Cultural identity became a public issue about 40 years ago when the term “multiculturalism” — the view that, generally speaking, culture matters, and that, subsequently, all cultures should be equally respected — ascended to prominence. It redefines who we are until this day.
A cultural identity debate has also been present in Taiwan for quite some time, especially after the administration of pro-Taiwan former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) came to power in 2000.
This debate was not without political ambitions targeting the People’s Republic of China: It was hoped that a more calibrated Taiwanese cultural identity would also sharpen the political profile of the nation vis-a-vis an increasingly boisterous China.
We can expect an intensifying discourse on this issue again after the more China-friendly President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration — which has cooled down the identity debate for obvious reasons — has left office.
A growing number of voices talking about the issue can already be heard.
However, is this a debate that Taiwan really needs? Do Taiwanese really need a heightened awareness of a particular identity apart from its ethnic groups?
I doubt it.
It is needless to say that, for instance, in aspects of civic rights, substantial differences between both nations can be felt, but those differences are political; cultural values and related demeanor seem to be more similar than not.
However, such similarities or discrepancies do not matter for the point I am wishing to make here. I think that cultural identity should not play a dominant role in deciding who we are, neither at a personal nor at a national level. Taiwan would not lose its distinct political profile if its policy of cultural identity would play just a modest part in the nation’s overall policies.
I am not denying that “culture” is important for individual identity and other modern language games. Globally, cultural criteria are permanently evoked to identify specific groupings or groups no matter if in individual, social or political discourses. We do that often for the sake of either avoiding discrimination or supporting (previously neglected) minorities or comparing regional idiosyncrasies or cherishing peculiarities.
The plurality of cultures makes life more colorful.
Further reference to culture should be done so solely for pragmatic or folkloristic reasons. What needs to be avoided, namely, is to create the impression that membership to one of those groups carries with it a special value that deserves special honor just because it represents a special culture. Too much culture can be intellectually dubious and in quite a few cases it is.
Culture can be as divisive as it can be cohesive — in fact it is divisive because it is cohesive. We experience that fateful us-versus-them dynamism on a daily basis when people inflict harm on others in the name of cultural identities; “culture” has a darker side.
Yet “they” hardly could do so if individuals refered to each other in the name of values and interests that transculturally comprise all members of humanity. This form of inclusion is based on empathy with, and compassion for, individuals who suffer or need help no matter what kind of incidental affiliation they belong to.
Admittedly, it is not easy to develop similar passions for such rather abstract social concepts like humanity or universal human rights as compared with more concrete circles of personal relationships that, as remnants of our tribal past, are based on stronger emotional ties. Compassion for anyone who suffers does not have to come at the cost of similar feelings for those in need of help who are culturally closer to us; these are not mutually exclusive.
We will always esteem a communal sense. That sense of belonging is so strong because we are social beings, evolutionarily programmed to trust more those with whom we share kinship, social environments, or symbolic behavior, such as supporting a particular sports club or driving a Ferrari.
However, this does not mean we should always be surrounded by the best, or the best suitable, people for one’s own interests. People who share cultures or habits might be mentally much more distant from each other than those who grew up in very different parts of the world. Culture, religion, nationality or sexual orientation — all forms of belonging that are not selected by an individual — would not (or sometimes even, should not) necessarily define one’s own individual identity if one could freely make choices in these aspects.
There should always be space for one’s own choice on such fundamental issues once you are able to make rational decisions. This might gradually diminish the heavy existential weight that unavoidably comes with the unchosen fate of one’s birthplace and social environment.
Cultural identities are somehow imposed on us by ‘fate,’ but they do not have to remain as such. They can be changed, sometimes even quite easily despite deep-rooted habits, but things can be done in this or in that way — they can be considered and re-evaluated.
If old ways turn out to be deficient, we have to go for new ones, better ones. The local educational ideals, for instance, intrinsically cultural and unchosen by the nation’s young people, can no longer cope with the challenges of a modern world.
Anybody with a sense of optimizing young people’s minds should come to the conclusion that existing educational paradigms in Taiwan need a radical change, but a fateful attitude towards this situation — which is very common here — will not allow for such changes: Cultural sensitivities are too heavy.
We need to overcome that fateful, but prevailing thought in Taiwan that culture is any individual’s destiny. It is not; at least it is not later in one’s life when cultural habits become an option. Later in life we should be able to choose what we want and who we want to be. Culture might be the wrong guide to answer such questions, for it itself is often the problem that requires fixing.
We have to develop different, more rational standards with which we measure what is right or wrong for us. Things should be done for good reasons. Cultural practices should be followed only if legitimized by reasoning and not because they thoughtlessly dictate perpetual self-reproduction.
We have the right to ignore our cultural affiliations. At the same time we have moral reasons to ignore cultural affiliations of others: we must not judge people by their origins.
Such is the “cultural” policy the new government should promote.
Problems unfold when others begin to care who and what we are because we are not who and what they are.
This is when culture begins to rear its ugly head.
Herbert Hanreich is an assistant professor at I-Shou University in Kaohsiung.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers