Ethnicity, Rurality and Status: Hukou and the Institutional and Cultural Determinants of Social Status in Tibet Author(S): Xiaojiang Hu and Miguel A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University Australian National University Ethnicity, Rurality and Status: Hukou and the Institutional and Cultural Determinants of Social Status in Tibet Author(s): Xiaojiang Hu and Miguel A. Salazar Source: The China Journal, No. 60 (Jul., 2008), pp. 1-21 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20647986 . Accessed: 28/11/2014 12:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, Australian National University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The China Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.22.1.18 on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:00:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ETHNICITY, RURALITY AND STATUS: HUKOU AND THE INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL DETERMINANTS OF SOCIAL STATUS IN TIBET Xiaojiang Hu and Miguel A. Salazar* In contemporary China, the rural-urban divide is the most salient dimension of social stratification. The role of ethnicity, regarded as themost important dividing line inmany countries, is less clear. China regards itself a multi-ethnic nation, and seven indeed per cent of the population formally belongs to an ethnic minority. Especially in the western regions of China, where the proportion of ethnic a minorities is large, better understanding of the relation between ethnicity and urban-rural status is needed to understand processes of social stratification and the sources of social tension and conflict. This article addresses two questions: what is the interrelation of urban-rural status and ethnicity in determining status hierarchies? How do the two dimensions a operate simultaneously to form system of social distinction? We will investigate the relation of ethnicity and urban-rural status not only as cultural dimensions of distinction and discrimination but also as institutionalized forms of distinction in contemporary China in general. on We focus the case of Tibet.1 Tibet highlights the complexity of status determination mechanisms in China. As well as a political situation that can be expected to maximize ethnic identification, Tibet is also the region with the largest urban-rural gap in terms of economic development within China. Moreover, a large number of migrants?who mostly belong to the ethnic Han are majority, but also overwhelmingly of rural origin?have entered the region since the reforms of the 1980s. These Han migrants and their status have since become the focus of a heated debate on the social stratification of Tibet. The paper will appear inMartin K. Whyte (ed.), One Country, Two Societies: Rural Urban Inequality in Contemporary China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, forthcoming). 1 In this article, "Tibet" refers to theTibet Autonomous Region (TAR). This paper does not address other areas populated with ethnic Tibetans or which are influenced by Tibetan Buddhism. THE CHINA JOURNAL, NO. 60, JULY 2008 This content downloaded from 129.22.1.18 on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:00:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 THE CHINA JOURNAL, NO. 60 The statusof ruralHan migrants inTibet is perceived differentlyby outside observers and by Lhasa residents with urban household registrations. At the time that we were leaving for fieldwork, Westerners who learned that our research focused on migrants in Tibet often asked: "Did the Chinese government allow you to study this 'sensitive' topic?"2 In contrast, when government officials in Tibet (mostly ethnic Tibetans, but also Han) learned about our research, their reaction was often: "Is there anything to study about these people? Why don't you do research on something more important?" They did little to hide their contempt for our research subjects. This experience brought into sharp relief the different ways inwhich a social space can be parsed out into strata of honor and contempt: while Westerners' first reaction was to see Han migrants as factors in an ethnic conflict, urban elites in Tibet saw them as, at best, nuisances. The assumption that social stratification falls primordially along ethnic lines informsmuch of thedebate in theWest about the role ofmigration inTibet. That debate assumes thatHan migrants will be treated by the authorities as "a privileged race" and be given exclusive preference and benefits; that their presence will be considered desirable by government officials; and that their ethnic status will afford them a consistent advantage in competition with Tibetans. The empirical data, however, do not mesh well with that assumption. For many urban Han, rural migrants, fellow Han or not, are hardly in their sphere, and there is very little expectation of mutual ethnic solidarity. Urban Tibetans do not perceive rural Han as a status threat or as unfair competitors. Similarly, rural Han migrants in Lhasa do not perceive themselves to be in any way part of a dominant ethnic supra-stratum or expect to be entitled to the "benefits of their race". Instead, when discussing social distinction and hierarchy, both Tibetan and Han Lhasaites tend to focus on the rural-urban dimension. This article focuses on these perceptions of status among Lhasa dwellers and maps the relative prestige and prejudice associated with certain social categories. We propose that those perceptions have been shaped by three interlocking factors. The first is the institutionalized urban-rural discrimination system based on hukou and the related segmentation of market positions and occupational opportunities. The second is the co-opting of "ethnic policies" by the state, which aligns certain privileges with both an ethnic category and urban status. Third are the categories of the traditional Tibetan system of distinction with its strong stereotypes about rural cultural inferiority. These two latter stigmatizing sets of cultural stereotypes resonate with each other and reinforce the low-prestige associations of the roles assigned toHan migrants in Lhasa. The rest of the article is organized as follows. The next section lays out the multiple dimensions of boundary-making in Tibet. The third section examines how the hukou system underlined social hierarchy in Tibet before the economic reform. The fourth analyzes how ethnic policy, as implemented in Tibet, actually 2 This and all quotations in this article are from interviews taken during the authors' fieldwork inLhasa in 1999-2000 and 2003. This content downloaded from 129.22.1.18 on Fri, 28 Nov 2014 12:00:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ETHNICITY, RURALITY AND STATUS IN TIBET 3 reinforces the urban-rural divide. The fifth looks at how the new ethnic Han migrants are positioned in the social hierarchy by urban Tibetans. The sixth looks at how the rural Han migrants position themselves in the social hierarchy of Tibet. Multiple Dimensions ofBoundary-Making inTibet As in most societies, the boundaries between social groups in contemporary Tibet are drawn across multiple dimensions. Using a Weberian framework, these dimensions can be divided conceptually into three groups: institutionalized distinctions, cultural distinctions (that is, distinctions constructed as a consequence of status differentiation or cultural Schemas, rather than institutionally established) and economic distinctions. Table 1 presents institutional and cultural dimensions of distinction in contemporary Tibet. Table 1:Multiple Dimensions of Boundaries in Contemporary Tibet Institutionalized and Formal Cultural and Informal Urban-Rural Divide Hukou system Social distinctions based on (Enforced by PRC state. family origin and cultural traits Weakened after reform,but still effective) Ethnicity Official 56 ethnic groups and Conventional ethnicmarkers: "ethnic policies" ancestry, language, "culture" (Institutionalized by PRC state) etc. 'Class" Traditional Traditional class system Legacy, memory and (Enforced by pre-PRC Tibetan knowledge of the traditional government. Dismantled by the system of distinctions based on PRC state) family origin and occupation Maoist Political class system Political power, guanxi, etc. (Enforced by theMaoist state, discarded after reform) Urban-Rural Divide The urban-ruraldivide inChina has become both theprincipal mode of institutional differentiation and the most culturally prominent dimension of status distinction. In termsof institutionaldifferentiation, the hukou (f*P household registration) system as a factor in social stratification is one of themost striking phenomena in contemporary China and has become an active area of scholarly exploration.3 3 See, for example, Kam Wing Chan and Li Zhang, "The Hukou System and Rural-Urban Migration in China: Processes and Changes", The China Quarterly, No. 160 (December 1999), pp. 818-55; Tiejun Cheng andMark Seiden, "The Origins and Social Consequences of China's Hukou System", The China Quarterly, No. 139 (September 1994), pp. 646-68. This content downloaded