An Auto-ethnographic Journey: Discovering and ...

An Auto-ethnographic Journey: Discovering and Deconstructing the Paradox of Selfdecolonisation

Jason Fan University of Otago

A thesis submitted for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) (Education) At the University of Otago, Dunedin New Zealand

February 2017

An Auto-ethnographic Journey

ii

Abstract The presence of the United States or the so called ‘West’ in the Taiwanese subjectivity is often unnoticed under the influence of the cold war structure, in which the discourses regarding the ‘West’ become neutral.

This project explores the subjectivity of a

Taiwanese international student in New Zealand who discovered that the decision to pursue education in the ‘West’ was likely to be a structural consequence.

In this case,

what can self-decolonisation look like for me as a colonised subject?

I seek possible ways for decolonisation through the use of analytic auto-ethnography. Auto-ethnography not only destabilises the dominant criteria of valid sources of data, but also invites creative ways for data analysis. articulate three critical moments in my life.

I constructed three meditations that I deconstructed these meditations with

Foucauldian discourse analysis and identified discourses in relation to the ‘West’ by examining events, actions, dialogues and emotions buried in my memories.

In

conjunction with poststructuralism, I used colonial psychoanalysis to conceptualise my inner desire to reproduce the internalised discourse.

Lastly, critical syncretism enabled

me to critically reflect on my embodiment of discourses and grasp ways to resist.

Through these deconstructions, I realised that decolonisation for a critically syncretised subject starts from recognising and reconciling with the binary notion of the ‘West’. This project highlights the theoretical importance and ambivalence of reflexivity and is useful for individuals who also came to realise the existence of the fictional binary between the ‘West’ and the ‘East’, and are puzzled by the contradictions.


iii

Acknowledgements This journey has not been easy.

Apart from my own determination to become a scholar

who can change the world, people’s support was the most crucial.

I thank my parents for supporting me since the very beginning.

Despite knowing that

studying overseas was not really conceivable due to our family’s financial situation, you still had absolute faith in me that I would succeed.

Thank you, Mai Ono, my dear fiancée.

I know that you also had to deal with all kinds

of pressure, but you were still willing to provide constant support throughout the year and never complained.

Thank you, Dr Susan Sandretto, for being my supervisor. generous, enthusiastic and infinitely knowledgeable.

I thank you for being kind, Without your guidance and

support I could not have accomplished any of this. Also, thank you for being my friend and my non-profit personal psychotherapist who had to endure my rant of the day after every meeting. One simply cannot hope for a better supervisor.

I owe thanks to Scott Klenner, who managed to inspire a student who almost lost his way in second year of university. Thank you for always being willing to share with me your rich knowledge of philosophy, which was far more than a student could even obtain from an ordinary course. You were the person who planted the seed in a critical mind, and without you there would have been no epiphany, let alone this dissertation.

Thank you


iv

for being a mentor, a friend and a loyal member of the annual ranting society.

Finally, I thank my friends and teachers. Thank you, Vivienne, for leading me onto the path of postgraduate research. Thank you, Marg, for being such a caring teacher who took good care of an ignorant first year student.

Thank you, Karen, Jane, Keryn and

Ruth for guiding me through my journey in College of Education in your own specific ways.

I am a person with few friends due to my own inability to socialise and enjoy

topics that most people do, perhaps also my radical cynicism. This is precisely why I sincerely respect and appreciate every individual who nevertheless is willing to become a part of my life.

Thank you all.


v

Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements.....................................................................................iii Table of Contents......................................................................................... v Chapter One: Introduction......................................................................... 1 Providing a Context .................................................................................................. 1 Thesis Statement and Research Questions ............................................................... 6 Thesis Outline........................................................................................................... 6

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework ..................................................... 9 Neo-colonial, Not ‘Post-’colonial............................................................................11 Postcolonial Criticism and Discourse..................................................................... 15 Discourse. ....................................................................................................... 16 Subjectivity and fluidity.................................................................................. 18 The Psychoanalysis of the Colonised ..................................................................... 24 The colonised in dialectics. ............................................................................ 26 The white mask and inferiority complex........................................................ 29 Hybridity and Critical Syncretism.......................................................................... 35 The limitation of hybridity.............................................................................. 37 A syncretised self............................................................................................ 40 From a syncretised self to “other”. ................................................................. 42 Summary................................................................................................................. 43

Chapter Three: Research Methodology .................................................. 44 Connecting the Research Question and the Research Design ................................ 46 A General Understanding of Auto-ethnography..................................................... 49 The evocative versus analytic debate. ............................................................ 51 Describing Analytic Auto-ethnography Used in This Project ................................ 58 Ethical Issues in Auto-ethnography........................................................................ 60 Data Construction ................................................................................................... 62 Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................. 68 Summary................................................................................................................. 69

Chapter Four: The First Meditation ....................................................... 71 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 71 The Poststructuralist Subject and Binary ............................................................... 71 The First Meditation ............................................................................................... 73 The excitement. .............................................................................................. 74


vi

The Discourse of the West...................................................................................... 78 The power relations. ....................................................................................... 83 Summary................................................................................................................. 85

Chapter Five: The Second Meditation .................................................... 87 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 87 Desire as Social Construction................................................................................. 87 The Second Meditation........................................................................................... 88 The buried guilt. ............................................................................................. 88 Wearing the ‘Mask’ ................................................................................................ 91 Summary................................................................................................................. 98

Chapter Six: The Third Meditation ...................................................... 100 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 100 The Split of a Subject in Self-reflections.............................................................. 100 The Third Meditation............................................................................................ 102 The sudden pain............................................................................................ 103 A Paradox ............................................................................................................. 107 A reconciliation with the ‘self’......................................................................111 Self as point of reference. ..............................................................................116 Summary................................................................................................................118

Chapter Seven: An End and a Beginning ............................................. 120 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 120 Primary Research Question – Self-decolonisation ............................................... 120 Secondary Research Question – The Role of Auto-ethnography ......................... 127 Limitations............................................................................................................ 131 Future Research Directions .................................................................................. 132 Concluding Thoughts ........................................................................................... 133

References ................................................................................................ 135

Chapter One: Introduction

1

Chapter One: Introduction When completing an education studies paper in 2014 at the University of Otago, I applied the sociological theories that I learned and used them to theorise my own educational experiences.

I realised that the theories, poststructuralism in particular, opened up

limitless possibilities for me to re-interpret my own reality as an international student, and as a colonised subject.

This epiphany also motivated a series of critical self-

enquiries that eventually led to the birth of this project.

Providing a Context Under the influence of ‘globalisation’, the number of international students who study in ‘Western’ countries has been increasing. According to the report in 2014, Taiwanese international students who chose to study in English speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand constituted 73.4 percent of the people studying overseas (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2014).

The finding is

interesting, as these countries are considered as the “Inner Circle” (Inoue & Stracke, 2013, p. 31). The English language spoken by people living in the Inner Circle is frequently recognised as more authentic and superior (Graddol, 2006).

The admiration for English


2

may be one motivation for Taiwanese students to study in these countries.

The figures

and statistics, however, do not tell us what contributed to this admiration in the first place.

The motivation for studying in English speaking countries, as Chen (2010) points out, is structural.

In a more precise sense, the decision to pursue education in the ‘West’ is a

result of the cold war structure established by the United States.

In this cold war

structure, Taiwan was incorporated as a protectorate of the United States and an ally against Communist China (Chen, 2010; Damm & Lim, 2012). A neo-colonial relation was therefore formed between the United States and Taiwan, with the help of the tensions between Taiwan and China, along with the rising discourse of globalisation (Shih, 2003). It was a historical moment when “the United States [became] the inside of East Asia, and it [was] constitutive of a new East Asian subjectivity” (Chen, 2010, p. 10).

The presence of the United States in the Taiwanese subjectivity is often left unnoticed. To many, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the victory of capitalism marked the end of cold war, but not for countries such as Taiwan (Chen, 2010; Yoshimi & Buist, 2003). Taiwan was nonetheless trapped in the cold war structure, in which the exile Chinese Nationalist Party which occupied Taiwan after the Second World War, and Communist


3

China were conceived as the only actors in the Cross-Strait relations.

Such binary

overlooks the United States’ strategic position as an invisible big brother in the CrossStrait relations, leaving its cultural and political impacts unquestioned (Yoshimi & Buist, 2003). For example, the pervasive influences of the United States could already be seen in people’s belief of the ‘West’ or the United States as a symbol for progress and modernisation (Chen, 2010; Wang, 2007).

In this study, I build on Chen (2010) insights

on Taiwan’s current cultural and political situation and analyse myself as a colonised subject in order to re-conceptualise the Taiwanese subjectivity.

The theoretical framework of this project consists of three theories that are considered as part of postcolonial criticism.

This project is primarily informed by poststructuralism,

which recognises reality as a social construction, as well as the subject and his/her subjectivity (St. Pierre, 2000). The poststructuralist approach highlights the subjective nature of reality and the importance of recognising the power of discourses embedded in texts, which shape this reality. Said (1979), for instance, is known for problematising the representations of the colonised with a poststructuralist lens.

Concepts in

poststructuralism such as subject, power and agency that require an in-depth discussion will be unpacked in greater detail in Chapter Two.

Psychoanalysis investigates a


4

subject’s emotions, actions and self-perception.

Accordingly, I also draw on Fanon’s

(1952/1967) psychoanalysis and dialectics in order to engage with the subject’s psyche after internalising various discourses.

Lastly, I re-situate Chen’s (2010) concept of

critical syncretism and inter-referencing, and I will unpack how these concepts are critical for locating new possibilities for self-decolonisation.

In conjunction with the poststructuralist framework, this project positions itself as an auto-ethnography that explores the subjectivity of a colonised subject 1 . ethnographic narratives in this project are my meditations.

The auto-

I see the potential of auto-

ethnography for providing a personal account of the subject’s introspection (Ellis & Bochner, 2006; Wall, 2006).

Auto-ethnography welcomes unconventional, creative

ways of gathering and analysing data (Spry, 2001; Wall, 2008).

I believe that these

attributes make auto-ethnography an ideal research methodology that could discover/construct rich data for further analysis.

I utilise Foucauldian discourse analysis to analyse my auto-ethnography (Carabine, 2001). Discourse analysis is a widely-adopted approach in qualitative research for examining

1

The methodology and the on-going controversy around the approach will be elaborated in detail in Chapter Three.


5

and contesting norms and discourses that discursively construct the ever-shifting reality (Carabine, 2001).

Auto-ethnographies also highlight that individuals experience reality

in vastly different ways depending on their embodiment of cultural and social contexts (Ellis, Adams, & Buchner, 2011). The use of discourse analysis, which engages with discursive practices that mediate certain values and beliefs, enables me deconstruct my own stories and engage with the discourses discovered in my introspection. Through these deconstructive readings, I explore how a colonised subject in Taiwan was implicated by various discursive practices and how the subject later on reflects on his own inscription to discourses.

It is worth noting that the literature review section of this project will be woven into the deconstruction of my stories, where I expand the scope of review and focus on specific aspects of the studies that are available for making connections with my own project. This is due to the difficulties I encountered when looking for studies and literature that go beyond the theoretical discussion of certain concepts.

In this way, the literature is

contextualised into the discussion of the relevant meditation, rather than removed to a separate chapter.

This issue will be highlighted again in Chapter Four, where I present

my first auto-ethnography and its deconstruction.


6

Thesis Statement and Research Questions I have so far unpacked the context of research and briefly addressed the methodology and the theoretical framework that underpin this project. however, essential for guiding this project.

A main research question is,

In this project, I ask the primary question:

What can self-decolonisation of a Taiwanese international student in New Zealand look like?

The secondary research question is: In what ways, does auto-ethnography

contribute to the process of self-decolonisation?

In the next section, I lay out the

structure of the thesis.

Thesis Outline This project consists of seven chapters.

In this Chapter One I introduce the theme and

structure of this project, which includes the research background, main research question and an outline of thesis.

I elaborate my theoretical framework in the next chapter: Chapter Two.

I discuss how

postcolonial criticism and Foucauldian discourse underpin the major part of analysis in this project (Foucault, 1972; Said, 1979; Scott, 1988).

I also discuss why I use

postcolonial criticism to refer to the theories that I draw on, instead of post-colonialism.


7

Fanon’s (1952/1967, 1961/2004) psychoanalysis of the colonised and the concept of critical syncretism (Chen, 2010), which I also draw on for data analysis, will be introduced.

In Chapter Three, I introduce the methodology adopted for this project: Autoethnography.

In this chapter I provide a general introduction of auto-ethnography and

address existing tensions between different branches of auto-ethnography.

I also explain

how discourse analysis is especially useful in discovering the discourses embedded in the memories that I recall through my meditations.

Chapter Four contains the first meditation and deconstruction.

In this chapter, I recall

the memory of being kindergarten kid in Taiwan who had his first direct contact with the ‘West’.

This meditation re-visits the specific moment that reveals how a colonised

subject was formed.

I identify the discourse that shaped my consciousness as a

colonised subject from my earliest memories using discourse analysis.

In Chapter Five I explore the colonised subject’s psyche through my second meditation. This meditation is a journey back to my experiences of being a high school international


student in New Zealand.

8

Through the deconstructed meditation, I articulate how desire

acted as a part of the self-reproductive mechanism of discourse.

Chapter Six is the last meditation.

I recall the scenario where the most recent

educational experience pointed to a paradoxical subject position.

In this critical moment,

the subject realised the existence of oppression and began a series of reflections. However, the subject was also confused by the fact that these reflections were enabled by the ‘Western’ knowledge conveyed in a ‘Western’ international higher education institution. I therefore provide possible strategies to confront the predicament.

Chapter Seven is the conclusion of the project.

In this chapter I summarise the main

findings of the auto-ethnography in an order that responds to my primary and secondary research questions.

I then point out the limitations of this project, and based on this

acknowledgement discuss possible future research directions.

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework

9

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework The theories I draw on include that of Edward Said, Frantz Fanon and Kuan-Hsing Chen. Said (1979), with his in-depth and discussion on discourses, makes it possible to deconstruct the discursive practices and imperialist languages that were used to justify colonialism.

Said (1979) applies the technique of discourse analysis in Orientalism,

which is a tool for analysis that also underpins this project.

While learning from Said’s

(1979) way of utilising discourse analysis for deconstruction and resistance, this thesis would not aim to reveal how the ‘West’ represents my home country, Taiwan, despite the fact that Said’s (1979) study revolves around the theme of representation.

Instead, I

reveal the ways in which colonial discourses contributed to the formation of my subjectivity in the same way Said (1979, 1985) revealed the ways in which knowledge produced by the West brought the Orient into being.

By analysing my consciousness in

different stages of my educational journey and revealing the interactions among individuals and between discourses, I deconstruct the dominant discourses that constitute the reality where the West is culturally superior.

The second theory is Fanon’s (1952/1967) psychoanalysis of the colonised.

A

psychoanalytic stance probes the process of how a colonised subject is formed, reified


10

and reproduced. The analysis of the psyche of the oppressed will be vital for explaining the formation and shifts of my subjectivity.

Lastly, Chen’s (2010) Asia as Method is instructive in discovering new possibilities for decolonisation and revealing the contradictions.

Chen (2010) proposes the concept of

critical syncretism, which is an alternative strategy for rethinking the complexities of the colonised subjectivity.

Critical syncretism problematises the dichotomy between the

oppressed/oppressor and the West/East and sets up an anchoring point for decolonisation.

The three theories will be applied in the deconstructions of my meditations. Poststructuralism will be used to identify discourses.

Psychoanalysis conceptualises

how the subject internalises the discourse and enacts the colonised subject position with certain desire.

And critical syncretism enables the subject to critically reflect on his

embodiment of discourses and conceptualise ways to resist.

This chapter introduces the theoretical framework that underpins this project: Postcolonial criticism. To provide a clear overview, I discuss the general features of postcolonial criticism, including its dispositions and its relation to colonialism.

I do this


11

by introducing the thoughts of various postcolonial theorists on different subject matters that constituted the discipline of postcolonial criticism.

However, before the

introduction I explain why I use the term postcolonial criticism, instead of “postcolonialism”.

I intend to avoid common misunderstandings of postcolonial criticism by

clarifying the ramifications of using the prefix “post-” (Childs & Williams, 1997; Mishra & Hodge, 1991; McClintock, 1992), which may jeopardise the goal of rejecting a linear logic of time and historical development, instead of alleviating the constraints. ‘Post-’colonialism implies that colonialism has already come to an end (Childs & Williams, 1997; Dirlik, 1994).

However, it is vital to recognise that the world is neo-

colonial rather than ‘post-’colonial (Huggan, 1997; McClintock, 1992).

Colonialism

simply continued in a different form.

Neo-colonial, Not ‘Post-’colonial In this project, I consistently use the term “postcolonial criticism” to refer to the theoretical framework that is widely known as post-colonialism or postcolonialism (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 2013).

I embark on questions such as what post-colonial

is (Childs & Williams, 1997; Mishra & Hodge, 1991) and when and where post-colonial actually began/ended (Dirlik, 1994).

I also synthesise the findings in relation to these


12

questions and shed light on the potential restrictions that may arise with using the term post-colonialism.

‘Post-'colonial is often deemed to be the period after colonialism (Mishra & Hodge, 1991). Some believe that the declaration of political independence of former colonies signalled the end of colonialism (McClintock, 1992).

This view is contested by Chen (2010) with

the statement that “many colonies have won independence only to become sub colonies, falling prey to their former colonizers once again because of their economic, cultural and political dependency on the new imperial (former colonial) power” (p. 18).

