The name of two-time Nobel Prize winner Marie Curie is causing a stir in Taiwan. During a Ministry of Education news conference on Monday, the name of the Polish-born, naturalized French scientist was offered as an example of changes to the names of notable people appearing in textbooks as part of the 12-year curriculum revisions.
Curie is currently referred to as Madame Curie in textbooks. There have been suggestions that she be called by her full married name of Marie Curie, or by her maiden name Marie Sklodowska, to unshackle her from patriarchal notions of possessiveness.
The Polish representative office in Taipei said that textbooks in Europe use Maria Sklodowska-Curie.
The ministry has yet to provide clear guidelines on how Curie or other prominent people would be referred to in textbooks, but this has not prevented misinterpretations in the media or ridiculous assertions and mud-slinging by political candidates.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei city councilor candidate Chung Pei-chun (鍾沛君) said on Facebook that under the new guidelines parents would no longer be able to teach their children “Madame Curie.”
Using former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher as an example, Chung asked whether textbooks would refer to her as Margaret Hilda Roberts. She also mused about how the textbooks would refer to Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary.
New Power Party Taipei city councilor contender Lin Ying-meng (林穎孟) then asked whether Chung would be on the ballot as Mrs Wu, using her husband’s family name.
Make what you will of these spats, in a way they all point to the truth of the matter. Can we not concede that a person may go through life with many names and titles, some of which are left behind or replaced with others as their status changes? Or that there are pertinent factors, contingent on cultural or national background or contemporary conventions in other nations or periods, that our textbooks need to take into consideration?
To continue with Curie as the example: It is not unreasonable to use Maria Sklodowska in a biographical account of her life. Nor is it far-fetched to use the long form of Marie — or Maria — Sklodowska-Curie: She used her maiden name in her signature, and a museum in Poland devoted to her life is called the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Museum.
Once married, and having become a naturalized French citizen, Maria Sklodowska became Marie Curie. This is the phase of life in which she made the discoveries for which she became famous.
“Madame” was her married title in French. In terms of writing convention, it is absolutely permissible to refer to her as Madame Curie, or even just Curie, but only in a subsequent mention, after her full name is established.
Two generations ago, women in Taiwan would adopt their husband’s surname, but later it became optional for many. Nowadays, more women are choosing not to change their surname.
In Curie’s day, the norm was to take the husband’s surname. Referring to her now as Curie in no way subsumes her to her husband, nor does she need to be disassociated from her marriage to be lauded for her individual achievements.
There are many other aspects to this issue, but the point is that people go by many titles and names, and cultural and chronological differences are relevant. The curriculum should reflect that. If you do not believe the Taiwanese students can handle that complexity, then you probably will not expect them to receive a Nobel Prize anytime soon.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry