Interpreting the Chinese Diaspora

Identity, Socialisation, and Resilience According to Pierre Bourdieu

Guanglun Michael Mu, Bonnie Pang

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780815360216
• eBook ISBN: 9781351118804
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Regional Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Globalisation and migration have created a vibrant yet dysphoric world fraught with different, and sometimes competing, practices and discourses. The emergent properties of the modern world inevitably complicate the being, doing, and thinking of Chinese diasporic populations living in predominantly white, English-speaking societies. This raises questions of what 'Chineseness' is. The gradual transfer of power from the West to the East shuffles the relative cultural weights within these societies. How do the global power shifts and local cultural vibrancies come to shape the social dispositions and positions of the Chinese diaspora, and how does the Chinese diaspora respond to these changes? How does primary pedagogic work through family upbringing and secondary pedagogic work through educational socialisation complicate, obfuscate, and enrich Chineseness?

Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu's reflexive sociology on relative and relational sociocultural positions, Mu and Pang assess how historical, contemporary, and ongoing changes across social spaces of family, school, and community come to shape the intergenerational educational, cultural, and social reproduction of Chinese diasporic populations. The two authors engage in an in-depth analysis of the identity work, educational socialisation, and resilience building of young Chinese Australians and Chinese Canadians in the ever-changing lived world. The authors look particularly at the tensions and dynamics around the participants' life and educational choices; the meaning making out of their Chinese bodies in relation to gender, race, and language; and the sociological process of resilience that enculturates them into a system of dispositions and positions required to bounce back from structural constraints.

1Introduction

Approaching Chinese diaspora and Pierre Bourdieu

Diasporic Chinese are believed to have the third largest population, the longest history, and perhaps the widest spread in the world. Decades of research have presented us a panoramic and penetrating picture of diasporic Chinese in terms of their origin, motivation, and distribution; the potholes and distractions along their goldrush journey; their struggles for surviving and thriving in the face of discrimination, antagonism, and xenophobia in white dominant societies; as well as their identity work in modern, multicultural social spaces. In this new millennium, stories and experiences of diasporic Chinese continue to spark scholarly debate. The exponential growth of globalisation, the rapid expansion of migration, the significant development of inclusivity, the emerging forms of socioeconomic dynamics, and the striking rise of China are rewriting the quotidian life of diasporic Chinese. In turn, the life politics of diasporic Chinese comes to reshape the socioeconomic, cultural, and political landscapes of the global era. Therefore, the picture of diasporic Chinese is never complete but continues to evolve. Such continuous evolution necessitates ongoing research on diasporic Chinese. In this book, we aim to contribute in terms of enriching knowledge about the identity work, educational socialisation, and resilience building of diasporic Chinese young people.

The point of departure of this book is that vibrancies in the macrocosms of economy, polity, and power translate into dynamics of the microcosms of family, school, and community; and translate further into individual social dispositions and positions. At the same time, individuals have a certain level of agency to repaint the landscape of social structures. To understand and theorise power, politics, and practice around diasporic Chinese’s identity work, educational socialisation, and resilience building, we have recourse to Pierre Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology. Yet, both Chinese diaspora and Bourdieu’s sociology are scholastic fields exposed to strident contestations. In this opening chapter, we first approach the scholastic fields of diaspora and Bourdieu; we then set the scene of the book by revisiting the social space of Chinatowns worldwide and a depiction of contemporary diasporic Chinese in Australia and Canada; at the end of the chapter, we provide a synoptic overview of the book.

We foreground the discussion of Chinese diaspora and Pierre Bourdieu to construct the research context and to establish the theoretical foundation of the book. To this end, we follow the suggestion of Wacquant (1989, p. 51):

The trick, if I may call it that, is to manage to combine immense theoretical ambition with extreme empirical modesty. The summum of the art, in social science, is, in my eyes, to be capable of engaging very high ‘theoretical stakes’ by means of very precise and often mundane empirical objects. We tend too easily to assume that the social or political importance of an object suffices in itself to grant importance to the discourse that deals with it. What counts, in reality, is the rigor of the construction of the object. I think that the power of a mode of thinking never manifests itself more clearly than in its capacity to constitute socially insignificant objects into scientific objects (as Goffman did of the minutiae of interaction rituals) or, what amounts to the same thing, to approach a major socially significant object in an unexpected manner – something I am presently attempting by studying the effects of the monopoly of the state over the means of legitimate symbolic violence by way of a very down-to-earth analysis of what a certificate (of illness, invalidity, schooling, etc.) is and does. For this, one must learn how to translate very abstract problems into very concrete scientific operations.