One could

not assert that the former colonies of the British or French empire have entered the ‘post-’colonial era either due to the persistent economic and political dependence on the empires that still haunt the ‘previously’ colonised (Tikly, 2004).

Childs and Williams

(1997) also problematise the simplistic way of looking at the end of colonialism and its legacies by asking “after whose colonialism? after the end of which colonial empire?” (p. 1). By generalising from the sovereign independence of a few areas, we risk ignoring the fact that colonisation and newly rising imperialist ideologies have been taking place in other parts of the world and continue to exert influences politically, culturally and economically (Chen, 2010; Wang, 2007).


13

Another fundamental issue that needs attention is whether or not colonialism ever actually did come to an end.

Stuart Hall (cited in Drew, 1998) expressed similar concerns:

So, postcolonial is not the end of colonialism.

It is after a certain kind of

colonialism, after a certain moment of high imperialism and colonial occupation? in the wake of it, in the shadow of it, inflected by it? it is what it is because something else has happened before, but it is also something new. (Drew, 1998, p. 189)

Consequently, we could argue that neo-colonialism, as a continuation of colonialism, is operating under the disguise of the discourse of globalisation, which replaced and naturalised the identical colonialist desire to extend control through political, cultural and economic dominance (Chen, 2010).

Arguing from the globalising nature of colonial

systems, Ania Loomba (cited in Cohen, 2008) indicates that “by calling only some parts of the world postcolonial, we obscure the fact that colonialism was a global system” (p.122). My reading of Loomba’s statement is that colonialism and colonial effects did not exclusively target, and impact European colonies.

It would be dangerous to

announce the end of colonialism, as a state of exploitative consciousness, based on the


14

situation of a few areas and overlook the possibility that colonisation, in different forms (Drew, 1998), is still present (Chen, 2010; Wang, 2007).

Huggan (1997) thus reminds us that “we live in neo-colonial, not postcolonial time” (p.19).

The insistence on using the prefix ‘post-’ with a hyphen as in ‘post-’colonialism

without careful consideration could lead to the negligence of the omnipresent colonial influences, especially when instruments of colonisation, such as cultural imperialism, still shape our lives today (Cohen, 2008; Huggan, 1997).

Linguistic imperialism, for

example, is one way among many through which the ‘Western’ countries, such as the United States, perpetuate the collective consciousness which recognises the culturally superior, English speaking culture (Phillipson, 2008).

English, as a language and an

ideology, is deeply involved in the neo-colonial agenda, as will be evidenced in my study. As a ‘global’ language, English acts as a tool that facilitates the cultural and economic prosperity of the Inner Circle English speaking countries, while undermining the value of other languages and cultures (Graddol, 2006; Inoue & Stracke, 2013; Phillipson, 1996). Furthermore, this study discovers that the ideology and discourse around English also shaped my subjectivity who later on unconditionally embraced the constructed superiority of the ‘West’.


15

Based on the factors mentioned so far, it is critical to view the postcolonial lens as a way to challenge and interrogate the colonial and imperialist effects, not only in the past, but also in the present and future.

I deliberately use the name postcolonial criticism as I am

aware that colonialism is present, however, under a different guise.

Using the term

postcolonial criticism is intended to highlight the fact that the pre-fix “post” itself is being brought under critique.

I illustrate my understanding of the word as “questioning” and

being sceptical towards colonialism by avoiding the prefix ‘post-’ (Mishra & Hodge, 1991). This way of viewing the definition of “post” is similar to how Andreotti (2009) describes postmodernism as “questioning modernity” (p. 8).

I thus highlight the critical

importance of questioning with the term postcolonial criticism.

Postcolonial Criticism and Discourse Central to postcolonial criticism is the deconstruction of discourses, which is also one of the strategies for analysis in this project.

Postcolonial criticism is an umbrella term that

encompasses a wide range of research that seeks to resist the coercive influences of colonialism (Ashcroft et al., 2013).

The radical scepticism directed towards

neo/colonialism guides this project to seek possible ways for resistance.

According to

Prasad (2003), postcolonial criticism is “a radical critique of colonialism/imperialism and


16

neocolonialism” (p. 7), which means, that the intention to interrogate, deconstruct and subvert the colonial discourses in the past and present energises this field of research (Bhambra, 2011; Bhambra & Holmwood, 2011).

Discourse.

In this section, I do not attempt to assign a definition to what

Foucauldian discourse essentially is, but rather to capture how it operates in a system of power (St. Pierre, 2000).

According to Davies (1997), when utilising poststructuralist

theories to give discourse a single, essentialist meaning is self-contradictory.

Foucault

(1972) describes the construction of knowledge, truth and reality as “a mere intersection of things and words...but as practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak” (p. 48).

In other words, individuals bring the objects which bear the meanings

they assign into existence through discursive practices in various overlapped discursive fields such as education institutions (Scott, 1988). One can also think of discourses as statements (Scott, 1988) that are constructed and constantly shaped by specific social, cultural and political contexts which also “carry with them norms for behaviour, standards of what counts as desirable or undesirable” (Alsop, Fitzsimons, & Lennon, 2002, p. 82). Discourses mediate and express values and beliefs, and indicate what is allowed to be said and what is not through discursive practices (Bové, 1990; Barrett, 1991). Hence,


17

analysing these discourses could also help us understand how a societal structure organises power, regulates norms and creates subjects (Bové, 1990).

With a

poststructuralist approach, discourses can be deconstructed and recognised as socially constructed through discursive interactions (Gavey, 1989).

From a poststructuralist point of view, the world and the multi-layered realities within it are discursive constructions (St. Pierre, 2000). Discourses perpetuate certain values and beliefs as more desirable and ‘normal’ (St. Pierre, 2000).

Discourses are not only

imposed onto individuals in the form of social norms, but are actively assumed as common knowledge and natural ways of thinking and doing (Foucault, 1972).

The

prominent discourses in a particular context then become dominant discourses which construct desired form of social reality and reify existing power relations (Willig, 2008).

Furthermore, truth claims, or the “game of truth” derive from discourses which operate and are accepted as social norms (St. Pierre, 2000; Scott, 1988). The representation of the Orient/Occident mentioned in Orientalism illustrates the role of colonial discourses in producing norms, which articulate the ‘true’ representations of the binary, Oriental ‘other’ (Said, 1979).

In the case of Orientalism, discursive practices such as academic


18

writing reinforced colonial discourses as truths and by doing this facilitated the transition of the Oriental image from mere imaginations of particular spaces, people and cultures to ‘objective’ knowledge and truths that represent the ‘East’ (Hamdi, 2013; Said, 1979).

According to Said (1979), the Occident/West discursively created the image of the Orient as primitive, pre-modern and mysterious. The discursive practices that constructed the mysterious Orient were enacted upon false cultural imaginaries which were reproduced and perpetuated in a variety of literary texts (Said, 1979). The Oriental ‘other’ were also depicted as essentially different from the Occident and in need of liberation. Based on this ‘knowledge’, the purposefully constructed images and statements about the Orient as culturally inferior and socially primitive legitimised the acts of invasion and colonisation (Pannian, 2016; Said, 1979). The discourses that brought the Orient into existence are powerful as they are presented as ‘truths’ that arbitrarily represented a singular reality of the world.

Subjectivity and fluidity.

Discourses, while constructing ‘truths’ and realities,

create and position subjects (Hollway, 1984; St. Pierre, 2000).

The poststructuralist

concept of subject, however, is different from the enlightened, rational individual as


19

conventionally understood (Butler, 1995; O’Loughlin, 1997; St. Pierre, 2000; Suzuki, 1999; Weedon, 1987).

The Enlightenment subject, born with the Age of Enlightenment

or the Age of Reason, pictures an individual who is autonomous, rational and fully conscious (Weedon, 2004).

On the contrary, the subject in poststructuralism suggests a

historicised, contextualised being where the subjectivity is immersed in available discourses in a particular context (Ali, 2007; Davies, 1997; Kelly, 2013; O’Loughlin, 1997).

This being is inevitably subject to irrational forces and constraints.

As a

product of power, subjectivity contains “the conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual, her sense of herself and her ways of understanding her relation to the world” (Weedon, 1987, p. 32).

In this project, I explore the ways in which

discourses contributed to the formation and constant modification of my subjectivity as a Taiwanese international student.

I attempt to grasp the inscription of discourses by

reflexively engaging with my own experiences as a subject.

The Oriental subject, similar to my situation, is depicted by Said (1979) where the “colonized subject was and continued to be produced by cultural practices, historical documents, institutions, archives and literary texts” (p. 3). The colonised subject who is always under the influences of various proximal discourses has to continuously


20

negotiate and navigate him/herself between different subject positions offered by these very discourses.

Discourses and subjectivity are products within a system of power (Rozmarin, 2005). is true that the subject may seem rather passive as merely an effect of power. described by Foucault (1976/1978), operates like a spider web.

It

Power, as

“Can a spider weave its

way out of the web that it is being woven into, just as it weaves?” (Lin, 2015, p. xiii). The question asked by Lin (2015), although it may not be directly related to Foucauldian concepts, beautifully illustrates my current perception of the ambivalent nature of agency, subjectivity and discourse in Foucault’s theory of power.

This question is also an

important question that I will constantly ask myself, especially throughout the process of data construction and analysis.

Theoretically, discourse, power, and subjectivity are nonetheless fluid and unstable (Foucault, 1972).

Agency of the subjects is innate in the discourses and the subject

positions these discourses offer (St. Pierre, 2000).

Since “power is everywhere”, the

agency to mobilise discourses for resistance is always possible (Foucault, 1976/1978, p. 93).

Discourses, even the dominant discourses, are fluid and allow spaces for


21

improvisation and modification, and power relations are not static.

Power, at the same

time, seamlessly flows through different domains and subjects, which are reciprocally, constantly shaping/shaped by discourses (Butler, 1995).

Subjects are thus agentic

(Ashcroft et al., 2013; Barrett, 1991; St. Pierre, 2000) in moving between multiple subject positions and manipulating available discourses within the position.

Foucault

(1976/1978) contends that “where there is power, there is resistance” (p. 95). While shifting between subject positions, subjects also actively adopt different discourses and reproduce them through discursive practices (St. Pierre, 2000; Pannian, 2016).

To further discuss the constrained yet agentic subject, I use the journey of third world scholars as an example.

Dirlik (1994), in his famous piece, “The Postcolonial Aura:

Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism”, sarcastically stated that ‘postcolonial’ begins “when Third World intellectuals have arrived in First World academe” (p. 329).

I believe, however, this statement can in turn be an example depicting the

agentic, transformative actions of those scholars who travelled from the third world and constantly shaped their subjectivities with both the discourses of the third world and the first world.

I interpret Dirlik’s (1994) statement in a slightly different way, where I

consider the post- as in questioning, interrogating and resisting (Andreotti, 2009).


22

With this alternative reading, I argue that the post- (questioning) colonial did begin when third world intellectuals arrived in the academe in the West, as the complicated position also allow these scholar to reflect on the limitations and contradictions of postcolonial criticism, as well as their own subjectivity.

Chen (1996) indicates that the third world scholars’ position “within the American/British academies has by and large produced progressive effects, up until their coming together under the banner of the postcolonial crew” (p. 51).

The unique and ambivalent position,

allowed the third world scholars to look at the world not only based on their existing funds of knowledge from the third world, but also through the “imperialist eye” (Chen, 1996, p. 51).

In other words, the third world scholars who reside in the ‘West’ are more able to

manipulate the imbalanced power relations perpetuated by the first world academe in the first place.

The subject position that faces much ambivalence has also enabled these

scholars to mobilise the available resources and discourses by strategically occupying the dominant position in the knowledge production of social sciences (Takayama, 2014). The banner of the postcolonial crew is indeed problematic itself, but nevertheless is also a sign that the third world scholars shifted the problematisation of colonialism from a theory of the periphery and the marginalised into a popular area of study in both the third


world and the first world (Kennedy, 1996).

23

The postcolonial crew, from my perspective,

continue to destabilise the coercive structure from within the system despite being in a contradictory position.

Critical reflexivity and self-deconstruction (see Davies, Browne, Gannon, Honan, Laws, Mueller-Rockstroh, & Petersen, 2004) are crucial in order to constantly grapple and negotiate with the contradictions within such subjectivity while remembering one’s own purpose of utilising particular discourses or taking up certain subject positions. Takayama (2014), for example, demonstrates a highly reflexive consciousness as an ‘Asian’ scholar based at Australia. Takayama (2014) is well aware of the consequences of talking about ‘Asia’ as an ‘Asian’ researcher when he stresses the importance of “rejecting the notion of knowledge production – including this very article itself – as ‘disembodied’ and ‘transcendent’’’ (p. 4). Also, the strategic use of the ‘Asian’ subject position when writing about ‘Asia’ from a place such as Australia, that is “complicit with the perpetuation of this ‘West and the Rest’ discourse…” (Takayama, 2014, p. 5), attempts to interrupt the binary conception of East and West by actively and reflexively speaking as an ‘Asian’.

From my perspective, Takayama’s (2014) critical self-reflection justifies

the use of his problematic subjectivity, which paradoxically provides agency to enunciate


24

and contest the very discourses that offered the subject position of an ‘Asian’ scholar.

As for myself as a researcher who came from the ‘Asia’ region, I share the feelings of taking up this contradictory subject position due to the fact that I gained knowledge and access to literature of postcolonial criticism from an English dominant higher education system.

I wish to deconstruct this very paradox of a subject position occupied by an

international student and the factors involved in the constitution of the position, and through these reflections, identify im/possibilities of weaving out of the web which I am being woven into simultaneously.

The Psychoanalysis of the Colonised Discourse and interrelated ideas such as agency, subject positions and subjectivity, as I mentioned, constitute the major part of the theoretical framework of this project.

The

poststructuralist lens provides a general picture of how discourses and power construct a subject and its subjectivity.

However, if accompanied by the insights in Fanon’s

(1952/1967) psychoanalysis of the colonised, the analysis of the subject in this project could go beyond the identification of discourses; into the colonised psyche and the related psychological phenomenon.

Fanon (1952/1967), as a psychiatrist and anti-colonial


25

philosopher, provides a substantial critical analysis of the colonised mind.

I am

particularly interested in his examination of the desire of the colonised to become and replace the coloniser and how this desire dominates the colonised individuals’ actions, of which the ultimate goal is to be recognised by the coloniser and hence gain ‘freedom’ (Fanon, 1952/1967; López, 2013). By using a psychoanalytical approach to analyse the internalised desire and the imposed inferiority complex of the colonised (Fanon, 1952/1967, 1961/2004), I focus not only on the discursive subjectivity, but also how the subjectivity is mediated through psychological phenomenon.

The psychoanalytical

approach of colonial effects could also help me analyse how the colonised ‘actively’ reproduces the oppressed consciousness with the belief that he/she, by doing this, is seeking liberation.

The active reproduction of the colonial psyche is out of a particular

kind of desire that exists in a colonial structure (Fanon, 1952/1967).

In the following paragraphs, I first point out the theoretical importance of Hegelian master/slave dialectic, since Fanon’s (1952/1967) psychoanalysis draws on the dialectical model. The use of dialectics can be traced back to the Hegelian master/slave dialectic descried in the Phenomenology of Spirit (Hegel, 1807/1977).

However, the use of

dialectics in this project refers to Fanon’s (1952/1967) adaption of the dialectical model


26

and how he conceptualises the status and agency of the colonised in a slightly different way (Gibson, 1999; Hegel, 1807/1977; López, 2013; Rollins, 2007; Villet, 2011). Then I introduce the psychoanalytical concept of the inferiority complex, which is vital for the coloniser and the colonised to maintain the dialectic relationship by reinforcing the subordinate position of the colonised (Fanon, 1952/1967; Mannoni, 1950/1990).

The colonised in dialectics.

Fanon’s (1952/1967) psychoanalysis resonates with

the poststructuralist approach to colonised images and discursive subjectivity, which Said (1979) adopts for the analysis of the colonised subject.

However, Fanon’s analysis puts

a sharper emphasis on the exploration of the psychological complexes and desires involved. This critical analysis of the colonised mind is instructive for explaining some of my own desires to become a part of the hegemonic, colonial culture through my pursuit of ‘international higher education’.

In order for imperialism and colonialism to flourish, according to Said (1993), the support of cultural discourses is necessary. Chen (2010) also asserts that “colonialism is enabled by the mechanism of identification with the coloniser…” (p. 85).

The empire/colony,

coloniser/colonised relationship is a reciprocal process that requires the colonised to


27

collectively internalise and enact upon the historical perspective of the coloniser and the inferior images of the self (Chen, 2010).

In short, when the colonised adopt and

naturalise the discourses that render them as ‘other’, whose culture is inferior and barbaric, the essentialist dichotomy that drives the engine of colonialism and imperialism brings itself into reality (Chen, 2010; Said, 1993).

Under this colonial structure, the colonised

form the essential counterpart of the coloniser in the dialectical relationship that they are thrown into (Said, 1993).

To the inferior colonised, the coloniser becomes the

modernised, civilised and essentially superior ‘other’ (Said, 1979).

These conditions can be explained by the master/slave dialectic, which indicates that the notion of self is only possible when the self is recognised by an existing other (Hegel, 1807/1977). For the slave to be a slave, he/she needs to identify the other as a master, while being identified by that other as a slave (Hegel, 1807/1977; Villet, 2011). Vice versa, the master is aware of him/herself as a master only when the slave, who recognises the master as master, exists.

“Each subject objectifies the Other, i.e., each subject

produces an object” (Liberman, 1999, p. 272).

