國家認同，希望以本土文化反抗全球資本主義和外部（政治、經濟、文化）高壓。F的研究便有關臺灣民衆的國族身份認同。社會學出身的他於2010-13年間進行了105個訪談，力圖集合不同年齡和背景的臺灣人對自己民族身份的認識，以呈現國家身份的情感表現及不同政治話語對國家身份建構的影響。 Ming-li’s talk explored the creation and recreation of the imagined Taiwanese community structured by the dynamics of the top-down power. Since 1949 when the Republic of China (R.O.C.) retreated to Taiwan, its statehood remained; nevertheless, the self-identification of people in Taiwan has been gradually changing from “Chinese” to “Taiwanese” (1992-2012). This situation raises the question – has the nature of the nation in Taiwan changed? Her research discusses this social phenomenon from the analysis of the contextual structure of secondary history textbooks (1949-2011) authorized by the government. The history textbooks hold the important position of presenting the officially “invented tradition”, and thus silently and psychologically, instilling in readers by the operation of “banal nationalism” the imaginings of a community. The research result shows that the official ideology addressing the status of Taiwan changes over three periods: the 1950s to 1980s, 1990s to 2000s, and 2000s to 2010 and after. This talk suggests an angle to understand how the characteristics and identity of Taiwan as an “imagined community” has been gradually formulated and simultaneously separated from mainland China on the basis of analysis on textbooks. 好友Ming-li從愛城飛來，從我們都已遺忘的記憶：歷史教科書，來表現國家認同的細微變革。她的研究視角非常有趣：1949年國民黨撤往臺灣後至今，“國旗”未變，但大家的自我認識卻漸漸從“中國人”轉變成了“臺灣人”。從歷史教科書看，1950-80年代臺灣歷史即中國歷史，但1990-2000，及2000年之後，中國悄悄消失在國民的歷史教育及大衆的自我認同中。她將教科書看作是“被官方發明的傳統”（officially invented tradition），按政治形勢，將不同的國家認同傳輸給一代代國民。 L argued for multiple identities for reflexivity on research about China’s past and present. Drawing from his personal experiences of being a sojourner in several different cultural/national settings, he suggested several reasons for adopting multiple identities and being expressive about them is preferable to being embroiled in state-led narratives of Chineseness and Chinese national identity in reflecting on our research about China. This intervention aims not to deconstruct the Chinese identity, but instead it is a call for researchers to supplement and complicate this identity with a multitude of other human experiences. The multiplicity of identities empowers us to become more flexible and imaginative about what being Chinese means, and to provide more accurate and critical descriptions of (non-)Chinese realities. L可能是許多香港人的代表：作爲第三代移民在香港長大，家人因政治考量而移民去了加拿大，但出於對本土的熱愛又回到香港。對L而言，國家認同從來不是問題，他是中國人，且通過學習、研究中國歷史而對何謂中國做出文化性的理解；他是香港人，那是他成長的地方，他認同香港認真踏實的精神；他是加拿大人，認同加拿大開放多元的精神，接納他這樣依歸其他文化身份的國民。但同時，正如工作坊的參與者提出的，個人身份不僅是自我意識，也是他人對自己的觀察認識（perception）及想象，因而有其鏡像性。對中國大陸人而言，他非常的不香港，因爲他在北京讀書時與同學深交，普通話非常流利，也並不精英主義；對香港人而言，他也並不香港，因爲他對商業無興趣，而選擇學習毫不實用的歷史，早早去北京念大學，認同一些“折現”價值不高的東西；對加拿大人而言，他不過在那裏生活過短短幾年，並沒有太多北美文化的特性。但對L，多重身份在歷史上從來不是問題，只是中國強調歷史、文化、政治身份的同質性（homogeneity），才會造成個人選擇和分裂的問題。 對我而言，這個小小的討論會可謂是個人生活和學術研究的轉變的小結。去年9月從蘇格蘭南遷，環境變化帶來許多積極的東西，但我依然時時懷念被譽爲“北方雅典”的愛丁堡：城市的藝術氣質，開闊便捷，熟悉的日常軌跡和研究環境，還有好朋友們。與愛城24小時開放的大學圖書館和開放的蘇格蘭國立圖書館相比，牛津各圖書館附屬於不同學院且經常無法外借圖書的規矩帶來不少麻煩。但在這裡，我也結識了許多有趣的朋友，並被他們的研究（多東方研究或政治/人類學）所鼓舞，開始發展我在個人情感上糾結多年的題目：文化及國家身份，並以民國時期上海為個案。在別處曾提及，我隨外祖父母長大，我的鄉愁也因此建立在他們的回憶之上：一個逝去的時代風華，又充滿堅決的尋求——對自己，對語境，對時代。 啓程來英國的前一年外祖母過世。外祖父一蹶不振；父親便提議老人家口述回憶錄，由父整理，好讓外祖父分些心緒。部分篇章已陸續發表；在閲讀和聆聽他回憶的時候，也讓我反思個人與大時代之間的關係。對在老人回憶中長大的我而言，“時間”（包括記憶和歷史），也包含空間性的意義。更多個人反思 ，可見：Diaspora “within” and “beyond” 無根之根。 延展閲讀： Benedict Anderson, The Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991 (1983). Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture. Oxford: Routledge, 1991. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.