Appropriating Otherness and the Contention of Miao Identity in Southwest China Siu-Woo Cheung
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology Vol. 13, No. 2, April 2012, pp. 142Á169 Appropriating Otherness and the Contention of Miao Identity in Southwest China Siu-woo Cheung The development of the Chinese Empire and Civilisation was predicated on the construction of non-Chinese cultural others in China’s long-written history that marked the Chinese frontier and its expansion. Miao was one of the prominent ethnic categories of otherness. The formation and transformation of ethnic frontiers were often registered in the dominant paradigm of Sinicisation in the imperialist perspective, and insurgency and forced migration from the native point of view. This paper attempts to explicate a more nuanced interaction between non-Han natives and the Chinese imperial/national agents centring on Miao otherness in Chinese conception, and in articulation with natives’ conception of Chineseness. It argues that in face of imperial expansion and nation-building projects in pre-modern and modern Chinese history non-Han natives actively appropriated Miao otherness to form their own identities, through which the Miao ethnic boundary was constructed and demarcated within the Chinese state. Keywords: Miao; Otherness; China Introduction Downloaded by [Siu-woo Cheung] at 07:25 11 April 2012 The cult of Yellow Emperor was promoted as a program for ‘patriotic education’ (aiguo zhuyi jiaoyu) and flourished rapidly in the 1990s as a focus of Chinese nationalism (Yang Zhiqiang 2010, pp. 103Á13). On official occasions and popular media, such as the sacrificial address presented at the Mausoleum and television series featuring the legend of Yellow Emperor, the notion of ‘yanhuang zisun’, o r ‘descendants of Yandi and Huangdi’, was often mentioned to refer to the common genealogical origin of Chinese people. In this dominant nationalistic narrative, the Yellow Emperor is said to be joined by his ally Yandi in subduing the paramount Siu-woo Cheung is an Associate Professor. Correspondence to: Siu-woo Cheung, Division of Humanities, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1444-2213 (print)/ISSN 1740-9314 (online)/12/020142-28 # 2012 The Australian National University http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2012.656694 The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 143 competitor Chiyou and killing him in the warring site of Zhuolu in Hebei Province, and subsequently laid the foundation for the development of Chinese civilisation. Interestingly, concomitant to the development of the cult of Yellow Emperor during the 1990s, the cult of the demonised Chiyou also flourished among the Miao minority, whose elite claimed that the legendary tragic figure was the common ancestor of all Miao people and petitioned against official and popular discourses that continued to portray his infamy.1 The Miao elite even ventured to venerate Chiyou as a founding ancestor of the Chinese nation on a par with Huangdi and Yandi, and successfully lobbied for the building of ‘The Hall of the Three Ancestors’ (Sanzu Tang), an ancestral hall housing the three legendary figures in the warring site of Zhuolu, which was formally opened in 1997 (Yang Zhiqiang 2010, pp. 105Á6). Amid this official promotion of the Yan-Huang Cult and its backlash posed by the Miao elite at the turn of the new century, some Taiwan and Hong Kong affiliated academics discussed the development of the cult as a focus of Chinese nationalism a century ago in modern Chinese history. Shen Sung-chiao and Sun Long-ji argue that the cult of the Yellow Emperor as the legendary ancestor of all Han-Chinese is a modernist invention in the construction of the Chinese nation-state when the Qing Empire was about to collapse in the early twentieth century (Shen Sung-chiao 1997; Sun Long-ji 2000). Wang Ming-ke provides a long historical perspective on the development of this cult of legendary ancestors for explicating the foundation of the modern nationalistic pursuit (Wang Mingke 2000).2 He refers to the historical ethnic process whereby non-Han groups claimed their Han-Chinese identities by tracing legendary genealogical linkages to the Yellow Emperor through the mechanism of ‘panfu’, or what I would call ‘mimicry for prestige’. Wang’s work on the cult of ‘heroic ancestors’ (yingxiong zuxian) extends the discussion of the imperial tianxia universalism and modern Chinese nationalism from the centre of the Han-Chinese polity to non-Han groups on its margin such as the Qiang people in his own study. The historical process of imperial expansion, according to Wang, involved a unidirectional assimilation process that Sinicised non-Han groups to become members of the Chinese political and cultural systems. His discussion draws