In the dialectical relationship, the master

(subject) creates a ‘thing’, a slave (object) through which he/she can secure the selfconsciousness (Liberman, 1999).

Different from the master, the slave “does to himself


the same thing that the master does to the slave” (Villet, 2011, p. 41).

28

The slave

reinforces the objectification and reduces himself into an object, an enslaved thing.

The

slave internalises the objectification as a slave in order to survive and denies the possibility of locating his/her own value and self-consciousness when in fact, the slave can obtain subjectivity (Villet, 2011).

The dialectical relationship is mutually constituted, which means the master also depends on, and desires the existence of the slave and his recognition (Singer, 2001).

The

subjectivity of the slave, from my perspective, therefore partially lies in the ironic dependency of the master. However, in the Hegelian sense, in order for the slave to become a subject, he must also see the master as an object (Hegel, 1807/1977).

It is

when the slave objectifies the existing, dialectical other, that the slave may become a subject who is self-conscious (Liberman, 1999; Singer, 2001).

Similarly, Fanon (1952/1967) in his Black Skin, White Masks, utilises dialectical logic to explain the relationship between the coloniser and the colonised. Fanon (1952/1967) theorises that the ‘superior’ coloniser needs the dialectical other, the colonised, to recognise his ‘superiority’.

On the contrary, the colonised needs to adopt the


29

subordinate status and complete the dialectic in order to survive. The colonised who is objectified by the coloniser has a “constant effort to run away from his own individuality, to annihilate his own presence” (Fanon, 1952/1967, p. 60).

In Fanon’s (1952/1967)

terms, the man of colour wants to run away from blackness and wants to be free by becoming white (López, 2013).

In contrast, the enslaved, colonised individual that Fanon (1952/1967) describes differs from the slave described by Hegel (1807/1977) who can become a subject by simply objectifying the other.

The Fanonian slave who suffers from the nonexistence of self, is

only an object created by the coloniser (Fanon, 1952/1967). Unlike the Hegelian master, the Fanonian master does not want the recognition of the slave (Fanon, 1952/1967). Rather, the master “laughs at the consciousness of the slave” and demands work (Fanon, 1952/1967, p. 220). The only agency left for the colonised then, is to act, speak and think like the coloniser.

Instead of objectifying and thus deconstructing the coloniser,

the colonised “wants to be like the master” and replace him (Fanon, 1952/1967, p. 221).

The white mask and inferiority complex.

Fanon (1952/1967) confesses his own

inner struggle by describing that “out of the blackest part of my soul…surges this desire


30

to be suddenly white. I wish to be acknowledged not as black but as white” (p. 63). This self-reflexive description reveals the colonised psyche, where to be free is equivalent to being white; and the black man can only enact his subjectivity and experience freedom when he puts on a white mask.

The desire to be like the master is also a sign that the

colonised psyche is always “on the edge of collapse” (Chen, 2010, p. 79), because the colonised seeks liberation through the recognition of the coloniser, which he will never attain.

The psychological disequilibrium is underpinned by the inferiority complex of which both Fanon (1952/1967) and Mannoni (1950/1990) speak.

I am aware that Mannoni

(1950/1990) also mentioned the issue of dependency complex in Prospero and Caliban, however, in this project I put emphasis on the inferiority complex.

In addition, the

constant feeling of being inferior is perhaps a more pertinent factor that contributes to the colonised individual’s ‘voluntary’ act of reproducing and naturalising the colonised consciousness, as it is evident that in the Fanonian dialectic of the master and the slave, the notion of interdependency does not apply (1952/1967). In Adlerian psychoanalysis (Adler, 1929; Lane, 2002), inferiority complex is a particular psychic condition that refers to an individual’s feeling of being incomplete, imperfect and


worthless.

31

Mannoni’s (1950/1990) contribution here lies in his adaptation of the

concept of inferiority complex for the psychology in the colonial context (Chassler, 2007; Fanon, 1952/1967). The criticism that Mannoni (1950/1990) received derives from his depiction of the inferiority complex as something inherent to the colonised culture. For instance, in the third chapter of Prospero and Caliban, “The Cult of the Dead”, Mannoni (1950/1990) discusses how the independent, modernised European individual tends to rely on his/her own physical or intellectual abilities when encountering obstacles, while the uncivilised Malagasies cannot.

It is reasoned that this inability, or in other words,

inferiority of the Malagasy is innate in their cultural customs or traditions, such as ancestor-worship, which Mannoni (1950/1990) calls the “cult of the dead” (p. 49, emphasis added).

Mannoni (1950/1990) theorises the inferiority complex of the

Malagasy as a natural cultural consequence by problematising the Malagasy’s belief that the ancestors are “the guardian spirit[s] of the family” (p. 50).

Consequently, it is

assumed that the inferiority complex and dependency of the Malagasies did not come with the French coloniser, but is something that existed in the connection between the Malagasies and their “earthly fathers who have died” (p. 51).

Mannoni (1950/1990)

sees the sense of inferiority of the Malagasy in relation to an-other as merely shifting from the ancestors to the coloniser.


32

Fanon (1952/1967), while recognising the contribution of Mannoni, challenges the notion that an inferiority complex exists before the encounter with the coloniser and is a result of the colonised culture itself (Lane, 2002).

He therefore critiques Mannoni’s

(1950/1990) essentialist view of innate cultural inferiority.

Fanon (1952/1967) contends,

and I agree, that the inferiority complex is socially constructed by the coloniser within the dialectical relationship with the colonised (Chen, 2010).

Fanon (1952/1967)

indicates that in the colonised psyche “an inferiority complex has been created by the death and burial of its local cultural originality” (p. 18).

In other words, it is the colonial

structure and oppressive ideologies, which force the colonised into a coloniser/colonised relationship that constructed the inferiority complex.

This imposed complex would lead

to a necessary confrontation with the “language of the civilizing nation…the culture of the mother country” (p. 18).

The colonised is then thrown into the coloniser world,

speaking their language and experience the world from their perspective.

This confrontation and assimilation into the coloniser’s culture can be considered as a way for the colonised to compensate the feeling of inferiority (Fanon, 1952/1967). According to Adler (1929), there are different ways to respond to an inferiority complex. For Mannoni (1950/1990), both the coloniser and the colonised suffer from some extent


of inferiority.

33

However, some, like the coloniser, may try to compensate the feeling of

inferiority by making others, the colonised, seem more vulnerable.

By exposing the

inferiority complex of the colonised, the coloniser could alleviate the feeling of their own inferiority.

On the contrary, the colonised’s way of compensating the inferiority

complex, as described by Mannoni (1950/1990), is to remain submissive.

In this case,

the act of compensation paradoxically becomes the evidence that one is not inferior on the terms of the colonising culture.

As discussed before, the situation of the Hegelian slave is more optimistic than the Fanonian slave when it comes to the concern of agency (Gibson, 1999; López, 2013; Rollins, 2007; Villet, 2011). Therefore, the either/or compensation, which is the choice to strike back or give up hope, does not apply to the colonised described by Fanon (1952/1967). The black man’s only method of compensating the inferiority complex is to fulfil the desire to be recognised by the coloniser.

This double bind inferiority

complex is especially powerful as it mediates an essentialist message in relation to white superiority, which trespasses the boundaries of common sense (Fanon, 1961/2004). Whiteness, to the colonised, is a cause and an effect in itself (Fanon, 1961/2004), where “one is white as one is rich, as one is beautiful, as one is intelligent” (Fanon, 1952/1967,


34

p. 51). The coloniser is seen as a unified entity who has nothing but all the goodness embedded in his nature.

Thus, enslaved by the imposed inferiority, the colonised sees

the powerful image of the coloniser as self-evident, static and hence naturalised.

The

colonised therefore constantly reinforces the unconscious urge to remain in the subordinate position as an envious man who attempts to become the coloniser (Fanon, 1952/1967, 1961/2004).

The Fanonian understanding of the dialectical relationship between the master and the slave, the white and the black, and the coloniser and the colonised, could provide a closer examination of the oppressed mind and related psychological phenomenon.

However,

this simplistic dichotomy between the self and the other, except when being used as a strategic theoretical tool, cannot take this project to the next step, which is the decolonisation of the mind, a synthesis of the master and the slave’s psyche.

The dichotomy of the coloniser and the colonised not only fails to recognise the agency of the colonised, but also significantly reduces the complex relationship between the coloniser and the colonised to simply the coercion of the oppressor and the eternal submissiveness of the oppressed.

In order to probe the psyche of the colonised, I have


35

mentioned several insights of Fanon (1961/2004), which may have important implications in the analysis of data. At the same time, in order for the project to move on to self-decolonisation, I shall return to the poststructuralist lens of subject and agency.

Hybridity and Critical Syncretism Hybridity2 has been constantly mentioned in postcolonial studies as an emancipatory condition of the colonised (Ashcroft et al., 2013; Drichel, 2008; Gershenson, 2003) since Bhabha (1994) introduced the concept in his well-known work, The Location of Culture. The term’s use in biology and scientific discourse, along with its implication that hybridised creatures are inevitably sterile, give the term negative connotations (Easthope, 1998; Kraidy, 2002; Mizutani, 2013; Stewart, 2011).

Before the term became an

emancipatory concept, hybridity, as a part of the colonial discourse also contributed to the construction of racial superiority (Kraidy, 2002), as Knox (1850) described that the term hybridity as “a degradation of humanity and . . . was rejected by nature” (p. 497, quoted in Young, 1995, p. 15). A hybridised individual, in other words, is originally unwanted and impure.

On the contrary, Bhabha’s (1994) use of cultural hybridity, as

Here I agree with Amartya Sen (2010) that summarising ideas of great thinkers such as John Rawls’, or in this project, Homi Bhabha, is “ultimately an act of barbarism” (p. 53). With no doubt, the complexity of the concept of hybridity cannot be fully understood just with this succinct summary of mine. However, the length of this project does not permit space for further elaboration, in which I can only express my awareness of this restriction. 2


36

described by Meredith (1999), reveals the “emancipative potential of negative terms” (p. 13).

As a theoretical metaphor, hybridisation is conceptualised as a weapon for anti-

colonial resistance which interrupts the coloniser/colonised binarism (Ward, 2015). A hybridised individual exists in the third space, which is the in-between of the cultures of both the coloniser and the colonised (Meredith, 1999; Nandy, 1983).

This approach, as

described by Bhabha (1994), breaks the chain between the binary understanding of the self and other or the master and the slave (Shumar, 2010).

The hybridised individual in this sense is in an ambivalent situation, which gives the individual the cultural identification that is neither that of the coloniser nor the colonised, but nevertheless “almost the same, but not quite” (Bhabha, 1994, p. 86, original emphasis). With the agency to walk in two cultural and social worlds, the hybridised mimics, repeats and therefore mocks the coloniser by inviting the unwanted cultural elements into the ‘pure’ culture of the coloniser (Bhabha, 1994; Mizutani, 2013).

Bhabha (1994)

describes this process as mimicry where the individual as “the display of hybridity - its peculiar 'replication' - terrorizes authority with the ruse of recognition, its mimicry, its mockery” (p. 115, emphasis in original).

For Bhabha (1994), it is through the process

of mocking and mimicking the coloniser’s culture performed by the hybridised, that the


37

essentialist, binary colonial discourse can be destabilised and deconstructed.

The limitation of hybridity.

Although hybridity is often perceived and stressed

as an effective tool for the liberation of the colonised and the subversion of coercive power relationships, the concept requires critical examination (Werbner, 1997).

The

problematic of the term is two-fold, which includes the implied existence of purity (Gilroy, 1994) and the elitist, utopian generalisation of agency embedded in the concept of hybridity (Friedman, 1997; Kavoori, 1998; Werbner, 1997).

I shall discuss these

concerns in relation to cultural hybridity in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, hybridity, as suggested by Bhabha (1994), is supposed to destabilise the essentialist, binary conception of the coloniser and the colonised and their respective cultures.

Contradictorily, to assume that there is a third space, which is constituted by

the mixture of two or more cultures, implies the existence of un-mixed, ‘uncontaminated’ cultures (Gilroy, 1994; Stewart, 2011; Young, 1995).

This concern is expressed by

Gilroy (1994) where he stresses that “the idea of hybridity, of intermixture, presupposes two anterior purities…I think there isn’t any purity; there isn’t any anterior purity…that’s why I try not to use the word hybrid…Cultural production is not like mixing cocktails”


(pp. 54-55).

38

By implying the existence of ‘pure’ cultures and hence ‘pure’ subjects, the

discourse of hybridity in some ways identifies with the colonial discourses.

The false

premises of the argument for hybridity therefore could duplicate the essentialist construction of races and cultures, which the concept claims to alleviate.

Secondly, the discourse of hybridity is often accused of being part of the elitist, antirevolutionary language (Friedman, 1997; Gershenson, 2003; Pieterse, 2001; Van der Veer, 1997). Bhabha (1994) articulates the agency of the hybridised from his own position as a celebrated scholar in the Western academia, where his Western funds of knowledge allowed relatively flexible space for social improvisation (Ahmad, 1997).

I borrow

Kavoori’s (1998) insights and regard hybridity as “a term less about the world it seeks to describe and more about the world its users occupy” (p. 201, original emphasis).

It can

be argued that Bhabha (1994) simply assumed the agency and social mobility, which he clearly has, as shared by all hybridised individuals, based on his own academic success and worldview.

It is undoubted that Bhabha (1994) has made remarkable contribution to the theorisation of postcoloniality and generated critical insights.

Nevertheless, this generalisation of


39

agency potentially contradicts the emancipatory goals and criticality of postcolonial criticism.

Werbner (1997) also depicts this dilemma of hybridity by stating that “the

current fascination with cultural hybridity masks an elusive paradox.

Hybridity is

celebrated as powerfully interruptive and yet theorized as commonplace and pervasive” (p. 1). Hence, when attempting to incorporate hybridity in postcolonial research as a means for liberation, we have to ask “What does Bhabha's own strategy achieve?” when “the epistemological structure remains, merely suffering a change of overseer” (Phillips, 1998, p. 20).

Hybridity, which stems from the position of the socially and culturally

privileged, may unintentionally slip into the realm of solipsism and further stabilise the status quo power relationships (Ahmad, 1997; Gershenson, 2003). Moreover, hybridity, as a product of the elitist vocabularies could encourage the very opposite of resistance, the diminish of agency (Ahmad, 1995; Chow, 1993; Van der Veer, 1997).

This slippage

resonates to what I mentioned earlier in the ambivalent subject position of third world scholars who reside in the first world.

While the subject position provides alternative

approaches and perspective, it is also a double-edged sword that requires constant reflection.

Given the potential theoretical limitations and dilemma of hybridity, rather

than utilising the commonly adopted notion of hybridity, I deploy the concept of critical syncretism as a starting point for this decolonising project (Chen, 2010).


A syncretised self.

40

Chen (2010) describes critical syncretism as a strategy where

the highly-reflexive, syncretised self actively “interiorize[s] elements of others into the subjectivity of the self” (p. 99).

As opposed to hybridity (Bhabha, 1994), critical

syncretism does not imply a ‘pure’ beginning.

The subject, in this case, is always

hybridised. Since the pure origin of cultures and subjects are not traceable, what is left to be recognised is the syncretised, constantly changing self (Chen, 2010).

Therefore, I

use critical syncretism as a starting point for decolonisation, not so much as an emancipatory tool, but rather as a conceptual foundation from which I explore alternative possibilities.

According to Nandy (1983), “The West is now everywhere, within the West and outside; in structures and in minds” (p. 11). This is especially evident in the Taiwanese context in which the striking resemblance with America can be seen from the uncritical use of Western theories to the pervasive recognition of the value of English, right-wing political ideologies and the inner desire to transform Taiwan itself into an empire (Chen, 2010). The ‘West’, as Chen (2010) contends, had already become a part of the “base entity” of Asia.

Chen’s (2010) description of the theoretical role of critical syncretism is

instructive:


41

Rather than being constantly anxious about the question of the West, we can actively acknowledge it as a part of the formation of our subjectivity, in the form of fragmented pieces. The West has entered our history and become part of it, but not in a totalising manner. The task for Asia as method is to multiply frames of reference in our subjectivity and worldview, so that our anxiety over the West can be diluted and productive and critical work can move forward. (p. 223)

In this ‘globalised’ era, America, or the West, is not external to the self, but is within our subjectivity and consciousness.

The West, is not ‘other’. The West has become us.

Therefore, as Chen (2010) mentioned, we now have to turn our attention to the formation of our subjectivity, in which the West is an inseparable component.

This

acknowledgement of the syncretised self is crucial for this project, as it indicates the need to recognise the ‘West’ as within my own consciousness.

With this highly reflexive

approach, I seek to avoid the pitfall of essentialism and elitist language.

The

decolonisation of the mind in this sense is a self-deconstruction and reconciliation with the self. To acknowledge the fact that decolonisation is not a direct conflict with what is outside of our body and mind, it involves a painful self-negation in order for a critically syncretised self to emerge.

This self-deconstruction also leads to the next step, which is


42

to become others (Chen, 2010).

From a syncretised self to “other”.

It is emphasised that a critically syncretised

self must not only look inwards, but also outwards (Chen, 2010; Kenway, 2015). The reflexive self constantly becomes “others” through points of references.

The self

becomes “female, aboriginal, homosexual, transsexual, working class, and poor” (Chen, 2010, p. 99).

In doing so, the decolonisation of mind goes beyond the individual

struggle, and rises above the limitations imposed by colonial discourses such as “patriarchy, capitalism, racism, chauvinism, heterosexism, or nationalistic xenophobia” (Chen, 2010, p. 99).

