Notes on A-chin Hsiau, Politics and Cultural Nativism in 1970s Taiwan

A-chin Hsiau, Politics and Cultural Nativism in 1970s Taiwan: Youth, Narrative, Nationalism. Columbia University Press, 2021.

It's taken me a while to do some writing about this book because I'm not sure how I feel about it. I read five reviews of it that are generally quite positive, from Tanguy Lepesant, Scott Simon, Ming-sho Ho, Evan Dawley, and James Baron. (If you want to get an overall summary of the book, take a look at some of these reviews. I think Lepesant's and Baron's are not behind a paywall.) 

I appreciated the book because of its perspectives on the literary discussions and debates going on during the 1960s and '70s in Taiwan. I particularly appreciated the many long quotations (translated into English) from a variety of literary figures from postwar Taiwan. Hsiau ties these quotations and figures together into an argument that Taiwan's intellectuals (mostly, though not exclusively, represented in the book by writers in the literary field) moved from viewing themselves as part of the Chinese nation to viewing themselves as Taiwanese, in contradistinction to the Chinese nation. Rather than viewing this transition from an "instrumentalist" perspective, which would suggest that writers decided whether to express themselves as Chinese or Taiwanese depending on which form of identification would help their interests, or from an "essentialist" perspective, which would suggest that writers were always Taiwanese and only pretended to be "Chinese" until it was safe to express their true selves, Hsiau takes a narrative view. In this view, over the generations, writers responded to historical events like the movement to "protect the Diaoyutai islands" (保釣運動), the ROC's loss of its UN seat, etc., by rethinking their relationship with Taiwan and the ROC. As Hsiau says in the conclusion, 

Rather than a fit for an essence, or an instrument for advancing some collective's interest, I view narrative as an embodiment of human understanding that shapes human understanding and emotion in new ways with each generation. The perspective of narrative identity that I have adopted throughout this book could be described as interpretive. Historical narrative for political agents is interpretive in that it is a means of understanding the self in social and temporal context. It is a way of constructing collective identity and motivating praxis. Rather than an essence, there is a set of materials, to which new materials are continually being added, that is used to construct identity anew when the need for new kinds of action arises. There are indeed interests, but they are not calculated coldly; they are instead judged in the warmth of the chapters of the xin, the heard-and-mind that Chinese philosophers have been trying to understand since antiquity. On this understanding, it will not do for us to simply disbelieve the constant apparently heartfelt declarations of Chinese national identity in texts from the return-to-reality generation throughout the 1970s. We have to consider the possibility that if a person says he or she feels Chinese, he or she is at that moment in time. (171-2)

This quote, I think, encapsulates Hsiau's argument, and there's a part of me that agrees with him. Hsiau puts at least some of the responsibility for the "apparently heartfelt declarations of Chinese national identity" on "the power of ideological dissemination" through the educational system. As Kenneth Burke wrote in A Rhetoric of Motives, "[e]ducation ('indoctrination') exerts ... pressure upon ... [a person] from without" and that person "completes the process from within. ... Only those voices from without are effective which can speak in the language of a voice within” (39). The challenge in Taiwan, as the KMT government perceived it, was to make the voice within echo, or speak the language of, the voices from without. 

I'm reminded of a story Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) told about a performance she and her university classmates were preparing for in 1972 upon the occasion of the National Assembly’s re-election of Chiang Kai-shek to yet another term as president. As Lung wrote, 

My deepest memory was about the sentiment of comradeship felt by that bunch of 20-year-olds creating and working day and night, and we walked out in the middle of the night under the moonlit parasol trees to feel the silence of nature, the dreams of our people and the tranquility of the universe. We had no idea what "the leader" was up to, and we had no idea at that moment of youthful romance, a university student had been arrested, detained, interrogated and then sentenced to life in prison for "reading the wrong things" and "saying the wrong things."

Our gestures were exaggerated, our speech tones were artificial, our orations were stuffed with the learned wills of the adults, our emotions were sincere, our beliefs were earnest and our motives were pure, and that was because we had no idea that the most sorrowful darkness was hidden in the shadows of the parasol trees. (translation by Roland Soong)

As I wrote in my doctoral dissertation (many years ago!), Lung's reflections are a reminder that presenting government-approved thoughts with exaggerated gestures and artificial tones does not always negate the possibility of there being sincere emotions motivating the speaker. Yet at the same time, the presence in Lung’s story of the arrested university student is a reminder that not everyone had been convinced by what the schools and society had taught them. Because of this, I'm not sure that I can completely accept Hsiau's conclusions--his argument about the naiveté of  the instrumentalist and essentialist explanations for the Chinese Nationalist rhetoric and its transformation into Taiwanese nationalist rhetoric seems a bit overstated. 

When writing about Yeh Shih-t'ao's (葉石濤) earlier and later literary criticism, Chu Yu-hsun, in When They Were Not Writing Novels (【他們沒在寫小說的時候】), notes that from today's perspective, Yeh's earlier use of sentences like "Taiwan literature is part of Chinese literature" (台灣文學是中國文學的一部分), and "nativist literature is the literature of the Three People's Principles" (鄉土文學就是三民主義文學) would be annoying--and surprising, given Yeh's later Taiwan-centric perspective. Chu points out, however, that Yeh had been jailed by the KMT, which influenced his perspective on how to write. As Chu argues, looking at Yeh's rhetorical organization, after reciting a "party-state mantra," Yeh would follow up with the real point: "but in the context of Taiwan's natural environment and historical background, Taiwanese literature has developed a unique style..." (但是在台灣的自然環境和歷史背景下，台灣文學...形成了獨特的風貌......). The real point for Yeh, Chu argues, was about the locality and indigeneity of Taiwanese literature, but this was something he had to make less obvious, given the martial law context he was writing in. Hsiau would call this, probably, an example of an "essentialist" argument that Yeh was always Taiwan-centric but hid it until he could feel safe expressing it. Be that as it may, Chu's interpretation seems valid to me.

On a related point, this is where I agree with Tanguy Lepesant's critique that Hsiau should have spent more time discussing his methods. I also found Hsiau's explanation of how he was using discourse analysis a bit thin, and in my view, unconvincing. I did not find much in his book that resembled discourse analysis in any form that I would recognize. There was not a great deal of focus on language or language in use, for instance. Perhaps Hsiau is more focused on what James Paul Gee would call "Discourse" rather than "discourse" (here's a summary of that distinction). That is, Hsiau is more focused on "ways of being in the world" rather than on analysis of specific uses of language to communicate or persuade. Chu gives an example above of a more discourse-as-language-in-use form of discourse analysis that focuses on how writers use language and the contexts in which they are using language. While Hsiau's is an important book, I would like to have seen more of this kind of "discourse analysis" being used in it.

An anecdote about writing in postwar Taiwan from【他們沒在寫小說的時候】

Was going to do some writing on my paper this morning, but instead read a chapter from When They Were Not Writing Novels (【他們沒在寫小說的時候】). The first chapter is about Chung Chao-cheng (Zhong Zhaozheng, 鍾肇政), a Taiwanese author who helped other Taiwanese writers get their work published during the martial law period, where Mainlanders more easily got published. There’s an interesting anecdote (which comes from a memoir by Chung) of the time when Chung saw an ad in the newspaper calling for submissions for a writing contest. This was sometime in the 1950s, when Chung was probably in his mid- or late-20s, living in his family home in Longtan, Taoyuan County. Although he was interested in submitting something, he paused when he saw the requirement was to write on grid paper (有格稿紙). When he dug around his house for paper, he found some Japanese-style manuscript paper (原稿用紙, genkō yōshi), so he made what he called a “bold” (大膽) decision to use the Japanese-style paper. 

Chu Yu-hsun, the author of When They Were Not Writing Novels, explains that this was a “bold” decision because it symbolizes Chung’s use of his Japanese-era literary foundation to break into the literary world of postwar Taiwan (34-35). Chu points out that writers of Chung’s generation, who were educated in Japanese, had to learn to write in a “foreign language” (Mandarin) before they could even try to write creatively (to say nothing of trying to publish) in Chinese. The different kinds of paper are a material difference but are also symbolic of the writers’ struggle to bring their own resources to the task of writing in a new linguistic, political, and literary environment. 

