Fieldnotes From History (47)—Provincial Elections-h

Click here for the introduction to the Round and Square series "Fieldnotes From History."
One year ago today on Round and Square (26 June 2011)—Hurtin' Country: Too Cold At Home

[a] Portal RF

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
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 it 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] Safe harbor RF

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.

Comment
This fieldnote sums up a great deal of what I had been thinking during the long afternoon of February 15, 1986. No matter how many angles I tried, I kept coming back to the ruling party's strangely New Testament (this is less of a stretch if you consider the Jiang family's Christianity) approach to the slings, arrows, and general ugliness of free elections. The China Post editorial I quote below takes the ruling party line and hints strongly that the conduct of some agents could well be prosecuted...by a less generous and kindly ruling authority. In short, a large number of opinion makers that autumn focused upon the benevolence and forward-looking compassion of a party that could take hits from opponents who did not know how good they had it.

In a sense, they were correct.

[c] Everyday RF

Let me explain. Remember that martial law was still in effect on Taiwan. The Nationalists, as I will cover in later fieldnotes, were firmly in command, and the voices of opposition were not particularly strong in 1985. The Nationalists chose to open the system; they did not have to. If this seems like ROC-praising rhetoric, you would be mistaken. It is cold-hearted calculation. Unlike Egypt, say, yesterday, the ROC authorities did not have a great deal of pressure to act. They made what seems to be—now, almost three decades later—a stunningly prescient decision that the process would revitalize an increasingly moribund polity that had become (again, under martial law) a father-son dictatorship of sorts.

I will admit that I had my doubts at the time that the elections would lead in anything like a significant direction. Those doubts are expressed in fieldnotes like this one, and I am not sure that I could possibly "read" the situation differently today if I did not know what would happen. I found the paternalistic tone (equally Confucian and New Testament) cloying, and it was one of the times that we all experience during fieldwork when we have very little compassion for the subject...or even much desire to understand its point of view.

[d] Path RF

I wish that I had more time to consider this idea here, but will have to save it for another day. Suffice to say that anthropologists from Colin Turnbull to Paul Riesman (and almost all others in-between and on either temporal "side" of them) have loathed things about the people they studied. Honest ones, like Turnbull and Riesman, wrote about it. This was one of those things for me. To this day, even though things have "turned out" in a generally positive way—with many of the sunny statements about democracy and even "tolerance amidst barbs" coming more or less to pass—I wince with annoyance at what I still regard as paternalistic Guomindang (Nationalist Party) language. I dislike it, and it shows in this note.

That's (partly) what fieldnotes are for. I am not any more sure than Bronislaw Malinowski that fieldnotes are the place for venting, and I have always tried (as here) to keep fieldnotes as little texts from which I could "work" when the time came. The level of emotion to be shown in fieldnotes is, however, another issue for another time. This one does not tip the scales very far toward invective; it does reflect an annoyance with the party line, though.

Notes

[1] I have lost all of the newspaper clippings from which these quotations were drawn. Of course, they could be found again—if the situation were important enough—by checking through back issue files of the Chinese newspapers. In retrospect, I regret (powerfully) not citing precisely which newspaper and date each story came from (and when I translated it, if applicable). Back in 1986, doing fieldwork on a story that seemed to be everywhere (obvious is the danger word anthropologists need to learn early-on) it just didn't seem necessary.

[e] Checking RF

Oh, how mistaken I was. If I could do it over, each newspaper article would be saved and scanned (technology for the latter was not available then, alas). Above all, though, each article would be cited fully.  Even today this is a great deal less simple than it sounds. I read things every day in the paper, and only vaguely remember where I saw it. To the extent that anthropologists use media like this (the Internet compounds matters in dramatic ways), it is a problem. Do we need citations in our fieldnotes? Assuredly. Will doing fieldnote citations slow us down or even make us lose sight of the real goal of our notes?

Probably. This isn't easy.

15 February 1986

Taipei

One  cannot help, then, but find a hint of exasperation when the world compares Taiwan’s democratic institutions with those in Western countries. In a post-election editorial, China Post editors congratulated themselves and their country on holding a free and orderly election. There is, however, a hint of perplexity in the editorial over the necessity of following “all the rules” of democratic elections.

          Two key prerequisites for full democracy, which are lacking in most 
          developing countries, stand out prominently in this year’s elections. 
          These are the ruling party’s toleration for its opposition and the 
          electorate’s rational and independent voting behavior, especially in the 
          Taipei district. During the campaigning, the nonpartisans have severely 
          attacked the ruling party’s policies and candidates in their political forums and       
          posters. Many criticisms would be considered libelous and subject to court 
          action even in the most democratic countries. Nevertheless, the ruling party 
          endured humiliating attacks and calmly continued its task in accordance 
          with democratic procedures.

The frustration with the process is palpable here, and that is what has stood out for me as the electioneering gave way to elections, election results, and, by now, a fledgling legislative process. At times, and particularly in these phrases, the power of restraint seems to be almost too much to bear, and it is hard not to read a paternalistic message into it.

[f] Palpable RF

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