This means, the process of decolonisation could transcend the

existing boundaries by becoming, experiencing and referencing others’ experiences, desires, memories and struggle (Chen, 2010; Lam & Park, 2015).

In order to enter this

stage, from my perspective, the previously mentioned task of self-deconstruction is significant.

Through the critical deconstruction of my own subjectivity in this auto-

ethnographic project, I attempt to locate a reflexive, critically syncretised consciousness by connecting the past and present; and in the future enact upon this reflexive anchoring point to become others and allow others to become me.


43

Summary In this chapter, I have unpacked the three major theories I draw on, namely, postcolonial criticism in conjunction with the Foucauldian notion of discourse and subjectivity, a critical psychoanalytic framework, and the concept of critical syncretism.

In order to

justify my use of postcolonial theories, I have provided the reasons why I use the term postcolonial criticism consistently throughout this project.

I have assessed the

drawbacks of using the prefix ‘post-’, which implies that postcolonial studies came after colonialism was over, rather than acting as critical tools that question the on-going colonial desire and consciousness.

With this awareness in mind, the three theories

combined will provide an in-depth understanding of how a colonised subject is formed, reinforced and challenged.

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

44

Chapter Three: Research Methodology In the previous chapters, I provided the research context and the motivation for this research, and illustrated the theoretical tools which act as the infrastructure for the process of decolonisation.

I have also critically engaged with literature that emphasise the role

of discursive practices in forming subjectivity and consciousness, as well as the significance of critical self-reflection.

In this chapter, I introduce the philosophy that underpins qualitative research methodologies and analyse the form of qualitative research method that informs this research.

In this project, I have adopted the controversial, yet increasingly popular

research method, auto-ethnography.

With the rise of the post-positivist paradigm, auto-

ethnography emerged as an instrument that sketches the fluidity of identities and agency (Ellis et al., 2011).

The form of auto-ethnography I utilise for this thesis is analytic auto-

ethnography (Anderson, 2006a; Chang, 2008).

Hence, I depict my current

understanding of analytical auto-ethnography and how my conceptualisation of this method differs slightly from Anderson’s (2006a; 2006b) version, which has invoked issues by intentionally aligning with traditional, realist ethnographic approaches.


45

According to Denzin (2006), analytic auto-ethnography lacks concrete example for the principles which Anderson (2006a) claimed to be the requirements. The concern lies in this vagueness by which to distinguish whether it is a mere replica of the conventional ethnographical approaches is unachievable.

I therefore also explain later in this chapter

how I take the undefined analytic auto-ethnography as a chance for me to design the desired form of auto-ethnography for this project, which consists of the strengths of both evocative and analytic auto-ethnography.

Since I investigate the narratives I compose, the data in this auto-ethnographic project is constructed rather than gathered. primary source of data.

For “data construction”, I rely on my memories as the

While accounting my memories as the source of data, the

process of writing and reflecting on the self at the same time acts as a process of constructing data. During the process of data construction, the issue of ethics must also be considered.

I refer to Ellis’ (2007) notion of care and relational ethics to address the

potential issues that might arise in relation to ethics.

This chapter will conclude with the

introduction of discourse analysis which is used in this project to deconstruct the discourses embedded in the data.


46

Connecting the Research Question and the Research Design It is essential for a researcher to have a clear understanding of the underlying philosophy, rationale and effects of different research methodologies (Krauss, 2005).

Therefore, I

briefly outline the characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research approaches and identify the differences between these two epistemological paradigms3.

I also explore

the ways certain features of qualitative methodology respond to the need of my research focus and how it has contributed to the selection of research method for this thesis.

Qualitative and quantitative research have distinct epistemological and ontological foundations (Hoy, 2010).

Qualitative approaches are epistemologically subjective

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Hoy, 2010).

On the contrary, quantitative methodologies

examine the world and reality from a positivist, scientific and rather objective perspective. The noticeable difference between quantitative and qualitative approaches to research design also lies in their differed ontological understanding of reality. The former holds the belief of a unitary, external reality and the latter asserts the existence of multi-layered and fluid realities, which are relative, socially constructed and constantly changing (Patton, 2015).

3

The conventional quantitative, realist approach to research presumes

Due to the limitation on the word count, I was only able to provide a brief comparison between the two paradigms, followed by a focus on qualitative methodologies.


47

that the author’s voice and existence are to be evacuated from the text, in hope of preserving a sense of objectivity and neutrality (Atkinson, 1997; Delamont, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 2008). Alternatively, qualitative research methods provide a flexible and more intimate space for in-depth exploration of human relationships, experiences and the links between an individual or group and the immediate/extended social, cultural and political contexts (Krauss, 2005; Muijs, 2004; Riehl, 2001).

Qualitative research methodologies are subjective, and this aligns with the focus of my research questions which emphasise the articulation and examination of the researcher’s personal experiences.

This research, as mentioned before, closely examines my

personal journey as a colonised subject and the emotionality, confusion and struggle that are involved.

Experiences, memories and the perceptions of one’s own identity and

struggles are individual, private, subjective and can often be vulnerable when the researcher, who is also the researched, is both culturally and emotionally involved in the text (Adams, Jones, Jones, & Ellis, 2014; Liamputtong, 2007; Pillay, Naicker, & PithouseMorgan, 2016).

Given the subjective nature of this research and the research data, it

seems evident that only a qualitative stance would suffice for the task of data gathering, reflection and critical analysis.

I was able to identify and strategically utilise a specific


48

form of qualitative research method by engaging with the underlying philosophy of research methodologies and analysing its relevance with my research direction.

The

perception of my personal educational, social and cultural experiences as private, multifaceted, sensitive and unquantifiable led to the deliberate choice of autoethnography.

A qualitative research approach, an auto-ethnographic approach in particular, recognises the researcher’s positionality and interactive presence in the research process, which is always contextualised (Ellis, 1991; Reed-Danahay, 1997; Sparkes, 2000).

Maréchal

(2010) also highlights the significance of the researcher’s presence by stating that in an auto-ethnography, “researchers' own feelings and experiences are included in the ethnographic narrative, made visible and regarded as important data for understanding the social world observed, yielding both self- and social knowledge” (p. 43).

The

researcher is no longer an objective observer in a cultural (ethno) study (graph) of the self (auto), but rather an actor in the research context where his/her knowledge, experiences, memories and emotions are subject to analysis, reflection and critical examination (Holman Jones, 2005; Reed-Danahay, 1997).


49

A General Understanding of Auto-ethnography The complexity of auto-ethnographic approaches could inflict confusion if the researcher does not critically engage with relevant literature and auto-ethnographic work that is available.

Auto-ethnography is a form of qualitative research that has immense

potential with its flexibility, adaptability, playfulness and dialogical nature in terms of style, form and topics (Anderson, 2006a; Wall, 2006; Short, Turner, & Grant, 2013). However, it is also criticised largely for its very “strengths”.

Furthermore, there are

concerns regarding this emerging research method not only with its subjective nature but the multiple interpretations of its name, use and implications (Chang, 2008; Ellis et al., 2011; Jackson & Mazzei, 2008).

In addition, debates are persistent among auto-

ethnographers who conceptualise auto-ethnographic method in different ways, for example, the division of evocative and analytic auto-ethnography.

In the following

paragraphs, I shall navigate through the characteristics, critiques and underlying concerns of auto-ethnography in hope of constructing an epistemological foundation via a comprehensive understanding of the research method.

Auto-ethnographic writings usually articulate cultural and social trajectories through illustrating specific moments, which are regarded as life changing “epiphanies” in the


researcher’s memories (Short et al., 2013). emotional,

reflexive

and

creative.

50

Auto-ethnography is highly flexible, playful, In

auto-ethnographic

writings,

the

researcher/actor/author’s voice is considered the major catalyst for re/connection between personal cultural experiences, encountered epiphanic moments in life and the wider social, cultural and political contexts (Ellis et al., 2011; Maréchal, 2010).

Researchers are thus

invited to be present throughout the writing and research process, acknowledge one’s agency in knowledge production and value the opportunity for discovering new possibilities by proactively enacting upon personal cultural sensibilities.

Auto-ethnography is not simply creative and narrative, but also performative (Ellis et al., 2011; Spry, 2001).

The performativity of the author/researcher in an auto-ethnographic

text indicates the existence of an agentic performer in the dialectics of self and culture, who consciously enquires his/her formation of subjectivity, consciousness and identity (Conquergood, 1991; Ellis et al., 2011; Wall, 2008).

Auto-ethnography, with the gift of

its fluidity and emerging popularity in various areas of study, has been performed in diverse ways, ranging from Sparkes’ (2000) personal meditation on the relationship between body and self, Schoepflin’s (2009) in-depth descriptions of private feelings and changes after a violent encounter, Griffin’s (2012) anger of a discriminated, oppressed


51

black woman to Wall’s (2006) auto-ethnography about learning auto-ethnography.

Auto-ethnography allows you to “use yourself to get to culture” (Pelias, 2003, p. 372). This succinct yet informative summary by Pelias (2003) depicts the common use of autoethnography in scholarly work for self-reflexive research, in which cultural re/investigation, re/invention and criticism are involved.

According to Spry (2001),

auto-ethnographic approaches effectively re/situate both the researcher and the reader into a journey of cultural exploration, identification and reflection.

Through the process of

performing auto-ethnography, the researcher and the reader co-construct realities with multiple interpretations acquired by being involved emotionally and analytically in the text.

The evocative versus analytic debate.

The term auto-ethnography does not refer

to a singular research method and approach, rather, its meaning is perceived differently by auto-ethnographers (Chang, 2008).

As mentioned in the introductory paragraph, I

have selected a specific subgenre of auto-ethnography as the research instrument for this thesis, which is analytic auto-ethnography.

The different conceptualisations of auto-

ethnography include its research direction, ways of producing knowledge and concerns


52

regarding its academic value in the social science research communities (Ellis & Bochner, 2006; Pace, 2012).

Scholars, who have previously presented their methodological

knowledge regarding the construction and improvement of auto-ethnography, have begun to present their views on this conceptual divide (Atkinson, 1997, 2006; Anderson, 2006a; Chang, 2008; Denzin, 2006; Ellis & Bochner, 2006; Ellis et al., 2011).

For specific

reasons, I refer to analytic auto-ethnography as the method that guides this thesis despite acknowledging the criticism it has received from different scholars.

Certainly, this

decision also raised important questions and ambivalence, which I shall address in the following paragraphs.

Evocative and analytic auto-ethnography do possess common characteristics, as introduced before, such as the outstanding fluidity of style, the recognition of personal experiences, the evaluation and critical assessment of subjectivity and the destabilisation of dominant methodological ideology (Ellis & Bochner, 2006).

However, having

reviewed relevant literature and identifying the ambivalence caused by the multiplicity of this particular research approach, I came to realise that providing a summary of the debate could help clarify my research stance, my awareness of multiple interpretations of autoethnography and the rationale that underpins the selection of analytic auto-ethnography.


53

The dominant form of auto-ethnography, also known as evocative auto-ethnography, is widely popularised mainly by Carolyn Ellis and Arthur Bochner (Short et al., 2013). Traditional/evocative auto-ethnography puts significant emphasis on the emotional, artistic and sometimes poetic style of presenting one’s stories, in which the “I” (the researcher) is always highlighted and reflected upon (Ellis & Bochner, 2000).

Anderson

(2006a) praises the contribution of evocative auto-ethnography and the novelty of selfreflexive ethnographic narrative as an emerging qualitative research method. However, Anderson (2006a) claims that analytic auto-ethnography, on the other hand, should establish criteria which require the researcher to (1) be a full member in the research context, (2) incorporate analytical introspection, (3) have explicit presence throughout the text, (4) include data sources beyond the self and (5) use theoretical tools to analyse and connect auto-ethnographic data with the social world and various phenomena.

Analytic auto-ethnography advocates for an alternative approach towards the style of writing and ways of framing the research data with wide range of existing theoretical tools (Anderson, 2006b).

This analytical prose is evident in the work of Sparkes (1996),

“The Fatal Flaw: A Narrative of the Fragile Body-self”, where he associates the emotional reflection on the relationship between body and self with an analytical and conventional


tone of writing.

54

Anderson (2006a) describes the necessity of an alternative auto-

ethnographic approach for the purpose of not only reflecting on personal cultural experiences, but also facilitating the conversations between the self and the wider social world.

Moreover, the welcoming of possibilities of how auto-ethnography can be

performed could prevent potential constraints and limitations, such as committing the mistake of purely solipsist writing (Atkinson, 2006; Chang, 2008).

A complete discard

of social science traditions, as described by Anderson (2006a), may not be plausible as it is observable that “at times, new forms of observation or new techniques of data analysis are incorporated into previously existing paradigms, while at other times, methodological innovation occurs in tandem with a rupture from earlier ‘normal science’” (p. 391). The statement suggests that research methods and paradigms change through time, but often in hybridised forms where common features shared with existing research methods are always visible.

Atkinson (2006) reasoned that due to the similarities auto-ethnography shares with conventional research methods, the novelty of auto-ethnography is a false perception. For instance, the tradition of acknowledging the implications of the researcher on the research process and outcomes in ethnographic studies has rather long history, and it


55

would be erroneous to ignore the fact that ethnographers are not a homogenised group, where certain researchers do articulate the importance of reflexivity in the research process.

However, Atkinson (2006) did not specifically depict the level of critical

awareness and reflexivity enacted by traditional ethnographers.

As identified by Wall

(2006), the intention of performing such “reflexivity” in conventional research, which bears a variety of meanings, seems to be a ritualistic gesture, rather than deeming such processes as the heart for the study.

The proposition of an alternative form of auto-ethnography was later responded to by Ellis and Bochner (2006), where they confirmed that similar conditions do apply to evocative auto-ethnography, in which the author is fully present in the texts and possesses a critical awareness of his/her cultural and social presence in the research context. Nevertheless, by problematising Anderson’s proposal of incorporating social science traditions with the creative aspect of auto-ethnography, Ellis and Bochner (2006) identified further concerns where a step back from the revolutionary nature of evocative auto-ethnography may cause it to slip into the hegemonic and authoritative pitfall of conventional research paradigms.

This concern is shared by Denzin (2006), who

describes analytic auto-ethnography, without discussing and defining its ontology, might


as well just become a “déjà vu all over again” (p. 419).

56

Furthermore, Ellis and Bochner

(2006) and Denzin (2006) expressed their sceptical attitude towards analytic autoethnography due to the lack of clear definition of such method, including what it looks like in practice and how it will affect the interactions between the researcher and the data.

While expressing their concern in relation to analytic auto-ethnography’s vagueness, Ellis and Bochner (2006) also articulated the important role of evocativeness as the essence of auto-ethnography.

The evocative, abstract and anti-conventional style and research

prose is considered an effective postmodernist strategy for destabilising, decentralising and decolonising the discourse of modernity, progress and objectivity.

Therefore,

Anderson’s (2006a) proposal of the analytic subgenre obviously trespasses the boundaries drawn by ethnographers such share this belief, where auto-ethnography is supposed to be located at the periphery and marginal (Ellis & Bochner, 2006).

As opposed to the call

for a methodological and epistemological revolution outside of the system, Anderson (2006a) attempts to destabilise the traditional, rigid methodological ideology from within the structure of the social science research community.

He recognises personal

experiences as intrinsically valuable in qualitative research and participates in the ongoing conversations with researchers that work in different social science disciplines.


57

After all, if one completely abandons the social science tradition and pursues a solipsist revolution at the margin of the academic world, the mutual self-reflexivity and successful dialogues may not be attained, let alone critically considered.

Furthermore, overt

emphasis on the techniques of evocative writing and negligence of connections with others may jeopardise the original intention of using such method.

The decision to adopt analytic auto-ethnography is of course not completely trouble-free. Underlying concerns are especially visible when Anderson (2006a) mentioned that the fourth feature of analytic auto-ethnography, where he described the need to have “dialogues with informants beyond the self” (p. 378). This proposal is dangerous as urges researchers to gather empirical data from multiple references, which may be very similar to traditional realist, ‘neutral’ techniques incorporated in conventional, realist research that seek objective truth (Butler, 2009; Pace, 2012; Vyran, 2006).

Anderson’s

(2006b) inner desire to categorise analytic auto-ethnography under the branch of traditional ethnographic research was especially evident when he stated that “at the end of the day, I remain committed to pursuing theoretically informed, inductively oriented realist ethnography” (p. 452).

Nevertheless, at this stage the boundaries of analytic auto-

ethnography are not clearly defined, and whether this deliberate overlap with the social


58

science tradition would end up creating a déjà vu of research methodology remains curious and requires further examination.

Describing Analytic Auto-ethnography Used in This Project Having reviewed the differences and similarities between evocative and analytic autoethnography, I tend to position myself in between the analytic stance of Chang (2008) and Anderson (2006a, 2006b) and the evocative stance of Ellis (1991). This is due to the fact that I too have concerns regarding the principles stated by Anderson (2006a). At the same time, I applaud the notion of incorporating existing theoretical tools for the purpose of analysing my personal data (Chang, 2008), and therefore prefer to define autoethnography as a method that can put great emphasis on the theoretical and analytic potential of the data.

I realised that it is possible to locate a “moderate” approach of auto-ethnography. As mentioned before, Chen (2010) contends that decolonisation and deimperialisation serve as a mutual process, which requires reflexivity of both the coloniser and the colonised. Through this auto-ethnography, I wish to actively initiate dialogues between the fellow ‘oppressed’, where inter-reference of experiences and knowledge is allowed, and with the


59

‘oppressors’, where self-reflection on the imperialist influences may occur.

The existing

vagueness among branches of auto-ethnography, in this case, may in turn become an opportunity. This is a space where I could define the specificities of the analytic autoethnography I wish to apply in this project.

The criteria for my personal version of

analytic auto-ethnography will be discussed below.

I describe the particular version of analytic auto-ethnography used in this project as an evocative intrapersonal investigation through which the author explores the dialectical and dialogical interpersonal social world, along with careful analysis of the data through various theoretical lenses and relevant scholarly research.

In other words, in this auto-

ethnographic project I am (1) a full and active member of the research context, who claims full presence throughout the text.

I (2) recall and present my epiphanies through a rather

evocative and creative narrative as opposed to a scientific prose.

I also (3) utilise

unconventional data, such as my memories, as a valid primary source along with (4) indepth analyses of the data based on existing theoretical tools in order to provide a link between the private experiences with the wider social context (Anderson, 2006a, 2006b; Ellis & Bochner, 2000, 2006).


60

Abiding by these principles, this auto-ethnographic project could preserve the emotionality of the data while at the same time avoid the dangers of slipping into authoritative, realist discourses. The text, under these conditions, will then remain a subjective and presentation of private and rarely exposed memories that allows multiple interpretations.

Ethical Issues in Auto-ethnography4 I conduct this research based on Ellis’ (2007) notion of relational ethics to avoid neglecting the responsibilities of a researcher to protect the privacy of those that may be implicated, directly or indirectly, in the stories that I present.

The concern with ethics

in auto-ethnography has been constantly mentioned and contested (Forber-Pratt, 2015; Murray, Pushor, & Renihan, 2011; Tamas, 2011). An auto-ethnography is supposedly about the researcher him/herself, however, it is also highlighted that our stories do not solely belong to us (Sparkes, 2000). The ethics of care (Ellis, 2007) then become crucial since there is no possibility of not mentioning others.

Ellis’ (2007) concept of relational

ethics provides a foundation for ethical consideration for this auto-ethnography where 4

As discussed before, the ethical controversies in a subjective evaluation of one’s memories can be problematic. I recognise the importance to use pseudonyms whenever possible, in order to protect the individuals who are directly or indirectly involved in the stories that I present. Hence, the process of data construction only began after the project has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. In the application for ethical approval, I clearly stated the research direction and goal, and considered potential ethical issues that may be involved in this auto-ethnography. The Category B proposal was later considered and approved by the committee.


61

intimate others such as family members or close friends are inevitably involved.

Ellis (2007) indicates that common ethical guidelines “are grounded on the premise that research is being done on strangers with whom we have no prior relationships and plan no future interaction” (p. 5).

In the attempt to descriptively narrate personal experiences,

people around us may also be constantly mentioned. When writing about those who are so simply deeply involved in our lives, we should take up the opportunity to discuss with them or carefully consider what is to be told in the stories.

For the purpose of protecting the privacy of the individuals that are to be mentioned in this auto-ethnographic project, I realised that it is essential to take certain actions.

I will

ensure that any name mentioned in this auto-ethnography, either in English or in Mandarin, will be replaced with pseudonyms as I assume that using their real names would not add any more theoretical value to the analysis of data. Another issue arises from the descriptive narratives of people, for example, the detailed description of one’s physical traits (Ellis, 2007). Nevertheless, this would not be a concern for my project since I do not find significant theoretical value in presenting much detail of individuals’ appearances in my stories, and this action would always be avoided unless there is


62

significant links between appearances and the discourse that I analyse.

Finally, I

carefully reflect on the dialogues and parts of the stories and decide which are to be preserved and presented and which are to be excluded.

I shall exclude unnecessary

components of the stories if there is a risk of making particular individuals easily identifiable. There may be scenarios where characters such as father and mother must remain in the conversations.

If it were the case that mentioning someone’s identity is

unavoidable due to the significance of that identity in terms of power relations, I will make sure that final drafts are reviewed by the individuals that are involved for them to modify, consider and discuss the written content.

I believe by taking the actions listed

above this auto-ethnographic project protects the involved individuals’ identities and privacy without jeopardising its purpose and value.

Data Construction In my auto-ethnography, the sources of legitimate data are not limited to those considered objective, scientific or numerical, which are often expected to meet the conventional criteria of validity and generalisability (Delamont, 2009; Ellis & Bochner, 2000). project, the source of data is my memory.

In this

In order to “construct” the data I recall several

moments through the process of writing this project.

These moments are categorised


63

into different periods which correspond to the different stages of my subjectivity and consciousness.

The issue of trustworthiness with using memory as data could become a concern, if viewed with a traditional lens.

The criteria for trustworthiness therefore need

adjustment when examining the data for auto-ethnography.

As Ellis et al. (2011)

describe, the meaning of generalisability, validity and reliability of data alter when used to assess autoethnographic projects.

Reliability of data is determined by whether or not

the narrator believes that the events actually happened.

Validity of data depends on

whether the narrated events resonate with the readers, and whether the readers consider the narrated experiences as “lifelike, believable, and possible” (Ellis et al., 2011, p. 282). The generalisability of autoethnographic data depends on whether the readers can identify with the situations and find similarities and differences (Ellis et al., 2011).

With these

criteria in mind, I believe that the data I construct with critical reflexivity was trustworthy.

The process of data collection/construction in auto-ethnographic research has been carried out in diverse forms, ranging from writing diaries, re-reading letters to the reviewing of medical records (Wall, 2008).

By familiarising myself with several


64

scholars’ auto-ethnographic work, I noticed that memory as the sole source of data is rare even in auto-ethnographies, and it is often not considered reliable.

In justifying memory as a source of data, Wall’s (2008) insights are worth to be quoted at length: Sparkes (2000) related a story about the use of his published autoethnography in an undergraduate class, explaining that his students do not consider his autoethnography to be research. However, when asked whether it would be research if someone else had interviewed a man named Andrew Sparkes; collected his medical records, diary excerpts, and newspaper stories; analyzed the collection, and written it up, the class says yes.

Likewise, if a researcher

had interviewed me about my experiences as an adoptive mother and had recorded and transcribed it, it would have legitimacy as data despite the fact that both the interview transcript and my autoethnographic text would be based on the same set of memories. (p. 45)

It is mentioned that the source of data would have been exactly the same, which is the author him/herself regardless of the data collection method used in a research (Wall, 2008).


65

However, in Sparkes’ (2000) anecdote, the identical data collected through mainstream, ‘formal’ data collection methods somehow become more persuasive when comparing to auto-ethnographic narratives, and this can be restrictive when different possibilities of engaging with data can be theoretically important.

Auto-ethnography’s strength, rather than being a tool that constructs a generalisable reality and truths, is in inviting alternative epistemology and inspiring new ways of collecting data for analysis. Regarding personal data as legitimate and valuable, Denzin (2006) asserts, is a means to deconstruct the dominant and often arbitrary production of knowledge, and give the marginalised stories a voice. Coffey (1999) also highlights the value of individual memories as data by recognising memory as an inseparable part of the text, as the text and its interpretations are constantly shaped by one’s memories.

The action of looking for auto-ethnographic data through various practices aligns with what Erikson (2004) describes as data construction. Since my memories are the sole source of data for this project, the process of writing and reflecting on my own memories and experiences can be seen as an act of data construction.


66

To construct the data for this project, I follow René Descartes’ (1641/2010) method of meditation.

In Meditations, Descartes (1641/2010) employs the method of systematic

doubt, which is to become an extreme sceptic who doubts his own knowledge and the sources of his knowledge. Similarly, I find this form of meditation, which is a rigorous self-interrogation of how one gains knowledge, useful for locating dialogues and moments from which discourses are identifiable. every piece of knowledge I possess.

However, I do not intend to doubt

Instead, I focus on examining how the knowledge

I obtained in different stages contributed to the unconscious belief of Western superiority and the production of a colonised mind.

To effectively expose the interactions of different discourses, the context, and the subject positions within it, which altogether allowed certain conversations and actions to take place, I ask myself the following questions5. These questions are designed to help me recall the memories of different moments.

These recalled moments represent the

different stages of my subjectivity and consciousness.

5

These questions belong to the category of “critical literacy questions”. These questions stem from critical literacy, which is a tool, as well as a critical attitude which guides readers to read texts critically and sceptically (Sandretto with Klenner, 2011). Asking critical literacy questions allows one to focus on looking for ideologies, discourse and hidden messages that are not explicated.


67

The First Meditation 1.

Were there any actions, statements or symbols such as English that are in/directly related to the West, which I could remember in my earliest memories?

2.

What kind of emotions were inflicted by these actions or statements?

The Second Meditation 1.

Could I identify the ways in which I have reproduced or reinforced the colonised consciousness?

2.

What kind of emotions were involved when I interacted with others based on these subject positions and discourses?

The Third Meditation 1. When and where did I arrive at the stage of “conscientisation” (Freire, 1970/1996)? What was the cause? 2. What emotions or state of mind were inflicted by this epiphany?


68

Discourse Analysis Neutrality does not exist (Sandretto & Tilson, 2014, 2015).

Neither can any of the

narratives I provide in this project escape influences of various discourses.

After I have

successfully located the significant moments that I wish to investigate through the construction of data, I use Foucauldian discourse analysis in order to examine the things that are said/not said beyond the dialogues and interactions (Willig, 2008).

Foucauldian

discourse analysis is often used to interrogate texts, conversations and actions which are also discursive practices shaped by contextualised political, social and cultural knowledge (Carbine, 2001). The memories that I recall are invigorated by emotionality and the conversations and interactions with others.

In other words, I seek to engage with the

discourses are embedded in my memories that are not discovered till now.

In-depth analysis using different theoretical lenses will be provided later in Chapters Four, Five and Six, where I deconstruct the meditations. The major part of discourse analysis will take place in the next chapter. the first meditation.

In Chapter Four, I conduct a discourse analysis on

In the analysis, I focus on, for instance, a selected group of

statements that were made during a conversation, to identify possible discourses.

I

specifically look for the events, actions, dialogues and emotions that took place in my


69

earliest memory of being influenced by the ‘West’ as part of the first major moment.

In

attempting to identify discourses, I also explore the context in which these discourses were “allowed”. Then I further discuss how the identified discourses implicated my subjectivity.

Furthermore, Foucauldian discourse analysis does not only apply to the use

of language and written or spoken texts, but also symbols (Willig, 2008).

Therefore, I

actively reflect upon the emotions, dialogues, actions and symbolic representations, which could all be important components of discourses, and deconstruct the unwritten or unspoken power relations.

Summary In this chapter, I stated the rationale behind the choice of methodology.

To illustrate my

understanding in relation to the differences between research paradigms, I started by discussing how quantitative research differs from qualitative research and the ways these differences link to my deliberation of methodology. auto-ethnography.

Then I provided an overview of

I have also summarised the on-going conflict between different

branches of auto-ethnography and articulated the features of what I call analytic autoethnography which is specifically designed for this project.


70

I engaged with the controversies regarding the ethics in auto-ethnography by adopting the notion of relational ethics.

For my auto-ethnography, I construct research data with my

memories being the sole source.

I therefore also addressed the advantages of

recognising memories as a trustworthy source of data and how employing discourses analysis would be effective in examining these memories.

Chapter Four: The First Meditation

71

Chapter Four: The First Meditation Introduction This chapter contains the first meditation.

In this first meditation, I attempt to recall the

earliest remembered moment in which I had direct contact with things or people from the ‘West’.

I hope by tracing back to my earliest memory of these experiences, I can realise

how certain discourses were already present and significant for the formation of my consciousness at such an early stage of my life.

Through this meditation, I also reveal

how discourse(s) potentially implicated important decision makings in the future.

The Poststructuralist Subject and Binary In this section I intended to explore existing findings on the discourse and the subject. Yet, there seems to be few studies that pay attention specifically to how discourse analysis could reveal the ways in which a young colonised subject is created by the interplay of discourses (Said, 1979).

The studies that adopt discourse analysis within my reach tend

to emphasise on the identification of discourses, rather than the subject, subject positions, and the formation of the subject as an effect of discourses (see Carabine, 2001; Cherland, 2008; Holmes, Marra, & Schnurr, 2008; Hilligoss, 2014; Kelan, 2008; Pack, Tuffin, & Lyons, 2016; Sung, 2012).

I have therefore expanded the focus in this section in order


72

to unpack the studies that have effectively used discourse analysis to expose binary subject positions (Cherland, 2008; Gunn, 2012; Phipps, 2007). The reveal of discursive binary, after all, is an essential task of the first meditation.

The subject in the poststructuralist sense, as mentioned in Chapter Two, is one who is produced by discourses (Bacchi, 2005; Kelly, 2013). The poststructuralist subject, or, the Foucauldian subject, is distinctly different from the modernist Cartesian individual who has full autonomy (Lazreg, 2013; St. Pierre, 2000; Weedon, 2004). This particular conceptualisation of subject and subjectivity also rejects the simplistic division between the social and the individual.

Here the subject is always trapped in power dynamics and

discourses in specific social contexts (Foucault, 1976/1978; Housley, 2009), but at the very same time being ironically free in navigating subject positions available within the discursive context (Armstrong, 2008; Butler, 1992; Davies, 2004; Foucault,1950/1977, 1984/1986).

The utmost succinct way of defining the subject would be that we as

subjects, who are constructions of discourse, “do not speak the discourse.

The discourse

speaks us” (Ball, 1990, pp. 17-18).

The combination of multiple discourses creates an image of the ‘reality’ and everything


73

within it as ‘normal’ and ‘objective’ (Sandretto & Tilson, 2015). And the structure of binary positions is often a crucial part of the this ‘reality’. Researchers have thus utilised discourse analysis as a critical tool.

Gunn (2012), for instance, carried out a

genealogical study of gender discourses to expose the arbitrary ways of talking about differences between male and female teachers, and young boys and girls.

The discourse

in this case is reproducing its root: an essentialist gender dualism (Davies, 1989; Francis, 2000; Weedon, 1987), in which female teachers are seen as essentially different from male teachers and therefore less competent (Gunn, 2012). The oppressive presence of binary is a discursive strategy to maintain the existing power relations and hierarchies, whether it is in relation to gender differences (Cherland, 2008; Gunn, 2012; Phipps, 2007), or in terms of colonial contexts (Said, 1979, 1985, 1993). The constructed binary in different contexts imposes itself onto the subject, where the ‘I’ is only ‘I’ when the subject adheres to a set of discursive conventions provided in the binary.

Thus, with a critical

awareness of the importance of exposing binary positions, I shall now present my first meditation.

The First Meditation When was the first time I saw a foreigner with my own eyes?

When was the

very first time I sensed the direct influence of the West with my body and mind? I have to go back, to visit the place where I had my first contact with the ‘West’.


74

I wonder how I, or “Jason” to be more specific, came to existence; and why later on I chose to study in an English-speaking country. I close my eyes and start my first meditation.

The excitement.

I open my eyes.

I am attending the morning assembly at the

kindergarten, listening to the principal’s talk.

I remember this day.

because today is the day I have my first English class.

It is special

And today is also the day I

become Jason.

“Attention, kids! Our English teacher is from America! Unlike other kindergartens where English teachers are all Asians, we have a real English teacher.

Isn’t that amazing!?”,

the principal yells.

Apart from the change of tones, I can tell from the ways she waves her arms that she is personally very excited about this. She continues to praise the importance and beauty of English, as well as how privileged we are to have a ‘real’ English teacher.

Right after the assembly, we have our first English class.

I guess it’s going be like this

from now on, learning English in the morning every Monday, Tuesday and Friday for two hours. And the English class ‘borrowed’, as the principal emphasises, time from our


75

music class. So yeah, English is important, it’s so important that it can just freely replace any other classes.

The principal takes all of us to the newly built classroom, as the

English teacher will arrive soon.

I walk in and choose my seat.

a lady named Mrs. Watson enters the room.

After a few minutes,

She looks just like one of the people in the

poster I was just looking at, a female with rather pale skin and blonde hair.

“Wow, a real foreigner!”, I say to the kid next to me.

Mrs. Watson wants to give us all a gift by “naming” us.

“Your turn, young man, you are Jason now,” says Mrs. Watson.

Like all other students, I am instructed by the principal to immediately respond to Mrs. Watson’s generosity with a smile, a nod and a loud and clear “thank you, Mrs. Watson.”

But I know fairly well my gratitude at this moment is not just a product of the principal’s “training”, but is somehow genuine. excitement.

I couldn’t hide the overwhelming feeling of

“My English name!”, the voice in my head is on loop.

Mum and dad


76

always told me that English is important and only successful, smart people deserve an English name. Now, I have my own one.

I open my eyes again.

This time I am waking up from a nap.

Falling asleep in class is

a well-cultivated habit of mine as a ‘failing’ high school student. But I don’t blame myself.

I blame the teachers who can’t be bothered to make the class more interesting.

“Oh my god…this is really not the place for me.

I can’t do this anymore.” Here we

go again, it’s the voice in my head, trying to convince me that I should face my own desire and struggle. Should I simply run away from the education system?

“Mum, I want to go study abroad. I don’t feel like I belong here.”

I don’t think Taiwan is suitable for a person like me.

I confess during dinner.

My mum stares at me for a few seconds, I think she’s checking whether I am serious or not.

Then she says, “go study in an English-speaking country, like your aunt did.”

“Why must it be an English-speaking country?”, I question her immediately with a tone of contempt.


77

She seems annoyed having to explain something that is self-evident, “first, English is probably the only thing you are good at, since I have been forcing you to take extra courses after school ever since you had your first English class. You seem to do fine with those English tests. You got pretty good marks on GEPT6 and TOEIC7, right? And second, just look at those influential people, kid, the politicians, scientists, philosophers and businessmen…you know, they are all from the West.”

Her answer is in fact anticipated.

“I already know that, alright.

It is a long-held belief that Western countries are the only

choice for me. Those are lands of freedom and opportunities.

I just wanted to hear

someone justifying it”, I whisper to myself.

6

The General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) is an English proficiency test administered by (LTTC). GEPT is designed to test the level of English of Taiwanese people. This test is also used by education institutions for the purpose of monitoring the process of English learning of students.

7

To see more

https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT.htm Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) is an English proficiency test especially designed for the work force. This test is particularly popular in Taiwan as businesses often assess potential employees’ level of English using the results from TOEIC. See https://www.ets.org/toeic


78

The Discourse of the West For this meditation, I attempt to deconstruct the narratives and identify discourses with Foucauldian discourse analysis.

It seems that the object that was being spoken of was

the West, when the principal celebrated the fact that “our English teacher is from America! It’s the West!”

Here English became an inseparable part of the concept of the West,

giving it life.

In this case, the formula became obvious, which was the West equals

English, and vice versa.

Furthermore, certain values were attached to the concept of the

West and English as a language when the principal highlighted the beauty of English and how we, as ‘Asians’, were privileged to learn the wonderful language. This discourse regarding the West was slowly coming into shape, where English was not only good, but also a privilege.

The effect of this discourse was not limited to creating an image of the West that shaped my worldview. The discourse, which spoke of the Occident/West, immediately created its binary object, the Orient/East.

It is this moment where the discourse started to create

an Oriental subject (Said, 1979). For example, when the principal claimed that “unlike other kindergartens where English teachers are all Asians, we have a real English teacher”, the idea of the ‘authenticity’ and ‘superiority’ of the West was also attached to the English


79

teacher, who acted as an agent of linguistic imperialism (Inoue & Stracke, 2013; Phillipson, 1996). Although the main character in the principal’s statements was clearly the West, the unspoken ‘other’ in the binary structure was also brought into the picture. By speaking of the West, the principal’s statement automatically positioned the ‘nonWestern’, the ‘Asian’ English teachers, as a less-capable and necessarily inferior Oriental other.

Discourse here functions to create the ‘reality’ wherein a colonised subject lives a binary position.

The knowledge that constructs these binary positions is “not made for

understanding; it is made for cutting” (Foucault, 1984, p. 88). The binary of ‘West’ and ‘East’ in my case resonates with the binary of gender differences mentioned earlier, in which the discourses that articulate binary positions mediate and construct ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ about certain standards, rules and social conventions (Bacchi, 2005; St. Pierre, 2000). The “cutting” by these binary positions between the oppressor/oppressed (Freire, 1970/1996), West/East (Said, 1979; Takayama, 2014), coloniser/colonised (Chen, 2010; Fanon, 1952/1967), or men/women (Cherland, 2008; Gunn, 2012) is to create a condition where the subject automatically inscribes to the rules in these binary positions.

The

binary is established on existing power relations and subject positions while also


80

providing an essentialist distinction between a subject and its binary other.

The discourse reiterated by principal was crucial in refining my imagination about the West and the English language.

However, symbolic representations were also

influential in reifying the importance of English.

For instance, the value of English

became more realistic when I realised that music class was easily replaced by scheduled English conversation class.

Moreover, the big, colourful poster on the wall in the

classroom also played a significant role in mediating the important message: To be global is to be Western; To be global is to speak English.

The intersection of various ways of

speaking of the West, through speech or symbols, co-created a discursive site, or a “regime of truth” (Foucault, 1950/1977) in which the unconditional acceptance of these messages was more than natural (St. Pierre, 2000; Scott, 1988).

The appearance of the English teacher at the end of the kindergarten scenario perfected the image and message that the discourse represents. To be more precise, it is the direct contact with Mrs. Watson, who I claimed to look “just like one of the people in the poster”, transcended my imagination about the West and replaced the imaginary with a bodily understanding and experience of the ‘real’ West.

A person the discourse of the West


81

spoke of, who spoke the superior language was the final touch in forming of the colonised subject.

It was the naming of ‘me’, Jason, directly by an agent from the West, that

completed the puzzle.

The name, Jason, was a ‘gift’ that was never asked for, but

nevertheless was deemed a gesture of generosity of the West.

The name, as a key

foundation of the discourse of the West, contained the image of the West as culturally superior and the idea of the Occidental as English-speaking, friendly and generous. My only ‘choice’ under this discursive identity as a student of the Orient who merely received this ‘gift’ was to respond with gratitude and admiration by giving the generous other “a smile, a nod and a loud and clear ‘thank you, Mrs. Watson.’”

The overwhelming

excitement felt at that moment was in my opinion encoded in that discourse and the very subject position.

For one was supposed to not only give positive feedback when

receiving the ‘gift’, but also at the emotional level had to fully comply with what was considered to be the ‘appropriate feeling’ of the colonised subject.

The discourse of the West since then became an integral part of the unconscious of me as a colonised subject, which then manifested in later stages of life in ways that only a systematic recalling of specific moments could possible identify.

For instance, this

internalised discourse created a false sense of freedom and autonomy. This is clear in


82

the conversation with my mother in relation to international education:

Jason: “I don’t feel like I belong here. (Taiwan)”

Mum: “go study in an English-speaking country, like your aunt did…Look at those influential people, kid, the politicians, scientists, philosophers and businessmen…you know, they are all from the West.”

Jason: (Whispering) “I already know that, alright.

It is a long-held belief that

Western countries are the only choice for me. Those are lands of freedom and opportunities.”

It is evident that I knew fairly well that the only choice was either stay in Taiwan, or to choose an English-speaking country.

I was only seeking a re-affirmation on the belief

of the West, instead of attempting to subvert such belief. This reflects how the discourse of the West shaped my consciousness, which then informed my decision making.

In

simplistic terms, since my first direct encounter with the ‘West’, the superiority of the West and the positive characteristics attached to it had been functioning as a norm over


83

the years. The consequences included things such as being forced to take extra courses in order to become a “global citizen”, or in general, a ‘better’ person. The West, to me, represented freedom, choices and liberation.

This conceptualisation of the ‘West’

nevertheless is a “symptom” of the colonised, Oriental subject articulated by Said (1979). I, as a colonised subject, accepted the discursive binary of the ‘West’ and the ‘East’.

The power relations.

Having examined the discourse of the West and its effects,

it is also worth to draw attention on the power relationship between me, a colonised subject, and the individuals who also adopted and articulated the discourse.

Discourses

constitute subject positions; these positions exist within power relations with other subjects (St. Pierre, 2000), and thus “there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time, power relations” (Foucault, 1977/1950, p. 27).

In the case of the first meditation, in the power relation between me as a kindergarten student, and the principal who held the power of speech, I had little choice but to internalise the discourse of the West and become the Oriental subject (Hamdi, 2013). And between me and the ‘real’ English teacher, I could only abide to the restricted


84

responses that are made available by the discourse of the West, which was to express my gratitude for something that I did not ask for.

Under this situation, I would have risked

being excluded by other students who were shaped by the same discourse.

In addition,

the relation of power between me and the people that were the closest to me, my parents, was vitally important.

My parents who articulated a similar image of the West with that

of the principal, played a critical part in the mechanism, which was to reinforce the discourse through daily interactions.

I, as a child, was told to believe that “English is

important and only successful, smart people deserve an English name.”

Of course, a poststructuralist subject is not merely indoctrinated with various discourses (Davies, 2000), as it may seem in the first meditation.

Indeed, it has to be conceded that

agency did exist during the process of forming my colonised consciousness.

But the

agency at that stage was almost diminished, as critics of Foucault might suggest (Armstrong, 2008; Bacchi, 2005; Gambetti, 2005). My agency was limited to taking up and internalising the discourse of the West and using it as a means to understand the world around me.

Nonetheless, the paradoxical nature of this discursively constructed, yet

agentic subject position may prevail as I unpack and deconstruct other meditations (Davies, 2004; St. Pierre, 2000).


85

Summary The first meditation was closely related to Said’s (1979) discussion regarding how specific discourses voiced by specific people constructed the subject’s perception of the Occident/West.

More importantly, the first meditation revealed how a colonised subject,

tangled up in the complex system of power, inscribed to the discourse of the West. Under such condition, the subject was only able to think and act according to the subject position and the available discourses.

In this meditation, I attempted to locate a ‘starting point’8, to single out a remembered moment where the West was ‘formally’ introduced into my life.

During the

deconstruction of the meditation, I realised that the discourse of the West itself contains rich imaginations and beliefs regarding a supposedly abstract idea, which gradually reified its own concrete existence via different discursive practices.

For instance,

through various statements the status of the West was constantly elevated in relation to its binary other, the East.

The colonial binary of the West and the East was constantly

implied in statements and symbolic objects at this stage, and the subject was only able to recognise and internalise the value of English and appropriate the meaning of being a

The ‘starting point’ here does not mean an absolute beginning of discourses, nor the formation of the subject and his consciousness. Rather, it is a remembered moment, like a frame taken out of a movie. 8


86

global citizen and the definition of the ‘West’.

In Chapter Five and Six, I follow the same structure as this chapter and perform my autoethnographic meditations.

Through these meditations, I re-construct certain

moments in my life, which are comprised of the discourse that constituted a colonised subject.

These meditations map the process of how a subject was subjected to

discourses (Foucault, 1950/1977). Each of these chapters contains one meditation, a brief literature review of relevant studies and a deconstruction of the meditation.

The

deconstruction of the three meditations follow a linear, chronological order for the purpose of clarity.

These deconstructions will be informed by the appropriate theories I

introduced earlier.

It is worth mentioning in order to provide a better flow of reading I

place footnote citations in these meditations whenever a theorist’s name is mentioned.

Chapter Five: The Second Meditation

87

Chapter Five: The Second Meditation Introduction The second meditation takes me back to the moment when I was enrolled as a year 13 high school student in New Zealand.

In this meditation, I recall the memory of

performing certain actions and enacting particular values and beliefs, which were embedded in the identified discourses in the first meditation.

With this reflection, I

explore the stage of subject formation where the exteriority of the discourse of the West diminishes and a layer of desire emerges.

Desire as Social Construction Desire is often regarded as pre-discursive, or a part of the subject’s unconscious of which himself is not aware.

As mentioned in Chapter Two, Fanon (1952/1967) conceptualised

the desire of the colonised as an essential component that emerged from the dialectical relationship with the coloniser for reproducing the colonial structure.

This way of

looking at the desire of the colonised is to regard it as part of the discursive construction of the subject’s identity and subject positions, instead of a pre-discursive essence of the individual.

Desire is therefore “spoken into existence” (Davies, 1990, p. 501).


88

Similar to Davies’ (1990) critical discussion in relation to the desire encoded in the identity as a female, the desire of a colonised, as encoded in the subject position, also urges the subject to “perceive the world from a [colonised] subject position and we recreate the [colonial] world by recreating the [West/East] dualism in the things we do and say ” (Davies, 1990, p. 503).

In other words, at first the discourse speaks us into

existence, and later on we desire to speak the discourse in order to exist. This desire is often accompanied by the feeling of lack, whether in a phallogocentric sense (Davies, 1990), or an inferiority complex in general (Adler, 1929).

The discussion around desire

will continue in my deconstruction of my second meditation.

The Second Meditation In attempting to complete year 13 in New Zealand, it was simply all too natural to just speak English and to make friends with people who spoke English ‘properly’.

I was given more freedom than I ever was in my own country.

But

within this unconditional compliance with the dominant culture, and the taste of freedom and agency that came along with it, lied an uneasiness, and a sense of guilt that were buried in my consciousness before I could even comprehend the feelings. I have to go back, to expose and confront this uneasiness, and become conscious of my “unconscious” acts in the past. This is my second meditation.

The buried guilt.

“Sup! your name is Jason, right?”, a student ‘ambushes’ me

when I am on my way to the international office.


89

My immediate reaction when I hear someone saying my name with a ‘weird’ accent is, “great, he notices me.”

I recognise this person; he’s one of the international students

who always gather during lunch time outside the international office.

I have been

avoiding them for quite a while, because I want to be seen as equal to the local students, not as one of ‘them’.

“Why don’t you come over here and hang out with us?

You watch Japanese animation?

We were just talking about it”, his generous invitation interrupts my shameful thoughts.

“No, thanks”, I reply instinctively.

“Huh, I thought so.

You seem to be avoiding us?”, he wonders.

“You don’t really

show up at the international office unless it’s necessary, and you never make any eye contact with any of us”.

It terrifies me that they can sense my avoidance.

The strong sense of embarrassment

activates my defence mechanisms, so I try to end the conversation as soon as possible. “Yes, to be honest, because I am here to improve my English, and I don’t think being with


90

you guys would do that.”

“We are all Asians though. know?

Japanese…Taiwanese…Korean…we are the same, you

There is no need for the resentment.”

His rhetoric of sameness does not stop me; it only enrages me. considering how he might feel. me in.

“Please go away!

I am not rich and lazy, unlike you lot.”

I go on without

I am not one of ‘you’ so don’t count

My anger compels me to continue, “you

know what, I am also sick of your voice - the way you guys speak English.

I don’t want

your negative influence.”

“English is not our first language, of course we have our own accents.

You have one,

too!” he fights back.

His response exacerbates the situation.

“At least I try my best to talk like a New

Zealander and think like a New Zealander, and you have done nothing but waste your time in your circle of losers! Just go home, you are not worth the money spent.”

I

depart the fight scene filled with rage, leaving a group of international students looking


shocked.

91

I simply don’t want people to think that I am one of those international

students who are culturally inferior. longer the failing student.

I have to prove I am better than them; I am no

I am better because I have made it to the West.

I can be

better than them by speaking ‘proper’ English, achieving at school and making friends with ‘real’ New Zealanders.

Wearing the ‘Mask’ In the first meditation, I identified the discourse of the West with Foucauldian discourse analysis.

I also stressed that the decision to pursue education in an English-speaking

country and the binary position demanded by the discourse are inextricable.

I argue that

this internalised discourse at the stage of the second meditation was already transformed into the desire to become a part of the ‘West’.

As mentioned in the first meditation, the

superiority of the ‘West’ was an essentialist belief that was imposed onto and then adopted by the colonised subject.

In this discursive binary of the West and the East, it becomes

‘natural’ to concede the inferiority of the non-Western. The will to satisfy this feeling of inferiority was often accompanied by acts of isolation.

In this deconstruction, I go a step further and argue that the feeling of inferiority could be


92

considered a seed planted when the discursive West/East binary became a part of the subject's psyche (Mannoni, 1950/1990).

The impact of this “inferiority complex” was

especially evident in this second meditation.

Acts of isolation and “othering” were

found in my deliberate avoidance of other international students.

By isolating myself

from the group of international students, I wanted “to be seen as equal to the local students, not as one of ‘them’”.

The inferiority complex here worked in two different directions,

towards both the ‘self’ and the ‘other’. On the one hand, I saw the group of international students as inferior because of their non-western identities, as well as their ‘weird accents’. Hence the strategy to compensate my own feelings of inferiority as an international student was to also include them in the binary structure of West/Non-West.

On the other

hand, the distancing of myself from ‘them’, was also an attempt to separate the self from his own subject position. The isolation was to obtain a sense of agency through the creation of an inferior other in relation to myself, who was also an inferior Oriental other in relation to the West. In other words, I was attempting to alleviate my inferiority by (re)positioning myself within the new binary that I created between me and other international students. And by depending on this ‘other’, the ‘I’ also gained an illusion of escaping from his own position as an inferior other in relation to the ‘West’.


93

If conceptualised with Hegel’s (1807/1977) master/slave dialectics 9 , my resentment towards other international students would be a response of a slave to another in order to distinguish the slave himself from the identity of a slave, but paradoxically remains a slave by performing this very action.

In other words, I as a slave tried to liberate himself

by objectifying an ‘other’ (Liberman, 1999).

However, the ‘other’ who was in fact

objectified and alienated in my case was not the master, but myself. Therefore, this false distinction, from my perspective, only further reified the very subject position that I sought to object (Villet, 2011). The act of isolation was a part of the mechanism of the discourse, of the language of the master. The isolation was what the master did to the slave, and what the slave did to himself (Fanon, 1961/2004; Villet, 2011).

However, it is worth noting that although I base the relationship between me, the international students and the invisible binary other on the dialectics, the master in the traditional Hegelian sense needs to be replaced.

For the master in the discursively

constructed binary is not one who objectively exists and continues to excel his power onto the objectified subject.

9

The Fanonian-Hegelian master who laughs at the colonised

I am aware that the Hegelian dialectics is based on binary relationships, and hence may seem incompatible with the poststructuralist framework that this project employs. However, I see the strength of the dialectical model in deconstructing the second meditation, as the binary of the West and the East had already been discursively constructed. The use of dialectics then is useful here to explain the relationship between the subject and the other, who are both subjects in the binary structure in this particular moment.


94

subject’s attempt to liberate himself is the one more relevant in this scenario (Fanon, 1952/1967). The master is the discourse of the West, and the subject here is one who is spoken by the discourse, and who later on also speaks the discourse.

For if the subject

does not speak the discourse, the discourse cannot speak of the subject, then the subject cannot speak. The Fanonian master resides in the colonised subject’s consciousness and emerges in circumstances such as when I intuitively rejected the international student who warmly invited me to their group with a cold “No, thanks”. The act of isolation and the inferiority and shame felt by me when being considered as equal to other international students were products of the same desire, the desire to become the ‘Western’ instead of overcoming the binary.

