Although Melissa J. Brown completed Is Taiwan Chinese? over 10 years ago, her study still contains much value for readers of today. In her work, Brown investigates the discrepancies between cultural identities in Taiwan and China, and the "narratives of unfolding" that the PRC regime, on one hand, and Taiwan's media culture on the other use to explain local identities. Brown indicates that, in her work, the term "narratives of unfolding" refers to constructed ideologies that are seen as the product of a person's culture or ancestry and that leave little room for individual choice about belonging or departing.
Brown pokes holes in these narratives of unfolding, mainly through analyses of "the impact of culture, power, and migration on changing identities" -- the sub-title of her book. She focuses her study on the effects of Han immigration and intermarriage with locals on Aboriginal culture in Taiwan and vice versa. She adds complexity to her study by considering similar identity changes among the Tujia ethnic minority of China.
Brown's analysis of this subject is quite complete and impressively detailed. She shows that the Taiwanese Hoklo of today, while retaining a Han ethnicity, can be considered different from Han in China. Meanwhile, by demonstrating, through the Tujia example, that the CCP-ruled China has accepted the possibilities of both Sinicization and de-Sinicicization within the PRC, she insightfully highlights the problems with the CCP's own narrative of unfolding, which posits that Taiwan's Han residents are incontrovertibly part of China and have been so since antiquity.
This is not to say that Is Taiwan Chinese? is not without its share of faults. Readers who expect these faults before picking up the book will be better armed to look past them and see the validity of Brown's message, which she enunciates, in clearest form, in the final chapter of the book.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this study is the degree to which Taiwanese national identity seems to be placed on the back burner in regards to the ethnic identity of Taiwanese Hoklos. Readers who have completed the book will understand that Brown's focus on the Hoklo/Aborigines and the Tujia/Han is a study of the mechanics of identity change, and that knowledge of these mechanics is useful for understanding the solidifying national identity of Taiwanese based on shared experiences, particularly those of the 20th century.
Those who are familiar with Taiwan will know that Taiwan is a patchwork of "ethnicities" - Plains Aborigine, Mountain Aborigine, Hoklo, Hakka, and "Mainlander (post-1949, pan-China nationalist immigrants)" - and regime influences - Zheng, Qing, Japanese, KMT, American and PRC (the latter two by external effect on Taiwanese society rather than by direct administration). The shared experiences of all of these ethnicities over time is the foundation for a Taiwanese national identity that continues to strengthen in the second decade of the 21st century.
Naturally, the ethnic Hoklo-Plains Aborigine melting pot experience is a part of this national identity. However, those seeking a more detailed study of the question of whether "Taiwan is Chinese" may be slightly dismayed to know that almost all of Brown's research is focused on ethnic changes among Hoklos and Aborigines that occur before the 1930s. Other changes to customs in Taiwan, among other ethnic groups (such as Mountain Aborigines and Hoklos), or effects on the shared experiences of Taiwanese as a whole in the political sphere, receive very little treatment.
Brown certainly understands the importance of a more global view of Taiwanese identity. She specifically notes the enormous role of sociopolitical influences in solidifying Taiwanese identity in the 1990s. However, Brown's analysis of the experiences of Taiwanese in the 20th century - the time in which Taiwanese would have most clearly formed their identities based on shared experiences - is limited to the last 30 pages of a 250-page book.
This is unfortunate because the main title of the book, Is Taiwan Chinese?, is constructed on the basis of a national identity (Chinese) and not an ethnic one (Hoklo/Han, Aborigine, etc). Therefore, one might say that the title and subtitle should be reversed: "The impact of culture, power and migration on changing identities in Taiwan: Implications for the resolution of the "Taiwan Question".
Such a title would be quite a mouthful and would lack the punchy effect of Is Taiwan Chinese?. However, it would better cue the reader in to the nature of this important study. Brown's study is clearly applicable to Hoklos, Aborigines and Tujia. Other important influences on Taiwanese national identity, while important to the way she frames the book, are not major elements of her work. Readers seeking more information about the effects of Japanese/KMT policies (aside from the Japanese footbinding ban) on the Taiwanese identity would do best to look elsewhere.
Other problems within Is Taiwan Chinese? are not as difficult to navigate for a patient reader. For example, the language that Brown uses is a bit too academic at times. This affects the accessibility of the material. Of course, this is partly understandable in light of the fact that the book was written as a doctoral dissertation. The original audience was academic. This will not make the average reader's job any easier. Brown also tends to repeat herself frequently. This too affects readability.
Finally, the opening paragraph of the book and the first sentence of the back cover contain a large and easily identifiable error. Brown says in the opening passage, "The "one China" policy, officially supported by the PRC, the US, and many other countries, and formerly supported by Taiwan, asserts that there is only one China and that Taiwan is a part of it." This sentence contains a major factual error.
Brown cites a work by Windberg Chai entitled Relations Between the Chinese Mainland and Taiwan to back up this assertion. I have not read Chai's work. However, if this is what Chai said, he is certainly in the wrong. According to the text of the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the text of which Chai would have had to use to come to his conclusions, the US "acknowledged" that both Beijing and Taipei believe that there is only one China. The language was made firmer in the 1979 Joint Communique, in which the US "acknowledged" the Chinese position that Taiwan was a part of China. The use of "acknowledge", as opposed to "accepted" was intentional. The United States has never "accepted" that Taiwan is a part of China. Brown overlooks the fact that Beijing, Taipei, Washington, and Tokyo all follow their own versions of "a" one China policy. There is no one universally accepted version of the one China policy.
Why is this important to the validity of Brown's work? Because this easily verifiable point is the point of departure for her entire book. The Taiwan policies of the respective countries have governed each country's treatment of Taiwan over the last few decades. This treatment has influenced the sociopolitical experience that has been so important in creating a Taiwanese national identity.
If Brown isn't aware that she has used such an obvious mistake as the springboard of her book, then a critical reader can be forgiven for questioning any of the other claims she makes in her book. In a few words, she undermines her authority to comment on such a delicate political situation.
Despite holding this reservation, after concluding Is Taiwan Chinese?, I believe that Brown does, at least, understand the material that is based on her own anthropological studies. After all, she is not a Taiwan policy maker, and her work has been accepted and praised by her peers. She has done an enormous amount of research, and done it well. Therefore, this book can be of value to those who wish to better understand the effects of culture, power, and migration on changing identities among the Hoklo and Aborigines of Taiwan. With a clearer focus and more streamlined language, this book would be a pleasure to read.