The other interesting point is that the genkō yōshi Chung used was probably not that different in format from the paper used in postwar Taiwan, but it might have been different enough (maybe the name of the manufacturer was printed on the paper, for instance) that Chung was hesitant to use it. This might symbolize Taiwanese writers' concern about how Mainlander editors might view their writing, where anything that gave away the author's Taiwanese identity could be an excuse for rejection. Chu also mentions that Chung's use of "bold" might be a sign that Chung is reflecting on something that happened 35 years earlier. Chu thinks that the younger Chung probably had more of a sense of despair at the time.

New and future books in the former native speaker's library

Just got a few books in the mail:

• Mira Shimabukuro, Relocating Authority: Japanese Americans Writing to Redress Mass Incarceration
  
• 朱宥勳, 【他們沒在寫小說的時候：戒嚴台灣小說家群像】
• 蔣闊宇, 【全島總罷工：殖民地臺灣工運史】 

And two books that are forthcoming:

• Wendy Cheng, Island X: Taiwanese Student Migrants, Campus Spies, and Cold War Activism (Oct. 2023)
• Niki J. P. Alsford, Taiwan Lives: A Social and Political History (Feb. 2024)

【台灣演義】episode about Taichung

This is from almost a year ago--somehow I missed it. But I'll post it here mainly to remind myself to watch it when I get a chance...

Something to watch when I get a chance

This looks like an interesting episode of 台灣演義 to watch:

It's about bookstores and publishing in Taipei during the last 100 years. I wrote a blog post last year about bookstores in Taiwan during the Japanese period, so it'll be good to watch this to get more information on the fate of those bookstores. The discussion of bookstores from the Japanese period begins around 15:15. Su Shuo-bin (蘇碩斌), cited in my blog post, is one of the people interviewed.

Darryl Sterk, trans. Scales of Injustice: The Complete Fiction of Lōa Hô

Darryl Sterk, trans. Scales of Injustice: The Complete Fiction of Lōa Hô. Honford Star, 2018.

I just finished reading this today after starting it a few months ago, which means my memory of some of the earlier stories is shaky. (One of the advantages and disadvantages of reading a collection of short stories is that you can put it down and dip into it from time to time.) So for that reason, I'm not going to write a review of the book. Besides, there are quite a few good reviews of the book already, such as those of 

• Willow Heath (who praises both Lōa Hô's stories and Sterk's translations)
• Tony Malone (who, on the other hand, finds the book "rather academic" and suggests that Lōa Hô "is more important for his role as an influence on Taiwanese literature than for any real genius in his writing")
• Liz Wan (who points out that Sterk's technique of sometimes translating into colloquial English and sometimes retaining Japanese and Taiwanese [in romanized form] in the stories gives the reader the sense of what the stories read like in the original; as she puts it, "some parts are smooth, whereas reading others feels like walking with a piece of chewing gum stuck to the shoes")
• T F Rhoden (who notes "Lōa Hô’s playful reproduction of local and artisan-specific dialect in the face of an alien bureaucracy")
• Vivian Szu-Chin Chih (who brings up how Sterk handles the challenges of translating the short poems that Lōa Hô sometimes included in his stories, concluding that he does an effective job on giving readers the sense of the original)

I know I'll be coming back to these stories to think about his portrayal of the responses to the work of the Taiwan Cultural Association (台灣文化協會), of which Lōa Hô was a founding member, by various members of society. For instance, some of the gangsters ("eels") in “Three Unofficial Accounts from the Romance of the Slippery Eels" (1931) consider the "cultured individuals" of the TCA to be rather cowardly; as one eel puts it, "Yeah, I seen this guy at the podium, spittle flying. But the police just have to say 'cease and desist' and he dutifully climbs down from the stage. That’s how brave he is" (141). Another "eel" says, "You lot! Who knows how many people who do not accept their lot in life you’ve hurt by getting their hopes up when you can’t change nuthin'" (141). 

However, in another story, entitled "Disgrace?!" (1931), a dumpling seller agrees that while the TCA members "yak and yak, and there’s always someone who wants to go and listen" to their speeches, the TCA speakers are brave. He points out that during a speech, "three and a half sentences in, he [a Tokkō from the Special Higher Police] shouts 'Cease and desist!' And if they keep yaking [sic] they'll get dragged off the stage and beaten up. But these guys aren’t afraid of nothing" (124). But Lōa Hô gives a nuanced picture of the Taiwan Cultural Association members, ending the story with a description of a doctor who, despite being a member of the TCA, is "one of the cringers." After the police break up a play at a local temple, one of the officers barges into the doctor's clinic, and the doctor's conversation with him is held up for critique by both the townspeople and, perhaps, the author:

"Working a bit late, today, are you? Been busy lately?" (Said the doctor.)

"Ha ha! Protest if you think it's unjust. If a keibu, a superintendent, is no use to you, you'll have to go to as high as a keishikan, a senior commissioner!" (Said the officer.)

"All right. When I do, shall I commend you for meritorious service? How much more of a travel honorarium do you need?"

"Manma--as it is, no need. Let me tell you something, I've come to a realization: that I'm going to get murdered at your place by one of the rowdies outside."

"I guarantee your safety."

"We didn't just use savage means tonight, but also civil."

"I can also guarantee you'll rise through the ranks."

"Ha ha ha!"

After the officer came out someone went in to ask the doctor what had happened. But the doctor said nothing, just smiled bitterly and helplessly.

Criticism erupted out of the crowd on the street.

"For the police to be able to abuse their authority and then go and act big in front of a man who likes to talk about justice and humanity must really be satisfying, like nothing else."

"Is he proud, that the officer paid him a personal visit?"

It's a disgrace, a great disgrace. Are the people who talk about justice really so helpless when the bullies lord it over everyone? (128-9)

The last paragraph seems to be in the narrator's voice, since there are no quotation marks. Is this meant to reflect Lōa Hô's own frustration with the lack of effectiveness of the TCA? Other stories seem to reflect his feeling that the Association was not accomplishing much (especially after its split into two factions in 1927), and in the introduction to the book, Pei-yin Lin suggests that Lōa Hô's turn back to poetry after 1935 reflected his "low morale" and "sense of isolation" (xix). 

The other voices in the passages I've quoted might also reflect the feelings of the general public about the TCA. Another story, "Going to the Meeting" (undated, possibly 1926) also gives some sense of both the public's and possibly Lōa Hô's own feelings about the Association. The narrator takes a train trip to Wufeng (where Lin Hsien-t'ang, a founder of the TCA, lived) to attend a meeting of the Association. On the way, he overhears conversations between a Japanese man and his Taiwanese counterpart and between a farmer and his friend that reflect the public's ambivalent feelings about the accomplishments of the Association. To the Japanese man's questions about the TCA, the Taiwanese man suggests that many Taiwanese intellectuals "find the members of the association annoying and avoid them" (203). He also suggests that the Association is ineffective because "[t]hey are capitalist intellectuals ... [who] may not have had any profound insight, which detracts from their capacity for active resistance. They'll just hold meetings and give speeches from time to time, that's it" (204). (Sterk suggests that the speaker sounds like a socialist here.)

The second conversation, between the farmer and his friend, centers on the farmer's inability to fight against the government's takeover of the land he plowed for 3 years and the rent they are charging him for the land. When his friend suggests going to the TCA, the farmer responds sarcastically that the Lin family enriched themselves by stealing from the tenant farmers for generations. He obviously didn't expect that the TCA would do anything. Even his friend says, "Rather than striving on behalf of the Taiwanese people, they could be a little less domineering to their tenant farmers, that would be enough" (206)--to which the farmer sarcastically replies, "O-mî-tô-hút" (阿彌陀佛), suggesting this wouldn't happen without divine intervention. This conversation points out a problem Lōa Hô saw (and, he suggests, some everyday Taiwanese saw) with the ethos of the Association, or at least of some of its founding members: their own hands were not necessarily that clean. 

Anyway, the stories do provide perspectives on the TCA that might be useful to me, ones that I hadn't read elsewhere (yet).