The conflict surrounding the presidential election is rife with rumor and innuendo, which is only natural in such a turbulent situation. It is surprising, however, that many people believe these rumors and that they have led to such enormous anxiety and disquiet. I know of a pan-blue professor who is absolutely convinced that the pan-green camp rigged the election and activated the national security mechanism with the deliberate purpose of manipulating the election. She has also decided that President Chen Shui-bian (
Her conviction that the pan-green camp will go to any lengths is worrisome. She says she has to leave this evil place and emigrate to the US.
The whole incident is of course still in the investigative stages, and we shouldn't make any assertions either way. What can be asserted, however, is that all evidence in support of the pan-blue camp's accusations is very weak. We could even call it all a matter of conjecture. But, given the almost total lack of evidence, why do people still cling to this belief and even let it fill them with fear and anger?
The enthusiastic protesters on Ketagalan Boulevard truly and fully believe that Chen rigged the vote. Their emotions were genuine and not a matter of deliberately refusing to listen to reason. But the problem is that these people treat conjecture as truth. How can they "see" these "facts" when there is no evidence? How is it that even highly trained intellectuals such as university professors are unable to bridge this gap in their understanding?
This situation exists within the pan-green camp too. A couple of days after protesters gathered on Ketagalan Boulevard, a rumor started spreading among pan-green supporters. According to this rumor, People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
Not long after this rumor started spreading, an equally preposterous rumor appeared, saying that Soong was planning a coup d'etat and would throw Taiwan into turmoil before receiving China's People's Liberation Army and handing Taiwan over to it. To this end, protesters would lay siege to the Presidential Office and raze the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on March 27, the day of the big demonstration. Premier Yu Hsyi-kun even wanted Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Thus, the talk of rebellion was obviously rumor and baseless conjecture. Surprisingly, however, many pan-greens believed it to be true. Two professors firmly told me that Soong was preparing a coup. Their anger and anxiety made me feel the truth of their emotions. They firmly believe that the pan-blue camp is planning a coup. So the pan-green camp suffers from the same problem as the pan-blue camp.
How is it that pan-green supporters actually "see" their conjecture and imaginings when there is no evidence? Why do they believe rumor to be the truth? How could these ideas about coups and vote-rigging see the light of day?
Karl Marx tells us that there is a materialistic foundation to knowledge. The existence of human society determines human awareness, and not the other way around. The reason we hold certain ideas is that we exist under certain conditions.
The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has proposed the clearer "habitus" concept. He believes that the situations, objects and people we encounter in our daily lives leave an impression on us, and that these impressions accumulate over time to form our most fundamental approaches to life. Our most fundamental opinions of situations and objects -- including our most basic emotions and assessments, such as the likelihood of a situation actually occurring, whether or not it is respectable or beautiful, and so on -- all come from this most fundamental habitus.
Bourdieu also points out that habitus develops along various social paths, such as class and ethnicity. Due to differences in habitus, different classes and ethnic groups frequently develop very different sentiments about and understanding of life, and this is the very source of social confrontation and tension.
Using ardent supporters of the pan-blue camp as an example, the most typical habitus includes reading pan-blue newspapers, listening to pan-blue radio broadcasts and watching pan-blue TV programs on a daily basis, and making pan-blue friends with whom they criticize the pan-green camp's actions and so on. It is also possible that these deeply blue supporters eat at restaurants serving food from their home province, that they have a Republic of China flag on display in their home, an ROC map on the wall and even blue wallpaper and neckties.
All these people, situations, objects -- newspapers, TV programs, national flags, maps, neckties, restaurants and friends -- constitute an interreferential symbolic system that slowly shapes our most basic emotions, understanding and assessments. This situation exists in the pan-green camp, too -- simply replace "blue" with "green" and the ROC map with a map of Taiwan.
Because the habitus of deeply blue and deeply green people differs, they build their respective closed systems where their internal sense of self is strengthened and interreferential. Exchange and dialogue between the two is, however, rare. Any rumor that appears will, therefore, be quickly transmitted within their system. Not only will there be no resistance but the rumor will be amplified and exaggerated. Furthermore, hints and suggestions by various nearby symbols will finally turn a false, imagined conjecture into hard and fast truth.
To transcend these limitations on human knowledge, we must first be able to transcend the limitations posed by the habitus. Deeply blue supporters must spend more time reading pan-green newspapers and listening to pan-green radio broadcasts, and use more green wallpaper. This way, they will not be locked in a closed habitus system, unable to break out. In the same way, deeply green supporters should spend more time reading pan-blue newspapers and listening to pan-blue radio broadcasts, make more pan-blue friends and look at more maps of China.
This way, they will not be controlled by a Taiwanese symbolic universe.
Only if the pan-blue and pan-green camps recognize the existence and limitations of the habitus, and are brave enough to transcend it, will everyone have an opportunity to engage in intrinsic, deep communication with the other party. Only then can we slowly build a truly tolerant and diverse culture. This is true democracy.
Lii Ding-tzann is a professor at the Institute of Sociology at Tsing Hua University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under