Taiwan in Japan’s Empire Building: An Institutional Approach to Colonial Engineering by Hui-yu Caroline Ts’ai
Ts’ai Caroline Hui-Yu. 2009 Taiwan in Japan’s empire-building : an institutional approach to colonial engineering. Routledge, New York.
Caroline Tsai (蔡慧玉) is a research fellow of the Institute of Taiwan History(臺灣史研究) at the Academia Sinica, Taipei (中央研究院). She is perhaps the foremost historian of Taiwan’s colonial period and one of the most prolific researchers, publishing research in Mandarin, English, and Japanese. The volume itself is published through Routledge in cooperation with the Academia Sinica Book Series on East Asia. Understandably, a lot should be expected from such a publication, and there is no disappointment. The book is an absolute necessity for researchers interested in Taiwan’s early modern period, and will undoubtedly remain so for many years to come.
While the book describes itself as “comprehensive but not exhaustive,” it is very thorough in its description of colonial Taiwan. It deals in great detail with the institutional structure of life during this period providing clear understanding of the organizations that made Taiwan a colony. No less important is the book’s role in describing Taiwan’s introduction to the modern world or
…how in practice the colonial government introduced the ideas of ‘enlightenment’ and of ‘modernity’ into local society (p. 8).
The goal of this post is not to review the entire volume. Instead, I want to focus on the place of the book in addressing a number of issues that have appeared as important in my blog. In particular, I want to address the nature of imperialism and colonization, examination in Taiwan and Asia, and the Household Registry.
Imperialism and Colonialism
There is perhaps no other topic on my blog that has created as much ‘friction’ as has use of the term “imperialism”. In part, this is because of its usage in the academic disciplines of Education and language teaching, as well as other departments in universities. I maintain that imperial is the adjective of empire and thus only used correctly in this context.
Apparently, it is also used to describe the continued influence of the USA and Europe in formerly colonial states: ie, in post-colonial states. The usage of the term, in this sense, seems to imply an almost monolithic, unidirectional relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. Colonizers tell the colonized what to do through law, policy, and other forms of hegemonic coercion. The description of colonial Taiwan depicted by Tsai is explicitly different from this.
Taiwan was a reasonably well-developed part of the Chinese Empire when it was cede to the Japanese by the Treaty of Shimonoseki (J: 下関条約, Ch: 馬關條約). In addition, there was a long and independent history to the island that Japanese governance was forced to deal with. The formal colonial bureaucracy of Taiwan was never large enough to completely govern Taiwan by itself. Real control was always maintained through a largely informal mechanism of “extra-bureaucratic control” (p. 65). Positions such as heads of headships and villages had no formal legal standing until after 1935 and operated as honorary titles. Official government operated by creating
…employment outside of the regulating law (in ‘gai nin ‘yo 員外任用)…turning the civil bureaucracy into a disciplinary institution for effective administration and social control, as opposed to repression or suppression (p. 66).
The significance of this is that the colonized played a major contribution to the nature of their own colonization through the operating as functionaries and officials in this system. They designed and constructed many of the activities that were what we now think of as colonialism and hence imperial. Colonialism in Taiwan was thus a two-way street of control, albeit streets of unequal importance.
Another surprisingly important feedback of colonialism is the way in which it shaped the modern Japanese state. As Dr. Tsai points out (p. 15),
As Japan’s first colony, Taiwan played a key role in redefining Japan’s prewar constitution….Essentially, to make colonial administration from scratch.
The modernization of Japan began only slightly prior to its emergence as a major colonial power. Development of its constitution and legal code continued throughout this period. Much of what became incorporated into these institutions was designed specifically with this in mind. Japan’s conception of legal control was thus shaped by its experience as a colonizer.
Examination
As Dr. Tsai points out (p. 52),
No explicit criteria for recruitment and advancement through examination existed in modern Japan prior to 1885.
Japanese historians of this period have noted that examination was introduced by American foreign experts. Regardless of their origin, as Dr. Tsai points out, within a short period of time, the Japanese had established an extensive network of public service examinations throughout their empire, including Taiwan. Nevertheless, it was impossible to govern Taiwan without the use of alternative roots to professional achievement. This was particularly true for the police. So many police were needed that many Taiwanese were recruited to fill these positions. While police examinations were extensive, there were alternative roots to promotion that Dr. Tsai discusses. As she pointed out in her presentation at the 2008 conference of the European Association of Taiwan Studies, most local police officials were promoted without the use of examinations.
The significance of this is that in spite of long use of examinations in Imperial China, examination in schools and professional licensing was introduced by the Japanese. By the time the Japanese had established entrance examinations to their own imperial universities and even a colonial examination system for police, there was not a single state university in China and it was not until Sun Yat-sen wrote his Fundamentals of National Reconstruction that the idea of an Examination Yuan was suggested.
While not a point that Dr. Tsai develops, her research helps clarify one of the more problematic issues in the modern history of examinations. The Asian model for the use of examination in the university and as a way to select modern workers comes from Japan and not China.
Household Registry
The Republic of China practices household registry. While many other states have also used a household registration system, the ones used in Japan, South Korea, and the ROC are strikingly similar.
Continuing with research she did for her doctorate at Columbia University, this book establishes Dr. Tsai as one of the foremost historians of the Japanese colonial reregistration system or the hoko (保甲 Ch: baojia). Household registry and the hoko had their origins as a system of criminal discipline. This very quickly disappeared and was replaced with its use as a system for organizing social activity. Hoko and the organizations that developed around it were involved in the vast number of social and health reforms implemented by the Japanese. Later during the Pacific War, it was used as the organizing principle around which labour, conscription, and mobilization occurred.
Dr. Tsai details the ways in which the Japanese established the registry system and used it to organization Taiwan society during their colonial control. The hoko became so dominant during the Occupation that it can be thought of as the defining principle of organization around which a Taiwanese modernity was created.
Final Thoughts
Dr. Tsai’s book was extremely useful for me to read. While I am quite knowedgable about Japan’s colonial occupation of Taiwan, it straightened me out on a number of points I have always believed – but are wrong. for example, I have always believed that many reforms credited to the Japanese actually followed trends set in Republican China under KMT control. In particular, I have always credited the KMT with the eradication of traditional Chinese practices such as opium smoking, foot-binding and the queue.
Apparently I have been mistaken. In Taiwan, all of these practices were eradicated directly by the Japanese. In fact, Dr. Tsai describes in great detail the way the Japanese used the hoko to orchestrate these reforms, even discussing the emergence of hats as men’s fashion following Japanese enforcement of the ban on the queue.
One significant point about Dr. Tsai’s book is its extensive system of citation. In terms of language, the book is one of the most complex and complete works available. despite this, the manner in which it incorporates Japanese and Chinese script, pinyin, and English is both comprehensive and informative. Readers will never feel left confused by terms. I believe it is so thorough with respect to this issue, it can and should be used as model for research on this period.
Readers interested in the hoko and colonial Taiwan can find Dr. Tsai’s chapter on hoko road building in my forthcoming book (with Ann Heylen) Understanding Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy.
Doctoral Studies at National Taiwan Normal University (國立臺灣師範大學)
This fall, I will be entering the doctoral program in Educational Psychology at National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU 國立臺灣師範大學). This program is a Chinese-taught program and all the other students in the program have been educated in Taiwan. The program has two areas of specialization: counseling and testing, and I will be studying educational testing.
I am frequently asked about doctoral studies in Taiwan. I have never written anyone back about this because it is far too complex an issue to get into in e-mail. This post is aimed at answering questions about studying in Taiwan from citizens of advanced industrial nations, such as the USA or Canada, who are contemplating graduate studies in a Chinese-taught program.
Frankly…
Frankly, I do not think graduate studies in a regular Chinese-taught program is a good choice for most people educated only in advanced industrial nations. Language is not really the issue. In fact, my Chinese is not really strong enough to do this program without special consideration from the department. I will be able to complete the degree only because many of the professors speak English and almost all the readings are in English. Despite being a top national school, none of the Taiwanese students in the program speak English well enough to make a difference.
The major problems that Anglo-Americans will face in these programs is related to style. Education in Taiwan has evolved under different historical and cultural forces than in the West. As such, learning in the class is structured very differently. Perhaps the best way to explain this is with an example.
The Strange Case of William Terry Alred
A while back, there was some commotion concerning the application to a Taiwan university by William Alred. Mr. Alred, an American, registered in a doctoral program at National Chung Cheng University. He ran into all kinds of problems that eventually found their way into the local English-language world. This is the original China Post article on the incident, the forumosa.com discussion and my own post that followed. Mr. Alred’s problems with the school have even found their way onto the school’s Wikipedia entry.
Briefly, Mr. Alred applied to the Department of Political Science where he made no secret that his Chinese proficiency was very poor. When the department accepted him, he found that none of the faculty would cooperate with him in deciphering the material explained in class. Eventually, he dropped out of the program.
In fact, the details of Mr. Alred’s problems with the department are quite disturbing. All of this seems to me to have been easily avoided. His demand for supplementary instruction in English lead to a number of confrontations with local faculty members. Regardless of who is at fault, it seems to me that the program was perfectly manageable for him and that while he presumed language to be the most significant barrier, it is not the serious concern for most Western citizens.
The China Post article cites Ministry of Education figures that “3,935 hopefuls have officially enrolled in bachelor, master or Ph.D. programs.” Many of these people would be enrolled in the special English-taught programs, like the ones offered by my school’s International College. Some would also be overseas Chinese, like one of my classmates next year, who is a Malaysian citizen raised in Taiwan. A further group would be like the Chinese-fluent international students accepted into the Graduate Institute of Taiwan Culture,Languages & Literature where Dr. Ann Heylen teaches. Despite this, my guess is that the majority of international students at Taiwan universities are deficient in Chinese-language proficiency. I expect the program I will enter is pretty much the same as the one Mr. Alred was involved with.
And one final point. The vast majority of international students in Taiwan are not passport holders of advanced industrial nations. This article from the MOE’s own website states that of the 17, 500 foreign students in Taiwan, 9135 are studying in a university language center. Of the remainder more than 2000 are exchange students and finally,
…foreign students in Taiwan come from 117 countries and the top five nations are Vietnam (806), Malaysia (700), Indonesia (425), Japan (409), and the USA (348).
That is, most of them come from economically underdeveloped nations.
Why My Situation is Different
My situation is very different from Mr. Alred’s. I selected the program at NTNU because I had researched it completely, was sure it would be a great program, and am certain I can finish it. To begin with, I have a great deal of knowledge about this department. A colleague of mine was the first non-Chinese fluent Ph.D. candidate ever accepted into the program. I have meet his supervisor socially and talked with him about the program. More significantly, I audited the class on Modern Mental Testing (現代心理測試) that he offered last term and am currently auditing the class Applied Electronic Calculation (電子計算機之應用). Both of these courses are compulsory in the doctoral program I will enter and I will have to take them again for credit in the upcoming 2 years.
I know exactly what is going to happen to me in this program. In fact, I can go so far as to say I picked this program because I am sure it will not be a waste of time for me. I have a third colleague enrolled in a Chinese-taught Ph.D. program at another school. He has absolutely no Chinese-language proficiency at all. This is not important to him and he is much more concerned with the certification his program will give him. I could also have enrolled in this and other programs, but I did not feel it would give me the same results.
The material in the course is directly related to my job. I am heavily involved in the evaluation of student English proficiency at Ming Chuan University. The department at NTNU is one of the key players in the construction of the ROC Basic Competency Test used to place students in senior high schools. That’s why these tests are on the NTNU website.
While I said that language proficiency is not a barrier to completion of the program, this does not mean it is not an issue. In class, it is very difficult for me to follow what’s going on. The Taiwanese students are only marginally helpful because their English is not really good enough. The class I mentioned above called Modern Mental Testing concerns a family of statistics used in test construction called Item Response Theory (IRT). The class readings were all in English. I found the professor to be very approachable outside of class, but I think this is partly because I work in a large high stakes testing program, and as a result, have a lot of professional experience and meaningful opinions to offer. In addition, I read widely outside the course material. Our conversations were rarely related directly to course materials.
During the class, I did an oral presentation, which was a compulsory requirement for the registered students. I spoke in English and prepared handouts and a reading that were all written in English. My presentation was drawn from authentic material used in my school’s testing program and was a discussion of questions we actually placed on an examination and analyzed with IRT. It was very successful.
The Lessons of My Application
There are a few basic points I think every person from one of those first world-type countries should be thinking about if they have an interest in graduate studies at a Taiwan university.
1. Why do you want to do this?
Is it because you are an English teacher in a buxiban and feel trapped in a meaningless world filled with small children who barely speak English? A Chinese-taught program will almost certainly not help you. The China Post article on Mr. Alred stated that he had planed to teach at the university-level in the United States. As I have mentioned before, this is not an altogether realistic goal anymore – if it ever was. I think it’s naive that Mr. Alred could think a PhD from a Taiwan school would allow him to teach at a Western school. There are many Taiwanese teaching in other countries. Virtually all of them have advanced degrees from schools in these countries. In fact, very few people are teaching at Western universities that do not have advanced degrees from Western schools. Those educated completely outside the West are generally internationally renowned scholars with extensive research expertise in their field.
2. How much do you really know about the subject?
One of the very strange things I consistently hear from people suggesting graduate studies in Taiwan concerns their proposed field of study. These are graduate degrees we’re talking about. You’re supposed to have advanced knowledge of the field before you enter. Certainly the local students all do. In fact, they have passed through extremely competitive evaluations to ensure this. And while some departments - as in Mr. Alred’s case – will let you in with no background at all, what do you think you’ll get out of the degree? After all, there’s already a language barrier. If you don’t have the background to make sense of what’s going on, what could you possibly get out of the education?
Graduate degrees are supposed to make people experts. With no background in a subject and limited Mandarin, what is this thing you’re supposed to become an expert in at a Taiwan university? I have been asked by people about degrees they have no background in whatsoever. I have had marginally Mandarin-proficient people suggest to me research topics that would demand complete fluency in several Chinese languages, on top of English.
This is a very serious point. If you don’t know anything about the subject, what makes you think you could become an expert - in a Chinese-language program?
3. How much do you know about the program?
There are many programs in Taiwan that are outstanding. There are many that are not. Are you sure the program is going to give you anything that you want or need?
Taiwanese schools are extremely strong in quantitative methods. I suppose this has to do with an historical emphasis on science and technology. Many of the professors today would have been educated in a much more competitive system. Students who wanted to enter an Engineering or Mathematics department would have found it very difficult. Likewise, students who insisted on entering a top university might not have been able to enter the Science department they wanted. I imagine many such students ended up in departments like Psychology or Education. As a result, there are excellent people to study quantitative methods with in these departments.
The converse is also true. Theoretical subjects have historically found leadership in European languages. The language gap has not always been successfully crossed. In addition, for most of Taiwan’s modern history there has been huge control over freedom of speech. Many of the topics that would facilitate the development of theoretical competency in Social Sciences have been illegal to discuss and punished with prison or death. The result has been that Taiwan universities do not provide a strong venue for studies in theoretical subjects.
4. Are you sure you can handle the difference in learning style?
From my point of view, perhaps the biggest problem that Mr. Alred had at Chung Cheng University was one of learning style. Taiwanese students and teachers work in a system where classroom activity has historically played a background role in preparation for the major decision making that takes place during examination. The idea that he Mr. Alred would not get a lot out what’s happening in class might not necessarily be seen as a problem.
Class here lacks the feeling of desperation I remember it having in Canada. It is not a forum to show off how clever you are or how much reading you did outside class. It is not at all unusual to see students in class during a lecture with their lap tops flipped open, as if they were taking notes, doing homework for other classes, playing games, or working on other unrelated material.
Student presentations are a large part of class work in Taiwan. Most of what happens during these presentations involves detailed review of assigned readings. It is not unusual to see students with Power Points that contain the English text of readings and then a Chinese translation. They will then explain their understanding of the English text, sometimes line by line. This may seem redundant, but I have seen similar situations in Canada. More important is the fact that much of reading is in a foreign language (English) of which students may not have a strong grasp. Student presentations are often taken as an opportunity to make sure the assigned readings were properly understood.
As I pointed out above, the presentation I did was not a translation or explanation of the text. But I work in testing and have real data to draw from. I was able to bring to the class examples of the material we had studied and how it worked in real life. It would be unreasonable to expect 25 year olds who have never worked in their field to be able to do this. As a result, they translate the texts and make sure they know what was really said.
…and
I just want to conclude that problems like the kind experienced by Mr. Alred are perfectly avoidable. It takes careful planning and patience, but if you expect to get as much out your PhD as you would at a Western school where instruction is in a language in which you are fluent, you’re going to have to do a lot of planning. But I think this is just common sense.
Academic Freedom in Taiwan and Canada
I just received a notice about a posting on Dr. Erik Ringmar’s blog Too Many Mangoes. The post is ostensibly about academic lethargy in Taiwan. Dr. Ringmar points to a lack of accountability to the Ministry of Education for the vast sums of money they have recently been handing out.
As I point out in my comment to the post, I am a little uncomfortable with the whole thing. Only a month ago, I was writing about a Canadian professor, Dr. Denis Rancourt, who refused to follow any instructions from his employer, the University of Ottawa. Dr. Rancourt’s refusal to do anything other than what he wanted to do was widely interpreted as an issue of academic freedom.
Of course I understand what Dr. Ringmar is trying to say and completely agree with him. But I am very uncomfortable with the implications of all this. Professors in Canada ignore their employers and define their own responsibilities – it’s academic freedom. In Taiwan, it’s academic irresponsibility.
Why should the relationship between a professor and his professional responsibilities be defined differently because of his or her nationality?
Anaheim University Receives DETC Accreditation
Apparently, Google is still picking up old versions of posts about Anaheim University. I am reposting this in an attempt to assure that readers get the most current information about the school’s accreditation.
Anaheim University has informed me they now have accreditation from the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC). I last wrote about Anaheim back in 2005. It was an unaccredited, on-line university offering graduate degrees in business and TESOL. Despite this, it had affiliation with significant figures in the TESOL world such as David Nunan, Rod Ellis, and Ruth Wajnryb.
David Bracey, who is the school’s Chief Communication Officer, wrote to me describing recent developments at the school.
In the past, my blog has featured significant debate about unaccredited degree programs (also see here). At the time, I had seen no convincing evidence of high quality unaccredited degree programs. When I was asked about Anaheim University, to be honest, I was surprised they did not have accreditation. One reader pointed out to me that accreditation often stipulates continued operation for an amount of time, and as such new schools can not get accreditation from authentic accreditation bodies. It appears this was the case with Anaheim.
I’d like to thank Mr. Bracey and Anaheim University for keeping me and my readers informed with their most recent developments. Good luck
The Dark Side of Liberalizing Education
Today’s Taipei Times features an article about the use of alcohol advertisements at National Taiwan University. The article cites dean of NTU’s College of Sports and Recreation Cho Chun-chen (卓俊辰) that
the school had to accept sponsorship from a liquor company for this year’s National Intercollegiate Athletic Games because it was short NT$60 million (US$1.8 million) and could not find other sponsors.
In response, Vice Minister of Education Lu Mu-lin (呂木琳) is cited as saying the Ministry considered alcohol advertisements on campus
“inappropriate,” adding that it was the position of the ministry that students should stay away from alcohol. “Although schools are required to raise funds by themselves, they should nevertheless do so in an appropriate manner,” Lu said. “After all, it’s not like schools are private businesses,” Lu said.
Personally, I’m a little surprised by Assistant Minister Lu’s reaction. Of course his attitude is completely consistent with the historical interpretation of schools. But it is widely known that universities in Taiwan are underfunded in comparison with those in highly industrialized states. As I reported here, faculty salaries are at the same level as those found in India. The current trend toward forcing financial independence on schools has only made the matter more serious. The Ministry imagines us streamlining our budgets or the emergence of all kinds of innovative ways of getting our hands on cash. NTU came up with one of these, and it was only time until this happened.
Anaheim University
Anaheim University, based in Anaheim, California is a nationally accredited university offering online TESOL, business and sustainable management programs, including a 15-week online TESOL certificate developed by Anaheim University’s Dean of the Graduate School of Education Dr. David Nunan. The online MA in TESOL faculty is made up of 5 renowned linguists including its Dean Dr. David Nunan and Chair of the Graduate School of Education Dr. Rod Ellis along with Professors Kathleen Bailey, Ruth Wajnryb and Martha Cummings.
The entire MA in TESOL can be completed online with the exception of two 4-day residential sessions usually held in California. The University also holds residential sessions where there is a critical mass of students. Anaheim University’s October 2009 residential session will be held in Seoul, Korea at Sookmyung Women’s University. The residential session which will be held from Thursday, October 22nd through Sunday October 25th 2009 will coincide with Korea TESOL’s annual conference and Anaheim University will be one of the main sponsors of the conference, with Korea TESOL’s three plenary speeches being made by Anaheim University’s professors, Dr. David Nunan, Dr. Rod Ellis and Dr. Kathleen Bailey. Anaheim University makes its residential sessions open to those who wish to participate and the tuition for taking part in the 4-day session is US$800. There are 2 courses connected to the residential session. The first is a course on Curriculum Development co-taught by Dr. David Nunan and Dr. Kathleen Bailey and the second is a Research Methods course co-taught by Dr. Rod Ellis and Dr. David Nunan. Those who wish to take part in one of the online courses connected with the residential session can apply online at http://www.anaheim.edu
Universal Access to Post-Secondary Educarion
Everyone agrees that post-secondary education should be available and widespread and that this is necessary for a modern society. But just how widespread should it be? Should virtually every citizen have access to a post-secondary education? This was the topic of a post on the blog Higher Education Management addressing a recent statement from the Obama Administration that, in the words of the President himself, “…by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.
In Taiwan, the current rate of post-secondary attendance approaches 100%. The official Government Information Office (GIO 新聞局) website states the slightly out-dated figure from 2001 that 70.73% of senior high school graduates go on to attend higher education. In my presentations, I have been using the more recent, but still out-dated figure from the 2005 China Post that, “89.08 percent of graduates who filed admission applications after taking the entrance examination”. This 2007 article from the GIO-published Taiwan Review states that, “…tertiary enrollment rate reached 97 percent.”
This rapid increase in university attendance has not been embraced by the Taiwanese middle-class. Most educated in the previous generation would have studied in an elite system that used university education as a reward for government obedience. As such, the rate of admission to university was extremely low. But the point I want to express in this post is that Taiwan’s current rate is actually not at all out of line with that of other highly industrialized states.
A recent report from the British Columbia Ministry of Education indicates that virtually every high school graduate in BC will eventually attend a post-secondary institute of education. The Vancouver Sun summarizes the report’s results,
The study also found that of 44,978 B.C. graduates in 2005-06:
- 20.7 per cent registered later (by March 2008) or elsewhere, including 4.4 per cent at public post-secondary schools, 6.9 per cent at BC private post-secondary schools, 6.2 per cent at post-secondary institutions elsewhere in Canada, 1.4 per cent at post-secondary schools outside Canada and 1.3 per cent in adult basic education.
- 50.8 per cent registered at a B.C. public post-secondary institution for fall
- 6.9 per cent registered at B.C. public post-secondary institutions for fall 2007.
So of the 2006 graduating class, 78.4% eventually ended up at some sort of post-secondary institution.
The entire report , which is entitled Where Did They Go?, as well as other interesting information about education in BC, can be downloaded from this website.
So while Taiwan’s situation may not be that much different from other similar economies, it is unclear exactly what all this means. The situation in Taiwan grew from economic necessity, but political factors have been a major part of why things took on their current appearance. Managing Taiwan’s growing number of unemployed university graduates has become a major political issue in the current economic downturn, but this has had almost no impact on the belief that university is good and that your child has to have a seat in a university.
As Dr. Keith Hampson pointed out in the Higher Education Management post that started this whole
…many people find the idea of expanding the number of college graduates very appealing. And its appeal is not based solely on ‘rational’ notions of productivity improvements and the like. Its appeal is also cultural. We like the idea of more people going to college because it taps into a collective sense of upward mobility.College for all” may be the knowledge economy’s “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” (Herbert Hoover, 1928).
Dutch Formosa in Perspective by Ann Heylen
The French Center for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC)
…is a publicly funded research institute, based in Hong Kong, and established in 1991. A branch office has also been set up in Taipei. The CEFC’s mission is to explore the political, economic, social and cultural developments in the contemporary Chinese world (China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, etc.).Besides organizing seminars and international conferences, the CEFC publishes China Perspectives (sister publication of the French-language Perspectives chinoises), a quarterly entirely dedicated to the study of the contemporary China. Jean-François Huchet is currently the director.
Recently, my friend Ann Heylen spoke at their 2009 lecture series about her research on Dutch Formosa. Ann and I are co-authoring the forthcoming book volume Understanding Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy scheduled to be released by Harrasowitz Verlag early next year. You can listen to an audiofile of her presentation here.
I also recommend listening to the presentation of Jens Damn of the Freie Universität in Berlin located just underneath Ann. Jens’ presentation is a more complete version of the paper he gave last year at Asia University. The paper was part of a panel on “The Narrative of Taiwan in Globalization” that included papers by Ann Heylen and me, as well as Dr. Lynn Scott from the English Deprtment at Fu Ren University.
Western Influence in Asian Education – Script Reform during the Meiji Restoration
A while back, I posted a comment on the blog Global Higher Education to this post by guest writers Moshidi Sirat and Ooi Poh Ling. The main point of the post is that local education systems in developing economies have been heavily influenced by the major Western powers that influenced their histories. For example, education in Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong have all had strong British influences. My reply was that in some states, like Taiwan, local education systems have developed under local government control to serve their military or authoritarian needs. As democracy has been established, these states have become stuck with educational institutions that don’t quite fit into their new globalized world. As such, Western institutions can serve as models for how to better structure schooling.
This is not the first time in history that powerful global trends have shocked Asian states into restructuring themselves. Almost 150 years ago, dramatic changes shocked Japan from a feudal state into a major modern military and economic powerhouse. This period, referred to as the Meiji Restoration 明治維新, included changes that are now seen as instrumental in making Japan a world power. In this post, I want to talk about script reform and the redesign of learning in Japan.
Language in Pre-Meiji Japan
Prior to the Meiji Restoration, script in Japan was highly sylized. While there was a colloquial system of writing available, literature, government and documents were all written in a series of systems whose learning was only possible through years and years of study. These scripts were used within a highly structured system of expression that was extremely difficult to learn. So stylized was written expression that, as researcher Nanette Twine (1983, p. 131) once put it, writing, “…had become an object of learning in itself.”
In addition, there was wide regional variation in colloquial language across Japan. The situation was similar to that found in Qing China. Japanese from different parts of Japan could speak with each other only with difficulty or not at all. Also, pronunciation of written forms differed from region to region. So it was with a hugely difficult rhetorical style and a largely unstandardized script that Meiji Japan began its odyssey in the modern world.
The Meiji Restoration introduced a huge number of new changes into Japan. Some of these things were scientific and technical objects brought from the West. Others were concepts and ideas completely foreign to Japan. The Meiji brought about political reforms changing the relationship of the citizen with the state and economy. Citizens would no longer be peasants and instead were transformed into workers and consumers under industrialization. The older script and writing styles could not handle expression under these new conditions.
Script Reform
The observation that every advanced nation of the time used a phonetic alphabet had a huge impact on script reform. The obverse of this is equally as true. European languages have undergone enormous change to suit the demands of modern production and education. It would not be possible to have a modern society with the language situation of Norman England. Society as we think of it demands rulers who can speak directly to their citizens. It demands a citizenry who can freely take part in production. It demands a language that is hugely flexible to meet the needs of a society that has change built into its fabric. All of this entails a high level of citizen literacy and hence a language that can be taught in a public school system by marginally educated teachers. The writing systems of feudal Japan were none of these, and the only model available was European languages.
Over the course of the next few decades, Japanese intellectuals and officials debated a whole range of reforms. These included organized groups that advocated the use of various phonetic alphabets, as well as combinations of these alphabets with Chinese characters to transcribe colloquial speech. You can read all about this in Christopher Seeley’s book, A History of Writing in Japan or from the source of all truth, Wikipedia.
The significance of these reforms for me is not just in the ingenious solution that these thinkers devised. Students of the contemporary Japanese language rightfully complain about how awkward the script is to work with. But in fact, as a solution to problems presented by Tokogawa Era script, the current combination of Kana and Kanji is brilliant. The real issue for me lies in the inspiration that lead to these innovations.
In her history of the Genbunitichi (言文一致), that saw the transformation of classical Japanese into it modern form, Nanette Twine (1978 p. 355) discusses how Meiji Period scholars devised the systems that evolved into modern Japanese script.
The Genbunitchi movement after 1866 was in no sense the result of a natural evolutionary process; rather, it can be seen as stemming from one of the many catalytic ideas imported from the west about that time. Had Japan remained in isolation, traditional styles would doubtless have maintained their dominance and the colloquial would have remained confined to popular literature and occasional evangelical or instructive texts. Once the Genbunitchi movement and its attendant advantages had been observed in other countries, however, it became merely a matter of time before an attempt was made by progressive thinkers to introduce the movement into Japan.
Twine’s interpretation is that the modernization of Japanese writing was directly the result of Western influences. Thinkers and officials of the time modeled modern Japanese after European languages. The concept of an alphabetized writing system based in colloquial speech was derived directly from these Western models. Without their use as a model, there is little reason to believe Japanese reform would have moved in this direction. In fact, these changes were incredibly difficult to implement and stylistic restructuring of language use continued into the middle of the 20th century.
…and so what?
The problem of Western influence has come up before on my blog. As Michael Turton has pointed out, critics are extremely selective about the examples they choose to illustrate their case. No one ever points to the Meiji Restoration as an example of what Western influence can do, when, in fact, history offers few better examples. In the past, comments on my blog have raised the issue of imperialism in education. The claim is that ‘Western imperialism’ is shaping education through the new force of commercial education. My position on this is that imperialism is related to empire, and as such, this is incorrect usage. A more accurate term would be neocolonialism.
The concept of globalization is only poorly understood. The Japanese only reluctantly accepted their place as modern citizens in a world power. There was staunch resistance from displaced feudal lords who were yet to find their place in the ruling class. Initially, in a chapter of the Meiji that is generally forgotten, there was open war with the forces that opposed Restoration. At the time, it was not at all clear that opening up to change was the correct choice. But there are probably few alive today who doubt this was the right choice, even for the families of the displaced samurai who were slaughtered. But even late into the 19th century, cultural elites continued to resist script and rhetorical reform.
I have argued that if Taiwan is to survive the changes of this century we need to adopt educational principles developed by people with a very different history and culture. The failure to do this will leave us at the mercy of economic architects with much more power to shape globalization. While I am not sure we are making the right choices, it’s clear that such choices have to be made – and that is why I applaud the efforts of the Second Global Higher Education Forum (GHEF2009). But if there is anything that history has taught us, not making these choices is wrong.
The End of the University As We Know It?
Today’s New York Times features an op-ed from Dr. Mark Taylor, the chairman of the Religion department at Columbia University. Dr. Taylor raises the fascinating point that,
Graduate education is the Detroit of higher learning. Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost (sometimes well over $100,000 in student loans).
I call this fascinating not because of its novelty. It’s something we all know and maybe even laugh about over beers. The importance of Dr. Taylor’s remark is his willingness to raise the point in public. We work in one of the biggest Ponzi schemes around that is only viable because we have managed to convince others that being a graduate student isn’t ‘real’ work.
The dirty secret of higher education is that without underpaid graduate students to help in laboratories and with teaching, universities couldn’t conduct research or even instruct their growing undergraduate populations. That’s one of the main reasons we still encourage people to enroll in doctoral programs. It is simply cheaper to provide graduate students with modest stipends and adjuncts with as little as $5,000 a course — with no benefits — than it is to hire full-time professors.
Dr. Taylor sees the problem as the highly specialized diversification of “…limited knowledge that all too often is irrelevant for genuinely important problems.” He suggests a number of solutions, some of which I think are intriguing, but it is his number 2 suggestion that makes me feel all too familiar
2. Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. It is possible to imagine a broad range of topics around which such zones of inquiry could be organized: Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water.
But hasn’t this been going on for years? These departments used to be called interdisciplinary and had to draw on faculty from all over the university to teach their courses. You know…all those departments like Women’s Studies, Asian Studies, Peace and Conflict Studies. In fact, if you go back far enough, this was the case for TESOL, Business, and even Education. If you go back even further than that, you could even say that Psychology was interdisciplinary. The only ‘real’ departments are what we now call the Humanities and Sciences (and a few other things). Almost everything else that we study in universities was invented as knowledge in another department sometime in the last century. And once these other departments became consolidated enough, they started teaching their own classes, granting their own PhDs, and setting this as the standard for whom they would hire as faculty.
Fair enough, Dr. Taylor calls for a transformation of the traditional dissertation, and expansion of the,
5. …range of professional options for graduate students. Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained. It is, therefore, necessary to help them prepare for work in fields other than higher education. The exposure to new approaches and different cultures and the consideration of real-life issues will prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the knowledge and skills they will cultivate in the new universities will enable them to adapt to a constantly changing world.