our Downloaded by [Siu-woo Cheung] at 07:25 11 April 2012 attention to the Miao and their relationships with the Chinese state; yet the Miao elite’s endeavours are apparently involved in a more complex process than his view of mimicry for prestige and Sinicisation, as I will argue below. At the least, Chiyou in the origin myth of Chinese civilisation stands for exclusion and otherness rather than assimilation and sameness. The development of the Chinese Empire and Civilisation was predicated on the construction of non-Chinese cultural others in China’s long written history that marked the Chinese frontier and its expansion. Miao was one of the prominent ethnic categories of otherness, defined largely in terms of lack and as the counter image of Chinese civilisation, generated during the Chinese Empire’s southward expansion. The formation and transformation of ethnic frontiers were often registered in the dominant paradigm of Sinicisation in the imperialist perspective, and insurgency and migration for escape from the native point of view. This paper 144 S.-W. Cheung attempts to explicate a more nuanced interaction between non-Han natives in Southwest China and the Chinese imperial/national agents centring on Miao otherness in Chinese conception, developed in articulation with natives’ conception of Chineseness. It examines the development of Miao identity in the region of southeast Guizhou province with reference to natives’ appropriation of otherness built around ‘Miao Rebellion’ under special historical circumstances when ethnic boundaries were demarcated and identities were articulated for mass mobilisation. In addressing issues on the Chinese empire at the margins, Crossley et al. (2006) caution that the narrative of Sinicisation ‘obscured a multiplicity of institutions and networks outside the imperial imagination that were created by and helped condition the consciousness and practice of locals’, and that it ‘did not distinguish between a person’s adoption of the dominant group’s cultural markers, which may be partial and situational, and a more subjective identification with an imagined Chinese political community’ (Crossley, Siu, & Sutton 2006, p. 6). This paper seeks to examine the multiplicity of institutions and networks of the locals related to their practices of appropriation of Chinese cultural markers, particularly those referring to the Miao ethnic others, that helped condition the demarcation of non-Han identities and boundaries within the Chinese political community. This self-imposed exclusion and otherness constituted the major theme of ethnic resistance in the natives’ responses to the encroachment of the imperial state in south China throughout history by means of intermittent insurgencies and migrations for escape, which were abundantly registered as common historical memories in oral traditions of various native groups in south China. Such a polar contrast to the Sinicisation paradigm is reflected in James Scott’s latest book entitled The Art of Not Being Government: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, which explores how disparate groups that resided in upland region of Mainland Southeast Asia and Southwest China fled the civilising and subjugating projects of the organised state societies that surrounded them for thousands of years (Scott 2009). According to Scott’s analysis, hill groups adapted their cultural practices specifically to avoid inclusion into lowland civilisation, leading to the abandonment of rice farming, Downloaded by [Siu-woo Cheung] at 07:25 11 April 2012 literacy and socio-political hierarchy, and developing pliable ethnic identities. While his analysis of these cultural practices and identities has been under debate, Scott seems to be successful in widening the discussion of the formation of civilisation to include not just the examination of state-building but its obverse*it’s active avoidance.3 However, this paper seeks to demonstrate a more nuanced twist of this antithesis of civilisation with reference to native groups’ active appropriation of Chinese cultural markers for empowerment and mass mobilisation during their insurgencies resisting the encroachment of the Chinese imperial state, which might have led to their subjugation under state domination as well as fleeing the state to become hill peoples. It is the active exchanges and appropriation of otherness with reference to civilisation between the natives and the Chinese state that demarcated ethnic boundaries, rather than the simple antithesis of civilisation. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 145 In-between the dichotomy of total submission in terms of Sinicisation resulting from the practice of ‘mimicry for prestige’ (panfu), as proposed by Wang Ming-ke, and fleeing the Chinese state for self-determination to maintain