The desire to become more Western came from the feeling of inferiority and the perception of lack (Davies, 1990), which ought to be illusionary, but nevertheless was part of the discursive reality through which the subject made sense of himself.

This

particular desire as a discursive construction within the identity as an Oriental meant that the subject was not directly coerced in wanting to be ‘Western’, as it is to an oppressed female who genuinely wanted power through the obtainment of a male phallus (Davies, 1990).

The submission of this illusionary desire could lead to the reproduction of the


95

same binary and predicaments.

The central question of the second mediation would then be “if I as subject was seeking liberation and hence escaped to the West, why was the attempt to wear the Western mask considered the only path?”

The problematic of the subject shifts from merely the

discourse of the West as an external factor to the issue of internal desire.

This desire

enslaved the subject and drove him to self-isolate from other international students.

This

is related to Fanon’s (1952/1967) critical insight that in the binary structure between the master/slave, or the white/black, the only option for liberation left for the colonised is to become the oppressive other. The desire, I claim, is a product of the discourse of the West embodied in the subject.

The wish to become Western can be found when I

claimed that “I am here to improve my English, and I don’t think being with you guys would do that.” To be ‘better’ meant trying “my best to talk like a New Zealander and think like a New Zealander.”

The desire also urged me to defend my colonised consciousness (Drichel, 2013; Lorenzini & Tazzioli, 2016).

It is the desire of a colonised subject to replicate the colonial gaze

under which the colonised can recognise his own existence.

This can be seen in


96

occasions where my way of compensating the inferiority complex was exposed:

The international student: “Huh, I thought so. You seem to be avoiding us?”, he wonders. “You don’t really show up at the international office unless it’s necessary, and you never make any eye contact with any of us”.

Jason: “Please go away!

I am not one of ‘you’ so don’t count me in.

I am not

rich and lazy, unlike you lot.” My anger tells me to continue, “you know what, I am also sick of your voice - the way you guys speak English.

I don’t want

your negative influence.”

Followed by the exposition of my avoidance was the “strong sense of embarrassment” and anger.

These emotions were both a representation of the desire to become the

‘Western’. On the flip side of these emotions, there was a sense of guilt.

After I left

the scene “filled with rage”, an emotion that was contradictory to the anger that invigorated the conversations struck me.

I felt guilty of harming others and there was a

moment of self-doubt in terms of whether what I did was correct after all. This feeling, of course, was soon buried and overridden by the desire and the emotions of the defence


97

mechanism. The buried guilt ruthlessly stuck me again during my mediation after so many years. This time the guilt was unforgettable.

The desire to become the oppressive other and the inferiority complex implied in my own subject position as an Oriental could be identified in the second mediation.

I not only

had taken up the discourse of the West, but it also became an essential element of the formation of my psyche.

This stage was where I no longer was the passive individual

in the first mediation. The subject, driven by the desire, sought ways to compensate the feeling of inferiority. The compensation in the end was an enactment of the internalised discourse and only reproduced the binary position, which depicted the inferiority of the Oriental subject in the first place. The difference between my metaphor of wearing the mask and that of Black Skin, White Masks, was that the white mask described by Fanon (1952/1967) implied the existence of black essence that was forgotten by the colonised. On the contrary, the mask in my case was not something lost, rather, the mask was the subject himself. The self without the mask cannot exist.


98

Summary In this second meditation, I have presented a significant moment where I as an international student, as well as a colonised subject, actively reproduced the embodied discourse of the West.

As opposed to the subject captured in the first meditation who

was in the process of forming his own consciousness, the subject who already entered the ‘West’ displayed a particular desire to enact the values and beliefs that constituted the binary subject position.

In the deconstruction of the second meditation, I indicated that the internalised discourse became a part of the colonised subject’s psyche, in which exists a specific kind of desire. This desire, I argued, was related to what Fanon (1952/1967, 1961/2004) described as the colonised’s will to identify with and be identified by the oppressive other in the binary structure.

I also adopted the Hegelian master/slave dialectics for the theorisation of my

relationship with other international students in the same high school (Hegel,1807/1977; Liberman, 1999; Villet, 2011).

I revealed that in the dialectics, inferiority is a catalyst

of the desire to become the ‘Western’ and urged me to reproduce the discourse of the West. These actions were to isolate myself from other international students, as I projected my own inferiority complex onto other individuals.


99

Other than the actions of isolation, the emotions were a part of the defence mechanism of the desire. Anger and embarrassment were prominent and dominated my responses to other international students. discourse of the West.

These emotions pointed to the reproductive nature of the

Through this example, I pointed out that it could be useful that

discussion around the effects of discourse also include a critical interrogation of the subject’s psyche.

The second meditation allowed me to capture the stage where a

colonised subject replicated the same binary position through different discursive practices.

I who wore the mask of the ‘West’ through these discursive practices reified

my subjectivity and existence.

In simplistic terms, my desire was to self-colonise, and

the option for liberation under such discursive binary was to obtain the consciousness of the coloniser (Fanon, 1952/1967).

Chapter Six: The Third Meditation

100

Chapter Six: The Third Meditation Introduction The last meditation is the heart of this project.

Although the three meditations are

presented in a chronological order, it is worth noting that this third meditation illustrates the moment that inspired this entire project.

This meditation brings me back to the

epiphany that I experienced during the pursuit of a degree in education studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

In this meditation, I engage with the paradoxical

subject position I arrived at when I critically reflected on the source of my conscientisation, which in Freire’s (1970/1996) terms is the moment when the oppressed forms his critical consciousness.

I contend that the paradox may be caused by the

internalised binary structure that became the basis for reflection. Moreover, I suggest that the concept of critical syncretism could be the foundation for countering such binary (Chen, 2010).

The Split of a Subject in Self-reflections In this brief literature review, I begin with the ambivalence of reflexivity (Davies et al., 2004), as well as Heidegger’s (1927/1982) insight on the inevitable split of the subject when enacting such reflexivity. The ambivalence will later on be connected to my own


101

experiences of decolonisation and representation of the self through this auto-ethnography.

Self-reflexivity is ambivalent, according to Davies et al. (2004).

Since a unified,

Cartesian self cannot be conceived merely through reflections, we could only capture a sense of being a unified self by turning our gaze onto the language that we inscribe to. In this sense, the self is always already in the texts regardless of the style of writing being subjective or ‘objective’.

Thus, reflecting on the texts always involves reflecting on the

constituted self, and at the same time reflecting on the constituted self would mean to reflect on the subject’s embodiment of language and discourse (Davies et al., 2004; Richardson, 1997).

The ambivalence partly lies in the impossibility to reflecting on the self through reflections. A more complex situation with such contradictory reflexivity occurs in the action of the subject, who obtains merely a sense of a unified self, to create a text of analysis in which the constitutive self and the agentic self can emerge simultaneously. This distinction exists between the self who is writing and the self who is being analysed through the writing (Davies et al., 2004).

This ambivalence resonates with what

Heidegger (1927/1982) argues about the self in reflection.

In the moment of reflection,


102

the self who is being researched and analysed is the ‘self’ being “pre-sent” (vor-stellen) to the position in front of the self who is doing the research.

In addition to the written

‘self’, for the purpose of analysing “something” the process of writing and reflecting also requires one to create the very self, to which the analysis can be directed.

In this way,

the subject becomes split.

Therefore, the subject being researched has to be positioned before/in front of in order for the subject doing the research to carry out the task of reflection. And by doing so the subject who analyses the ‘self’ is positioned elsewhere.

In relation to the ‘self’ who is

being written as an effect of discourse, the writing self in these moments of reflection remains in a state of influx.

This ambivalence of reflexivity will later on be brought into

the conversation again, along with the deconstruction of the third meditation.

The

potential contradiction, I believe, is also the moment of agency where the subject is at once within and outside discourse.

The Third Meditation The previous meditations have taken me back to the earliest memory of having direct contact with agents from the West.

I also went back to year 13 to reflect

on the actions and thoughts at the time in order to discover my desire to become Western.

These meditations formed a map of how discourses intersect in


103

different periods of time in my life. I now have to go back to the point where I became aware of these discourses. I close my eyes, ready to face the confusion and pain which were essential for constituting the epiphanic moment.

I shall

meditate one last time.

The sudden pain.

I open my eyes and realise I can’t see things clearly.

forgot to put my glasses on again.

Oh! I

I cleaned the lens carefully and now I can finally see.

Now I am fully prepared for the lecture, at least this is what I think until the wave of confusion and pain hits me. “The hidden curriculum, has anyone heard of this?

This

concept of Michael Apple indicates that behind every curriculum there are ideologies in operation.10

Which means, you actually learn things which are unsaid or explicated”,

the lecturer slowly unpacks the concept.

I get a headache when I hear this, I don’t know

why.

The lecturer continues, “for example, when we come to class, we don’t have to tell everyone that you need to speak English to each other, or hand in your assignments with proper written English.

This could be one instance where the dominance of English is

not said, but simply adopted and reproduced.”

I have headache again.

I realise the

headache is a sign that something is changing every time the lecturer unpacks these

10

(Apple, 2004).


concepts.

104

My headache is telling me that the concept is implying something that I would

like to reject.

This is also a sign that my memories and experiences of the past are no

longer disconnected from the present.

But wait, this is not the first time I have felt this, is it? déjà vu suddenly strikes me.

This is not the first time that a

I had this exact feeling last year when I was learning about

Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and habitus. 11

I remember that I got

headache when I heard those theories and used them to interpret my experiences. These theories seemed to suggest that what I have been doing was not pursuing freedom, but quite the opposite.

I was merely escaping from one oppressive machine to another.

In

thinking that I am on the path of liberation, I also had to comply with the norms of the dominant class and culture of another country.

Last year I managed to escape this

discomfort, because I didn’t want the pain of waking up. I be my own master?

“Am I oppressed?

When can

Have I just been escaping from one master to another?

Am I this

miserable slave who doesn’t want to be free?”, I keep asking myself.

But let me rest for

now and have a good dream, so when I wake up I can continue to live this reality.

11

(Bourdieu, 1986; Harker, 1990; Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002.)


105

I open my eyes, and I see the lecturer preparing the PowerPoints.

“Last time we talked

about cultural hegemony, which is a concept proposed by Antonio Gramsci. 12

We

revealed how ideologies are embedded in different social and cultural and political domains for the purpose of maintaining the power of the dominant”, the lecturer reports the progress so far. The more theories I am in touch with, the more nervous I get.

I

am afraid of the fact that as my understanding of various theories increases, the pain and confusion also gradually become more and more acute. What if it is today that the pain becomes unbearable?

“…regarding how one’s subjectivity is formed, poststructuralists

such as Michel Foucault believe that we live in a system of power, which is constructed by the intersection of discourses”, the lecturer asserts 13 .

She continues, “these

discourses form your consciousness and shape the lens through which you view the world around you.

In other words, you are always ‘trapped’ in some sort of socially

constructed reality.”

Is she implying that I am always implicitly shaped by different statements, speech and actions of others about what to believe and desire?

So, I am not only oppressed by this

very higher education institution, which reproduces and promotes the dominant culture’s

12 13

(Mayo, 2010). (Foucault, 1972).


106

capital, but was also “programmed” at the beginning to inscribe to these values and beliefs? It could have already taken place before I even entered the West?

I am always constrained! I am always constrained! I am always constrained! I shout.

I am having a headache again!

But this time with unbearable pain.

Then the headache stopped, as well as time.

Please! Stop!

It is at this moment that I feel like I am at

a vacuum, looking at my past, present and future at the event horizon near the black hole. I am literally watching my memories slowly change as I theorise them with the critical tools.

I am coerced; I am not free!

My positive freedom only comes from fully

immersing myself in the dominant culture.

I have no agency!

The only agency I get

is by accumulating the cultural capital that is desired by the dominant group of the society. I have no free will! My will, desire and consciousness have always been the product of existing discourses.

I am not intending to find a solution.

“Not yet, I have to know more first”, I tell myself,


107

as I am rather curious about where this sudden pain came from.

I start to wonder, how

can I even realise that there is hierarchy, imbalanced power relationship, oppression, hegemony or discourses if I am always just restricted like the prisoner in Plato’s cave14? Who set me free and allowed me to explore the world outside the cave?

I ask myself

the question, “what caused my conscientisation?” The answer to this question leaves me puzzled. “This is ironic. No, this is a paradox!”, I yell. How is this possible? The system that perpetuates the dominant culture and invites submission ironically also gives me the tools for critical reflection.

I don’t understand! How can I suffer from

the dominant ideologies, while being given the methods to identify the discourses that are at play by the very source of oppression?

I start to meditate on this paradox, knowing

and trying to face the fact that after this epiphany, although everything is the same, everything is different.

A Paradox I have probed the formation of a colonised subject whose subjectivity partly is an effect of the discourse of the West.

I have also analysed how this discourse became a particular

desire of the subject to become the superior binary other articulated by the discourse.

14

(Plato, 380 B.C./2012).


108

Through this third meditation, I described the “pain” of having to concede the fictionality of the subject’s reality.

Based on the subject position identified in this meditation, I will

discuss how the position allowed me to discover the paradoxical nature of decolonisation in my personal journey.

Furthermore, I use Chen’s (2010) concept of critical syncretism,

as already detailed in Chapter Two, as an initial step of self-decolonisation within this subject position.

This initial step is not to have a direct conflict with the colonial

discourses, but a reconciliation with the ‘self’ that breaks away from the binary thinking (Chen, 2010). By being metacognitive on my own meditation, I also illustrate how the subject’s agency gets expressed in these complex situations. The subject is agentic, I claim, in those moments of reflexivity.

The pain, or “headache”, was a sign that I began to notice his own connection with discourse and position within power relations with others. At the beginning, I claimed that I did not know the cause of the headache.

However, as I gradually understood the

implications of concepts such as hegemony (Mayo, 2010), cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986), ideologies, or discourse (Foucault, 1972), I noticed that “something [was] changing every time the lecturer unpack[ed] these concepts”.

The metaphor of pain

resembled the moment where the theories, like a pair of glasses, enabled me to see my


109

own inscription to the discourse of the West.

These theories, whether they be

structuralist or poststructuralist, exposed the impossibility to escape from the influences of language and discourse, and provoked me to question the reality that I had been living. To me, the conscientising moment was awakening yet uncomfortable, as it involved a doubt of the norms and myself who made sense of the world through these norms.

I

began the self-interrogation when I realised that the headache was “a sign that my memories and experiences of the past are no longer disconnected from the present”.

In

other words, theories that regarded reality as a social construction exposed my buried memories.

The critical consciousness prompted me to ask myself a simple question: “Am I free?” I became sceptical towards the decision to pursue ‘international higher education in a ‘Western’, English speaking country, the self-isolation from other international students, and the desire to be more ‘Western’.

It was that precise moment that I started to wonder

whether I was in fact not free from anything at all, either from Taiwan or the ‘West’. For I was merely escaping from one place in order to “comply with the norms of the dominant class and culture of another country.” enacting a colonised subjectivity.

Or, in the poststructuralist sense, I was only

And the conclusion of the reflections was that I was


110

always constrained, just like a spider that “weave[s] its way out of the web that it is being woven into, just as it weaves” (Lin, 2015, p. xiii).

A paradoxical role of the ‘West’ therefore emerged.

It is paradoxical that the ‘West’

simultaneously acted as a binary other that dominates the values and beliefs of the subject, but nevertheless gave the colonised subject the tools for identifying and contesting this dominance.

This paradox can also be connected with the memories in the first

meditation, where I mentioned the impact of my direct contact with agents from the ‘West’. The English teacher, who brought the existence of the ‘West’ into my reality, contributed significantly to the belief that the ‘West’ was superior and could provide more freedom.

Since the decision to pursue a ‘better’ education in a ‘Western’ country was

under the influence of the English teacher, who represented the superiority of the ‘West’, this paradox left me considering whether the international education experience was simply oppressive after I realised its triviality.

I was in fact attempting to reflect on and

critique ‘Western’ educational structure with ‘Western’ knowledge.

Moreover, the

knowledge I gained through different university courses was not limited to enabling me to identify the dominance of the ‘West’, but it also allowed me to reengage with the political and cultural situations in my home country, Taiwan.

The benefits of this


111

knowledge added to my confusion of the role of ‘Western’ education in perpetuating the West/East binary.

A reconciliation with the ‘self’.

This project, however, does not provide a

clear, generalisable answer as to how one can break through this paradox.

I consider

this paradox as only paradoxical if my reflections were based on the internalised binary of ‘West’ and the ‘East’, and thus was theorising my own experiences in accordance with the essentialist dichotomy.

That is, I felt that the ‘West’ being at the same time

oppressive and liberating was paradoxical and confusing precisely because I still held an essentialist belief of the ‘West’, but merely replaced the belief of the ‘West’ being a superior other to the belief that the ‘West’ should always only be oppressive.

To

conceive the ‘West’ as merely oppressive is to only jump from one essentialist belief to another, and this would only further solidify the existing binary and leave me with an unsolvable paradox.

Critical syncretism (Chen, 2010) could be considered as the first step for the colonised subject in this situation to grapple with this paradox. Critical syncretism is different from Bhabha’s (1994) concept of hybridity, as it does not presume a pure, uncontaminated


112

existence of a cultural being. The assumption of non-mixed cultures would easily slip into the discourse of West/East binary.

Critical syncretism acknowledges the pre-

existing differences and chaotic nature of cultures and subjectivities.