But my guess is that he’s not calling for universities to be turned into giant vocational schools. It sure sounds like it, but I doubt it. My guess is he sees this as a call to ‘take back the university’ for the thinking departments from the business and policy studies that are increasingly dominating our university landscape. Dr. Taylor calls for an integration of these policy and business-based programs with the more reflective traditional disciplines of the university community.
…political scientists who had gathered to discuss why international relations theory had never considered the role of religion in society. Given the state of the world today, this is a significant oversight. There can be no adequate understanding of the most important issues we face when disciplines are cloistered from one another and operate on their own premises.
The point of his story seems not to be that job training is the wrong task for the university, but that applied fields need more input from those working closer to human needs. It’s not that different from the discourse that’s been evolving for decades in business education. You might even say that what Dr. Taylor’s trying to do is extend the existing discourse into applied fields where academic considerations have traditionally been downplayed by preparation for the workforce.
But my problem with all this is that the idea of theme-based studies has been tried and it’s failed. Calls for theme-based studies inevitably fail. You can reform degree requirements as much as you want and they still end up being discussions of the topics you can write a paper on or do an assignment for. If it becomes much else, then it’s a trade school.
And in fact, I have no disagreement that the current university system creates more research-trained students than it can consume itself. Other than that, the university works really well. All the “…limited knowledge that all too often is irrelevant for genuinely important problems” decried by Dr. Taylor is really made up of highly valuable skills. The example he gives, specifically chosen for its verbal impression of irrelevance, is how
A colleague recently boasted to me that his best student was doing his dissertation on how the medieval theologian Duns Scotus used citations.
My response is equally as stereotypical. While this sounds totally removed from anything practical, I am certain this student has analytic skills that are extremely deep and valued by the community outside the university. As I pointed out in this post, even the US military can find a use for ”irrelevant” academic Anthropologists.
The problem isn’t the usefulness of these techniques, nor even the employablity of these skills outside the university. The problem is that no one trained in these skills really wants to apply them to anything but academic problems. I have personal experience with this. Before teaching English, I worked for a marketing research firm in Canada. While all this was long ago, I retain one especially vivid memory. My supervisor, who holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Toronto, and I were hunched over a table examining cross tabs of a survey of attitudes toward Canadian hi-tech companies. I remember her commenting on the wide fluctuation in perceptions of excellence we had obtained across the spectrum of surveyed companies. Her response to this? “Isn’t this interesting!” No, it isn’t and it wasn’t then, even though it was really one of the more interesting problems our firm worked on. And I suspect even my boss thought so, since she now works in academia.
The core methods that Dr. Taylor wants used in departments that study water or life evolved in particular fields of Anthropology or Geography or Engineering. As they have moved outside their discipline of origin into interdisciplinary fields, they have changed to serve the purpose of these new fields. But this hasn’t been for the better. The theoretical concepts and methods borrowed from other disciplines have been twisted so badly they are barely recognizable. In the fields I know best, Education and TESOL, I would go so far as to say that, as academic disciplines, they are better defined as collections of poorly applied methods and theories developed in other more rigorous fields.
It may be that Dr. Taylor is trying to be pragmatic.
In the arts and humanities, where looming cutbacks will be most devastating, there is no longer a market for books modeled on the medieval dissertation, with more footnotes than text. As financial pressures on university presses continue to mount, publication of dissertations, and with it scholarly certification, is almost impossible.
If it true that the current financial crises will devastate the Arts & Humanities, Dr. Taylor may be suggesting a way out of this – some jobs in watered-down departments may be better than nothing at all. Although I doubt he thinks these departments will be watered-down.
Are we really under attack? Arts & Humanities aren’t going anywhere. They are far too important in the machine that creates students for business and policy studies. Besides, this is hardly the real problem. While it’s true that specialization of departments comes with a cost, the biggest problem is that we keep producing all those PhDs whose expectation is they will do research at a university in their field of study. The jobs may be hard to get, but they’re just too good to pass up. And for students with any chance to get one, it’s easy to forget about looking for a job analyzing attitudes toward hi-tech companies. There’s nothing wrong with the knowledge they acquired during their study. What’s wrong is that almost all of them expect to do work on those interesting problems they studied as graduate students and not stare at cross tabs for marketing agencies.
Maybe Dr. Taylor wants us all doing the kind of problems that appear would benefit people’s lives instead of making money for shareholders. But we’ve tried all that. There are faculties of Education everywhere and it’s hard for me to see what they do at the graduate level other than mangle up perfectly good theories of Sociology and Psychology.
As a graduate student, my landlord once asked me what I was studying. When I replied that it was Sociology, he responded, “Not many jobs in that.” I like to think he was wrong, but only because I didn’t have my mind set on working in a Canadian university or college.
.jpg){kind=link}
3 comments