Analysis Of ' The Diasporic Paradigm '

806 WordsSep 29, 20144 Pages
In a paper published on Boundary in 1998, based on the diasporic paradigm, Ien Ang examines current criticism to monolithic Chineseness. Moreover, she tries to further this paradigm by revealing the insufficient points in current argument and developing a more open and overdetermined understanding of diasporic identity. First, the author summarizes how diasporic paradigm reshapes our former essentialist understanding of Chineseness. From a diasporic perspective, the official borders of the current regime of China, whether in spatial or cultural sense, would lose the authority to define and delineate the significance of “Chinese” (Ang 225), thus “Chineseness” is not a single signifier imposed on all “Chinese” around the world but must has multiple versions according to “different historical, geographical, political, and cultural contexts” (Ang 227). Secondly, the author investigates the theory of “culture China” from Tu Wei-ming and discusses its contribution as well as restriction to the diasporic paradigm of studying Chineseness. On the one hand, the author appreciates Tu’s effort to challenge the former hegemonic structure of “center/periphery”, in which the center (mainland China) has undoubted priority and authority to define what China and Chinese are in terms of ethnicity, territory, linguistics, and religion. By pointing out the contrast between underdeveloped center and advanced periphery in a worldwide Chinese society, Tu stresses the possibility of playing a
Open Document