Diasporic Chinese is becoming increasingly visible in multicultural societies. This is a ‘normal’ and normalised status in the empirical world. Here we aim to transform diasporic Chinese from ‘mundane empirical objects’ into significant ‘scientific objects’ by engaging with Bourdieu’s sociology. It is by no means our intention here to colonise Chinese diaspora research by Bourdieu’s sociological instruments; neither do we intend to test Bourdieu’s sociological theory on Chinese diaspora populations. In contrast to transplanting Bourdieu into Chinese diasporic contexts or pre-empting Bourdieu’s explanatory power in Chinese diaspora research, we make an attempt to approach a sociology of Chinese diaspora through Bourdieu. As it is overambitious to examine every life aspect of diasporic Chinese, we focus on the identity work, educational socialisation, and resilience building in this book. By doing so, we hope that we do not misinterpret Wacquant’s call, as quoted above, to ‘combine immense theoretical ambition with extreme empirical modesty’. To begin with, we construct the scientific objects of the book, that is, diasporic Chinese.

Revisiting the notion ‘diaspora’

Chinese people have long been known for their disposition of migration, with their earliest documented voyage of exploration dating back more than 2,000 years. According to 史记 (Records of the Grand Historian of China),¹ Emperor Qin (Qinshihuang, 秦始皇) feared death and sought a way to live forever. He delegated to Xufu (徐福) the mission of looking for the elixir of immortality. Entrusted with the mission of discovering the secret of immortality for Emperor Qin, Xufu made his first journey to the eastern seas in 219 BC. Xufu led a fleet of 60 barques with 5,000 crew members, 3,000 virgin boys and girls, and a mass of craftsmen with different expertise. He returned several years later without finding any immortals believed to live on the Penglai Island. He then set sail again in 210 BC. The fleet anchored in a place called ‘Flat Plains and Wide Swamps’ (平原广泽),² where Xufu proclaimed himself king and never returned. Xufu’s journeys to the eastern seas may qualify Chinese as an ethnic group with the longest history of migration. Historical reviews of Chinese migration are abundant in the literature (W. Li, 2016b; Liu, 2015; Poston & Wong, 2016; Priebe & Rudolf, 2015; Wang, 1991; Zhou, 2017). Only a brief recount is required here.

Wang (1991) proposes one of the earliest models to categorise overseas Chinese. According to Wang’s (1991) typology, overseas Chinese can be identified as huashang (华商), huagong (华工), huaqiao (华侨), and huayi (华裔). The term huashang literally means Chinese traders or merchants. This is the dominant pattern of Chinese emigration during the precolonial era of Chinese imperial states. Early huashang, predominantly from Fujian province, took seasonal workers, who were mostly their relatives or/and fellow villagers, to Southeast Asia. Some returned home regularly to prepare subsequent journeys; whereas some settled overseas, developed migration networks, and planted seeds for further trade. In either way, huashang established ‘peripheral capitalism’ (Wang, 1991) on the fringes or outside the reach of the imperial state, staying away from both the repressive, contemptuous, bureaucratic orthodoxy that disapproved of monetary profit, and the symbolic power of Confucianism emphatic about ritual and social bonding rather than financial gains. The term huagong commonly refers to Chinese coolies, mostly from Guangdong and Fujian provinces, who were indentured workers at overseas plantations, mines, and infrastructural sites. This is the dominant pattern of Chinese emigration during the colonial era, culminating in the goldrush years. The term huaqiao literally means Chinese sojourners, generally including first-generation Chinese immigrants living overseas who retain strong connections with their motherland China. The term huayi broadly refers to people of Chinese descent, who are later generations of the former three categories, and who may or may not maintain strong connections with China.

Interestingly, W. Li (2016a) politically makes a further distinction between huaqiao and huaren. The former term is formally used for designation of Chinese citizens living outside Greater China, namely Chinese Mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. The latter term, with no reference to Chinese citizenship, is typically used to denote first-generation Chinese immigrants from Greater China who have taken up permanent residency or citizenship in another country. Irrespective of different terminologies, the two notions are both China-centred, with a political connotation of recognition of, and connection to, the motherland China.

Huashang and huagong, owing to their historical origin, have less current relevance, whereas huaqiao, huaren, and huayi are still widely used to identify overseas Chinese. However, the sociocultural and linguistic diversity of overseas Chinese comes to shape a highly complex and demographically heterogeneous group that makes any attempt at typological conceptualisation partial and contingent at best, and misleading and problematic at worst. In some Southeast Asian states, particularly Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia, a relatively large proportion of citizens are of Chinese descent. Some may well maintain Chinese culture and language, irrespective of generation, whereas others may not. In either case, they may not identify themselves as huaren or huayi. At times when national identity has high stakes, they may prefer to use Singaporean, Malaysian, or Indonesian, instead of identifying with China or Chinese (Wang, 1992). At other times when cultural identity is salient, they may choose to use Singaporean huaren (Singaporean Chinese), Malaysian huaren (Malaysian Chinese), or Indonesian huaren (Indonesian Chinese), whether they are first-generation immigrants from Greater China or long-settled later generations. In some situations when Chinese cultural identity is lost or fading, they may use Singaporean huayi (Singaporean of Chinese descent), Malaysian huayi (Malaysian of Chinese descent), or Indonesian huayi (Indonesian of Chinese descent) merely for the purpose of designating their historical genesis and biological body. In this case, Chineseness has become what Gans (1979) means by ‘symbolic ethnicity’. In other situations when racial identity has more reference, East Asian or Asian may be used as a collective, pan-ethnic identity.

The aforementioned nomenclatures are equally protean in Western countries where there are relatively large populations of Chinese descent, for example, the US, Canada, and Australia. The prescribed, categorical nomenclature can become completely dysfunctional in contexts of mixed-race and ever-evolving and swinging identities. When successfully ‘assimilated’, overseas Chinese may identify with their colonial motherland, claiming a pure American/Australian/Canadian identity and becoming a ‘Banana’ person – yellow outside and white inside (Khoo, 2003). Some may form a pan-ethnic Asian identity as a collective response to racism, or may (re)claim a Chinese or hyphenated identity (e.g. Chinese-American, Chinese-Canadian, Chinese-Australian), especially for first-generation new Chinese immigrants given the rise of China (Benton & Gomez, 2014). Therefore, the imposed, predominant nomenclature to categorise overseas Chinese is difficult, if not impossible; is problematic, if not fallacious.

In recognition of the challenges to typologically conceptualise overseas Chinese, we choose to use the term ‘Chinese diaspora’. It is by no means our intention to adopt a simplistic approach and overlook the heterogeneity of diasporic Chinese populations. Indeed, Hall (1990, p. 235) has long reminded us:

The diaspora experience as I intend it here is defined, not by essence or purity, but by the recognition of a necessary heterogeneity and diversity; by a conception of ‘identity’ which lives with and through, not despite, difference; by hybridity.

The heterogeneity of diaspora is worthy of scholarly debate, but our focus here is not to categorise diasporic Chinese populations but to decipher the matrix of identity, resilience, socialisation, and learning of Chinese children, adolescents, and young adults in different diasporic contexts, Australia and Canada in particular. The themes of this book are introduced momentarily. We now spend some space conceptualising diaspora.

