According to recent reports by the Chinese-language China Times, 43 percent of youths find the term "Strawberry Generation" unacceptable. This result concurs with surveys I conducted in university lectures. Even if some students accept the label, most do so only conditionally.
After embellishment by mass media, "Strawberry Generation" is not only equated with "Seventh Graders," as in those born between 1981 and 1990, but also imbued with pejorative connotations such as having low resistance to stress, being losers, or belonging to the "Moonlight Tribe" -- or those who spend a month's salary before month's end. Yet, one kind of rice feeds a hundred different characters, which means even with similar life experiences, these youths remain unique, individual entities.
Unfortunately, for purposes of convenient manipulation and marketing, the mass media have simplified the richness of the generation's identity. At the same time, it creates an inflexible and derogatory prejudice against a social group.
This situation is not exclusive to "Seventh Graders." Marching into middle age, the "Fifth Graders" -- those born between 1961 and 1970 -- were likewise branded "Generation X" in their youth.
At the time, the media characterized Generation X as hedonistic consumers lacking responsibility and confidence and without definitive life goals. This formulation is no different from what the "Strawberry Generation" represents today.
Paradoxically, those who brand the nation's youths "Seventh Graders" are the "Generation X" of old. This strange designation and interpretation demonstrate not only a generation gap, but the discrepancy in authority between "Fifth Graders" and "Seventh Graders."
Other than being stereotyped the "Strawberry Generation," "Seventh Graders," another stereotypical label, are youths who don't care about public affairs. Are young people today really less civic minded?
Even during the mid-80s, when social movements were in full swing, or during the Wild Lily Student Movement, students who devoted themselves to public affairs had always been in the minority. And yet, the social reform efforts of today's students recall a lot of the passion from the days of the Wild Lily Student Movement. For example, many professors and students contributed to the campaign to preserve Lo Sheng Sanatorium in April.
Youths involved in the Lo Sheng Republic of Human Rights and Cultural Rights and the Youth Labor Union 95, as well as others who commit themselves to causes such as the community, labor relations, gender equality, education, culture, equality and anti-globalization have already become Taiwan's new force of reform.
Unlike previous generations of student movements, they do not have star student leaders and do not place the responsibility of social reform in the hands of political parties. Conversely, they see the falseness of blue vs. green politics. The spearhead of reform is no longer directed at turning the political table, but rooted in social change.
This type of civic participation differs from joining the China Youth Corps, religious missions or other organizations in that it stresses social reform on a policy level and displays a new social force through concrete resistance and the commitment to work. This attitude and spirit are outside the simple label of "Strawberry Generation."
Even so, those who devote themselves to social reform are still in the minority. Every generation faces different challenges. But the attitudes and abilities with which each generation meets challenges are limited by the era's political, economic and cultural factors.
For instance, in an authoritarian age, avoiding politics is a common family injunction. Events, including the 228 Incident, the White Terror era and other experiences under a highly oppressive rule can lead to a deliberate rejection of politics based on fear. But why is the number of young people who are willing to participate in politics still low despite the fact that society has liberalized?
In reality, before students enter university, many of their life goals have already been predetermined by the status quo. From an early age, competitive academic advancement imbued with pressures of achievement and success has narrowed our field of vision and restricted the goals toward which we strive.
In recent years, higher education costs and the commodification of education have not only affected the quality of education, but deprived students of opportunities to pursue knowledge, understand society and participate in public affairs.
Many students pass university entrance exams only to cram their schedules with an unhealthy amount of work that leaves them with neither money nor knowledge. This phenomenon is especially apparent in private schools.
Under student recruitment competition, new departments opened by universities are increasingly geared toward practical subjects. Meanwhile, career counseling and job fairs prior to graduation often invite large corporations rather than non-governmental organizations or public organizations to serve as references for future employment. Thus university education becomes increasingly profit-driven, channeled toward marketing and commodification, providing less cultural and intellectual thought and deterring contact with different social groups and values.
Perhaps this is the reason why fewer youths are active in public affairs.
Kuan Chung-hsiang is chairman of Media Watch and associate professor in the Department of Radio, Television and Film at Shih Hsin University.
Translated by Angela Hong
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS