Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series "Fieldnotes From History."
One year ago today on Round and Square (3 July 2011)—Hurtin' Country: Elvis and Kentucky Rain
One year ago today on Round and Square (3 July 2011)—Hurtin' Country: Elvis and Kentucky Rain
 |
| [a] Island RF |
Election 1 Election 2 Election 3 Election 4 Election 5 Election 6
Election 7 Election 8 Election 9 Election 10 Election 11 Election 12
Part of an occasional Round and Square
series that follows the blog’s main theme (east meets
west, round meets square, and past meets present), these
snippets from my early fieldnotes are reproduced as they
were written by hand—and then revised on an ancient
desktop computer—during my first fieldwork stay in Taiwan
(1985-1987). All entries are the way that I left them
when I returned to the United States in 1987—some
nicely-stated and some embarrassing. Although the series began with
my assumption that the entries can stand alone, I have found that
separate comments and notes might help readers understand a world that
is now, well, history. These are always separate from the original fieldnote.
The next several dozen entries in this series represent my memories—in the form of fieldnotes that were already well on their way to being letters—of Taiwan's provincial elections in November 1985. I had taken down what I call "jottings" at the time, and "now," two months later, I was ready to get a little bit more detail down in the form of fieldnotes. If you are somewhat unfamiliar with the five-stage process that framed my work habits even back then, it might be worth a quick look at the introduction to this series. Suffice to say here that in Taiwan in 1985 I was working from "jottings" to "fieldnotes" most of the time. Every month or so, I would write a letter that made it all into a more sustained narrative. Even early on, I realized how powerfully the knowledge that I would be writing letters influenced my fieldnotes. You may see it, too. It has remained my method to this day.
Like many fieldnotes, these were "written
up" (a term I dislike, but am occasionally willing to use) after the
fact. I wonder if most students of anthropology know how common this is.
The implications for research, eye-witness authenticity, and
historiography are numerous. It is a reality that has never gone away
for field researchers of all kinds, though, and I suspect that it never
will.
The next several dozen entries in this series represent my memories—in the form of fieldnotes that were already well on their way to being letters—of Taiwan's provincial elections in November 1985. I had taken down what I call "jottings" at the time, and "now," two months later, I was ready to get a little bit more detail down in the form of fieldnotes. If you are somewhat unfamiliar with the five-stage process that framed my work habits even back then, it might be worth a quick look at the introduction to this series. Suffice to say here that in Taiwan in 1985 I was working from "jottings" to "fieldnotes" most of the time. Every month or so, I would write a letter that made it all into a more sustained narrative. Even early on, I realized how powerfully the knowledge that I would be writing letters influenced my fieldnotes. You may see it, too. It has remained my method to this day.
 |
| [b] Recall RF |
Comment
The whole "live audiences" dynamic is a fascinating one. Remember (I think that I mention it every day) that martial law was still in effect during the 1985 provincial elections on Taiwan. In retrospect, the relative discipline of the Guomindang with respect to opposition attacks is surprising. I say that mostly within the context of martial law, and with the realization (which was not obvious in 1985) that the dangwai (meaning "outside the party") candidates would, indeed, be able to coalesce as a separate party. Not in 1985, though.
Notes
[1] The Election and Recall Law was the key election dynamic (from my perspective) in 1985. One could not, for example, hold a meeting in one of the burgeoning economic strongholds called "Beer Houses" on the outskirts of Taipei. This was not like discussions in a family's living room in Iowa...except for the size. The biggest thing that, in the testy waters of 1985, that Guomindang did not want was big, tumultuous events. A coffee klatsch (make appropriate cultural adaptations) was o.k. Barack Obama at Beloit College in 2008...was not.
[2] The monitoring was not obvious to the outside (anthropologist-historian) observer. This is the reason that the (anthropologist-historian) observer needs to be able to read. The newspapers and other outlets tell a story that the ethnographer will never "get" (in a hyper-literate world, at least) unless s/he reads. For all of you who think that learning to speak Chinese (Mandarin) will be "enough" to "get by," well, you're right. You'll get by. If you want to know what's going on, you need to learn to read, and that means 5,000(+) characters and several hours a week of reading. This is why the anthropology of literate societies is different in kind from everything that students read from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and beyond.
[3] When is the field of anthropology going to wake up to the reality of highly- (or hyper-) literate societies?
 |
| [c] Obvious RF |
[3] When is the field of anthropology going to wake up to the reality of highly- (or hyper-) literate societies?
16 February 1986
During the autumn elections candidate forums were restricted to “live” audiences and only provided seating for a few hundred people. No television or newspaper advertisements were allowed. The government approved a candidate list in advance of the election; unsuitable or dangerous (left-leaning) candidates were not allowed to run. Moreover, no unapproved speech settings were allowed. A candidate could not, for example, hold an impromptu rally on a street corner. The Election and Recall Law maintained that there be no privately sponsored election events whatsoever—no teas, seminars, or informal gatherings.
On the other hand, the opposition was allowed considerable latitude in its
criticisms of the government. By all accounts, including my own, the elections
were free and open. The Guomindang could be said, moreover, to be interested in good government,
even at the expense of a seat or two. They did not, for example, nominate a
candidate to run against Zhang Hua’s Dangwai magistrate Huang Shizhen because,
it was reported, he performed his duties extremely well during his first term.
At one point, however, the Taipei Election Commission warned several Dangwai candidates against “violation of discipline.” They had called upon the government to establish a new political party, and had called for a greater public role in government. Police spent the days during the election recording candidates’ speeches on videotape. This was meant as a deterrent for those who “harbor ill intentions against the government.”
Click below for other fieldnotes dealing with Taiwan's 1985 provincial elections:
Election 1 Election 2 Election 3 Election 4 Election 5 Election 6
Election 7 Election 8 Election 9 Election 10 Election 11 Election 12
At one point, however, the Taipei Election Commission warned several Dangwai candidates against “violation of discipline.” They had called upon the government to establish a new political party, and had called for a greater public role in government. Police spent the days during the election recording candidates’ speeches on videotape. This was meant as a deterrent for those who “harbor ill intentions against the government.”
 |
| [d] Harbor RF |
Election 1 Election 2 Election 3 Election 4 Election 5 Election 6
Election 7 Election 8 Election 9 Election 10 Election 11 Election 12
No comments:
Post a Comment