The term ‘diaspora’ originally referred only to the dispersion and exile of Jewish Christians from Judea and later from Israel (Safran, 1991). It was then extended to describe almost all nameable emigrant or immigrant groups as well as their descendants dispersed outside their place of birth, origin, or ancestry. Brubaker (2005, p. 1) uses the term ‘the “diaspora” diaspora’ to describe the proliferation and dispersion of the term ‘diaspora’ across semantic, conceptual, and disciplinary spaces. But the latitudinarian use of ‘diaspora’ erodes the discriminating power of the term and undermines its ability to make distinctions: ‘The universalisation of diaspora, paradoxically, means the disappearance of diaspora’ (Brubaker, 2005, p. 3). To save ‘diaspora’ from extinction, we need to reappropriate the term by relooking at its definition, boundaries, and features.

Diaspora is an umbrella term ‘for the many extra-territorial groups that, through processes of interacting with their origin state, are in various stages of coalescence or dissipation’ (Gamlen, 2008, p. 842). Diasporic populations can include temporary sojourners or transnational migrants staying/living alternately in their sending and host states, and first-generation emigrants and their descendants, who – in certain places at certain times – form a fully fledged diaspora community in their settled country (Gamlen, 2008). Emphatic about connections to homeland and the home-host binary, Gamlen’s (2008) understanding of diaspora aligns with Safran’s (1991) conceptualisation that proposes a helpful list of common features of diaspora. These include dispersal from the homeland, retention of a collective memory of the homeland, commitment to the homeland, desire to return to the homeland, collective consciousness and solidarity, and partial or full exclusion or marginalisation from the hostland. Less helpful, however, is the binary of home and host, as the hostland can have already become a well-established home away from home whereas the homeland can have already become the most unfamiliar home (Mu, 2016). In addition, Safran’s (1991) criteria may overemphasise the connection to homeland. He indeed observed that some diaspora communities (e.g. diasporic Chinese community) generally have less or no desire to return to the so-called homeland (Safran, 1991).

Brubaker (2005) provides a condensed version of diasporic features and identifies three core constitutive elements of diaspora: dispersion (either forced or voluntary) across state borders, orientation to a real or imagined homeland as a source of identity, and boundary-maintenance as a distinctive community vis-à-vis a host society. Yet these criteria for diaspora are more suggestive than conclusive, as Brubaker (2005) acknowledges that each of these criteria is variously weighted in different diasporic contexts and each confronts its antithesis. First, dispersion is not only caused by migration of people over borders but also attributed to migration of borders over people. For instance, many ethnonational communities have (once) been separated from their putative national homeland either by a political frontier (Russians as an example) or by a colonial force (Hong Kong as a historical case in point). Second, not all diaspora communities are homeland-oriented. South Asian diaspora, for example, tends to de-emphasise homeland orientation. Third, there is ongoing tension between boundary-maintenance and boundary-erosion. For instance, local-born new generations of Chinese business people in Southeast Asia rarely depend on Chinese networks with much evidence of an absence of ethnic ties among them (Chua, 2009). In contrast, Chinese ethnic entrepreneurs in Australia maintain close ties with their Chinese ethnic community for networks and resources when establishing business (Dyer & Ross, 2000; Liu, 2011). Recently, however, new Chinese immigrants in the business sector assume strong connections to the Chinese market and China’s state given the economic power of China (Benton & Gomez, 2014).

What both Safran (1991) and Brubaker (2005) miss are two things: the liberating force and the transnational nationalism of diaspora. First...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• 1 Introduction: approaching Chinese diaspora and Pierre Bourdieu
• 2 Looking Chinese and learning Chinese as a heritage language: habitus realisation within racialised social fields
• 3 Young Chinese girls’ aspirations in sport: gendered practices within Chinese families
• 4 Understanding the public pedagogies on Chinese gendered and racialised bodies
• 5 Reconciling the different logics of practice between Chinese students and parents in a transnational era
• 6 Coming into a cultural inheritance: building resilience through primary socialisation
• 7 Resilience to racial discrimination within the field of secondary socialisation: the role of school staff support
• 8 Does Chineseness equate with mathematics competence? Resilience to racialised stereotype
• 9 Recapitulating Chinese diaspora and sociologising the diasporic self
• Index