In simplistic terms,

the status of mixture is the absolute beginning and we as subjects are always at the stage of transformation.

Based on this recognition, the ‘West’, or the presence of America,

was already always a part of the base entity of Taiwan and Taiwanese people’s subjectivity. Chen’s (2010) assertion of the presence of the United States in the Taiwanese consciousness is clear:

If we wish to honestly understand the subjectivity of the self in East Asia, we have to recognize that the United States has not merely defined our identities but has become deeply embedded within our subjectivity. And it is precisely by occupying this position as the dominant system of reference that America constitutes our subjectivity.

When the United States, rather than the Philippines

or Korea, has been consistently adopted as our default point of reference, it means that we are Americanized, if not American.

This basic recognition is the

necessary starting point if Taiwanese subjectivity is to be transformed. (pp. 1789)


113

The Taiwanese subjectivity, in this case, includes that of the American and the ‘Western’. The ‘West’ to a Taiwanese subject was never an external entity that exists outside of the body and mind.

Rather, the notion of the ‘West’ is a part of my psyche that is

externalised by the discourse of the West for the purpose of creating a binary, in which I could only recognise my existence as an Oriental, non-Western, while submitting to the essentialist definition of the self and other.

This imposed binary, I believe, is for reifying

the existing power relations between Taiwan and the United States for economic and political purposes (Chen, 2010).

Following this line of reasoning, I must become a

syncretised subject again to dissolve the binary.

The reason why I named the final deconstruction a reconciliation with the self is two-fold. One is due to the necessity for me to acknowledge the syncretised Taiwanese subjectivity, which was reduced into an Oriental, essentialist being by the discourse of the West.

The

other is that this colonised ‘self’ who is written, is at the same time is/not the self who is writing. This syncretised self who is performing a decolonisation of the mind through an auto-ethnography, paradoxically, separates from himself a ‘self’ who is colonised.

In

the literature review of the collective biography carried out by Davies et al. (2004), I pointed out that this moment of reflection is the point where the subject who is reversing


114

the gaze on the self and his inscription to discourse, expresses his agency.

This ambivalent moment of writing and reflexivity leaves a ‘self’ in the binary discourse and a self who gazes at the binary. When I constitute these texts, the ‘self’ to be analysed is simultaneously born (Davies et al., 2004). This also means that the discourse of the West and its embodiment in the subject were rehearsed again as I progressed through my story just for the purpose of deconstructing it. This is the at the same time the birth and death of the colonised subject.

The very act of reflection and the infinite regress of pre-

posing a ‘self’ during these reflections is the point where the researcher constructs, analyses, and deconstructs the ‘self’ being researched. The split of the subject is not only a deconstruction, but also a reconciliation with the colonised ‘self’ being separated, and only through this reconciliation, the syncretising self who is constantly reflecting and re-directing the gaze can be temporarily free.

The critically syncretised subject after

reconciliation does not resemble or return to a unitary subjectivity, but remains a constituting/constituted self who constantly practises reflexivity in these moments of fragmentation, disruption and reconciliation.

While I point out the emancipatory potential of reflexive writing, there is another issue


115

that should be briefly addressed. This problematic can be easily identified from a muchcirculated Lacanian joke about father and son:

Think of the situation known to most of us from our youth: the unfortunate child who, on Sunday afternoon, has to visit his grandmother instead of being allowed to play with friends. The old-fashioned authoritarian father’s message to the reluctant boy would have been: “I don’t care how you feel.

Just do your duty,

go to grandma’s and behave yourself there!” …Much more tricky would have been the message of a “postmodern” non-authoritarian father: “You know how much your grandmother loves you!

But, nonetheless, I do not want to force

you to visit her – go there only if you really want to!” (Žižek, 2007, p.92)

This short story illustrates a concern that I share when it comes to the leap of faith in the emancipatory potential of writing.

In the story, the father on the surface seems to be

open and encourages autonomy, but in fact by doing so exerts his absolute dominance over the son, as he not only wants the son to visit the grandma, but also wants the son to want to visit her himself. The ‘freedom of choice’ of the son is also the display of the absolute power of the father, where to visit the grandmother becomes the only choice.


116

The situation of the father and son should be a reminder for me as a researcher to not fully embrace the liberating effect of reflexive writing.

As I mentioned, only at the moment

of self-reflection that I could locate myself in temporality for the purpose of analysis, and at the same time a state of influx. And the state of influx resonates with the postmodern subjectivity that is agentic despite being an effect of power (Armstrong, 2008; Butler, 1992; Davies, 2004; Foucault,1950/1977, 1984/1986). The danger here is that reflexive and deconstructive writing “risk[s] buying into the faith in the powers of critical reflection that places emancipatory efforts in such a contradictory position with the poststructuralist foregrounding of the limits of consciousness (Lather, 1993, p. 685).

It is undoubtedly

necessary to acknowledge the potential of reflexive writing, but to take the activity as the sole means to liberation and transformation would only restrict the possibilities that such task opens up.

Self as point of reference.

So far, I have deconstructed the third meditation,

engaged with the paradoxical subject position and attempted to locate possible ways for dissolving the discursive binary of the West and the East.

As part of the deconstruction,

I presented the finding on how reflexive writing plays an important role in re-placing the subject and the possibilities that such action provides.

From my perspective, after I


117

embarked on the limitations of reflexive writing in spite of its potential, I, as a critically syncretised self with a critical awareness of the existing limitations, become a referencing point based on which others could access my world culturally and emotionally.

To

become a point of reference is also to invite others to share their subjective experiences of how one came to internalise and challenge the West/East binary (Chen, 2010).

The concept of inter-referencing was originally asserted by Chen (2010) as a method for ‘Asian’ scholars to move away from the image of ‘Asia’ as a data mine for the ‘West’ to interpret.

However, Chen (2010) himself never problematised the term ‘Asia’ and the

Asia-centric sounding method could fall into the existing binary, which limits its potential and flexibility (Singh, 2015). My adaptation of inter-referencing would therefore be opening up the space for others, who have also come to realise their internalisation of the West/East binary, regardless of their discursive subjectivity being ‘Western’ or ‘Eastern’. In this way, the act of referencing is not limited to the so-called ‘Asians’, but people who have gained critical consciousness to identify the fictionality of such binary; together we move away from the constructed dichotomy.


118

Summary In this last meditation, I captured the moment in which I became critically aware of my own embodiment and inscription to the discourse of the West.

While gaining a critical

consciousness from learning various theories and beginning to question my thoughts and actions in the past, I nonetheless could not conceive a possible way to grasp the paradoxical role of the ‘West’ being simultaneously oppressive and liberating.

This re-visit of the moment has given me new insights on the paradox.

I concede the

possibility that my idea that the ‘West’ was and could only be oppressive had a particular reference to the identical binary thinking that portrayed the ‘West’ as superior and more progressive in the first place. became imperative.

To conceptualise a way to break away from the binary

I therefore proposed the concept of critical syncretism as a strategy

for dissolving this binary structure (Chen, 2010).

I recognised the need to confront the

fact that the presence of the ‘West’ was a legacy of the cold war structure, which had become an inextricable part of the Taiwanese subjectivity and consciousness even before my first contact with the ‘West’ took place.

Following this line of reasoning, being a

Taiwanese subject in fact always involved being part of the ‘West’.

From this point, I

started from the beginning again as a rootless, critically syncretised subject with the


119

reconciliation with the ‘self’ and the reclamation of a fluid subjectivity.

I named this

return of a syncretised subjectivity a reconciliation.

Critical reflexivity was crucial in the process of decolonisation, as it not only made it possible to deconstruct my own predicament of grappling with the binary structure, but also facilitated the process of reconciliation.

Despite certain limitations with self-

reflection, I discovered that writing about the myself with reflexivity could be a useful way to achieve the task of inter-referencing (Chen, 2010).

I created a world that others

can refer to, engage with or synthesise when attempting to dissolve the binary by writing the colonised self into stories.

Since solidarity is one of the goals of inter-referencing, I

further problematised Chen’s (2010) original definition of the task, which is the sharing of experiences within Asia and among ‘Asians’.

From my perspective, the possibility

of solidarity lies in the diversity of inter-referencing, which must include the sharing of insights between all individuals who struggle with the dichotomy.

Chapter Seven: An End and a Beginning

120

Chapter Seven: An End and a Beginning Introduction This chapter concludes the project. meditations.

In this chapter, I summarise the main findings of my

I separated these findings into two sections. The first section responds to

the primary research question: What can self-decolonisation of a Taiwanese international student in New Zealand look like?

The second section responds to the secondary

research question: In what ways, does auto-ethnography contribute to the process of selfdecolonisation?

After re-visiting the major findings in more detail, I point out the potential limitations of this project, which are primarily in relation to the use of auto-ethnography and the source of data.

Before my concluding thoughts, I indicate potential future research directions,

where I highlight the need to consider possible ways for critical reflections to transform into critical actions.

Primary Research Question – Self-decolonisation In the deconstruction of my third meditation, I theorised that self-decolonisation as a Taiwanese international student starts from reconciling with the ‘self’ and overcoming


the binary between the West and the East.

121

Since I was initially positioned in a binary

structure as an Oriental by the discourse of the West, I could not possibly be considered as ‘Western’. However, based on historical factors, the presence of the United states in terms of values and beliefs, have always been a part of the Taiwanese subjectivity (Chen, 2010). As mentioned before, this presence was a legacy of the cold war structure (Chen, 2010). The Taiwanese subjectivity, which is not ontologically culturally essentialist, nor singular, is therefore constantly transforming syncretically and never static.

To be

Taiwanese is to be ‘Western’ to some extent; Being Oriental is also being Occidental. The binary of the West/East ought not to exist in a cultural context such as Taiwan without the discourse that reiterates the structure.

The reconciliation, which at the same time

deconstructs and embraces the colonised self, therefore disrupts and dissolves the binary structure, as well as transforming the discourse of the West from within by reclaiming the syncretised subjectivity.

This project was based on Chen’s (2010) view of Taiwan’s neo-colonial relation with the United States.

It is argued that the presence of the ‘West’ is often overlooked when

conceptualising the Taiwanese subjectivity. discourses regarding the ‘West’ are neutral.

This is a result of the view that the

I, as an international student who also chose


122

to study in an English-speaking country, at some point realised that the choice to study overseas was likely to be structural.

Through this project, I reflected on the important

moments in my life and attempted to locate the discourses that implicated my subjectivity as a colonised subject.

The deconstruction of my narratives and the subjectivity in these texts was a significant part of the project.

When unpacking the theoretical framework, I emphasised the

implications of discourse in shaping the subject (Said, 1979). We cannot firmly grasp what a discourse essentially is, but rather examine the effects of discourses in the system of power, such as the values and beliefs that are conveyed and how these messages tend to perpetuate and reproduce existing power relations (Bové, 1990; Bacchi, 2005; Davies, 1989, 1997; Alsop et al., 2002; St. Pierre, 2000). To identify discourses, some analyse policy documents or literary texts, as statements and actions are also discursive practices (Scott, 1988).

I identified discourses by reflecting on thoughts and actions in particular

moments.

In the deconstruction of the first meditation, I examined the statements, symbols and actions that formed a discourse that shaped my beliefs regarding the ‘West’. As far as I


123

could recall, the memory of having contact with what is considered ‘Western’ could be traced back to my time in kindergarten, where I had my first English class. discourse of the ‘West’ introduced the binary of the ‘West’ and the ‘East’.

The

I internalised

the binary and therefore positioned myself as an Oriental who perceived the ‘West’ as superior and English as innately valuable.

I pointed out that the discourse was reinstated

by both the subjects that represent the ‘West’ and the ‘East’.

In this meditation, the

actors who were simultaneously spoken of by and spoke of the ‘West’ were the principal (Oriental) and the ‘real’ English teacher from the United States (Occidental).

This

binary resonates with what Said (1979) explicated regarding the role of discourse in constructing the reality in which such binary could exist.

My agency in the power

relations with my parents, the principal and the English teacher was limited to positioning myself as an Oriental and to also call myself Jason. When I received a gift from an agent of the ‘West’, which was a foreign name, I was happy, excited and appreciative.

In the second meditation, I examined the socially constructed desire of the subject to become ‘Western’ (Davies, 1990).

I indicated that by the time I entered the ‘West’ as a

year 13 international student in New Zealand, the status of the discourse of the West as an external object to be internalised seemed to diminish.

Instead, I performed and


124

enacted the values and beliefs embedded in the discourse. This is when the discourse of the West became my own desire to be ‘Western’.

I positioned the subject during this

time in a dialectical relationship with the superior ‘Western’ other, which is essentially the binary structure constituted by the discourse of the West.

I realised that my actions and emotions were at once inspired by the wish to satisfy the desire to be more ‘Western’, and to compensate my inferiority complex within the identity as an Oriental (Fanon, 1952/1967; Mannoni, 1950/1990).

In the attempt to compensate

my feelings of being inferior, I isolated myself from other international students who were considered inferior for them being ‘non-Western’.

The act of isolation did not only fail

to accomplish the objectification of the master in the Hegelian sense (Liberman, 1999), but only further reified the existing power relations between the inferior self and the superior ‘Western’ other.

By seeing myself as superior in relation to other international

students, it only reinforces the objectification of the self within the same binary.

A sense

of guilt emerged as I objectified others and isolated myself, but the feeling was overwhelmed by the desire to become more ‘Western’.

I revealed in the third meditation how I came to understand my own contradictory subject


125

position when I discovered the oppressive discourse of the West and questioned my own thoughts and actions in the past.

In these moments of reflections, I was in fact critiquing

the ‘West’ with knowledge gained from a ‘Western’ international higher education institution.

At first, the subject acknowledged that this situation was somewhat paradoxical, because the ‘West’ could not possibly be oppressive and liberating at the same time.

In the

attempt to deconstruct the paradox, I pointed out that the paradox perhaps was based on the binary of the West/East, where essentialist beliefs were embedded in either category. Therefore, as soon as the subject discovered the presence of the ‘West’ behind his decisions, thoughts and actions, the essentialist belief about the ‘West’ being superior immediately was replaced by the belief that the ‘West’ was simply oppressive.

This simplistic reversal of the essentialist role of the ‘West’ from a superior, generous other to an oppressor reaffirms the binary that defined me as Oriental, rather than dissolving it. For the purpose of dissolving the binary, I started by re-considering my subjectivity as critically syncretised (Chen, 2010).

That means, the Taiwanese

subjectivity was always already hybridised in a way that one could not possibly belong


to a singular, essentialist culture.

126

The absence of an absolute cultural root of mine

opened up possibilities for me to be fluid and in a way, universal.

This includes

becoming what is considered ‘Western’, as the presence of the ‘West’ was a part of the base entity of Taiwan as a result of the cold war structure.

The reflections on the paradox were painful, as it led me to question my own reality. To admit that the ‘West’ was always a part of my psyche was a painful reconciliation of the ‘self’, which was originally a possibility of my subjectivity, but positioned as an external ‘other’ by the discourse of the West.

This is not to say that I was then a ‘Western’ subject

from the very beginning, but to contend that a syncretised individual who originally had the capacity to become anything, was reduced to an inferior Oriental subject by the discourse.

In other words, the fluidity of a subject was deprived and replaced with a

subjectivity within the binary, along with the desire to pursue what is considered ‘Western’.

I call this process of recognising the discursively externalised part of the self

a reconciliation.


127

Secondary Research Question – The Role of Auto-ethnography The role of auto-ethnography in this project was critical to arriving at the stage of reconciliation.

Constructing narratives based on my memories in the past was a useful

reflexive task for me to discover my own participation and complicity in internalising and reproducing certain discourses and power relations.

Narrative has immense potential as

it can account for the emotional and subjective embodiment of discourse, while expressing the narrator’s agency.

The narrator him/herself while narrating the stories

is in fact also proactively realising, exposing and deconstructing the embedded discourses. Emotions, thoughts and behaviours are also products of discourses (Davies, 1990). By examining the cause of these emotions and actions, it is possible to picture the discourses behind the veil.

Narratives are one of the many critical tools that could help a researcher reflect on his/her own subject positions through the deconstructions of emotions, feelings and thoughts in the stories (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Holman Jones, 2005; Reed-Danahay, 1997). Autoethnographies (Bhattacharya, 2016; Mackinlay, 2012; Mayuzumi, Motobayashi, Nagayama, & Takeuchi, 2007; Petitt, 2009) and auto-biographies (Ang, 1994), or even the writings about the self in general, capture rare moments of agency and reflexivity.


128

Writing about the embodiment of discourses and how discourses constitute a subject and enabling the subject to perform aligns with what Foucault (1982) reminds us of our mission today, which “is not to discover what we are but to refuse what we are” (p. 785). Through writing about one’s own engagement with the discourses that created the recognition of “I”, we are agentic in realising how discourses shape our existence as subjects and seek ways to resist.

The ambivalence in writing about the self through this auto-ethnography further reveals possibilities for self-decolonisation, for which the alleviation of essentialist binary is imperative.

As I already mentioned in the deconstruction of the third meditation that

the reconciliation had two layers.

The first layer, as indicated, was the re-engagement with the ‘self’ externalised by the discourse of the West as a result of the binary.

The second layer was the ‘self’ that was

represented during the construction of my meditations. During the writing process, I realised that the subject was agentic in those moments of reflections, as the subject who was representing himself in the texts entered a state of influx when he automatically posited the represented ‘self’ in front of him (Heidegger, 1927/1982).

In short, the


subject became split.

129

There existed a ‘self’ that was represented and deconstructed, and

immediately a self who was performing the representation and deconstruction (Davies et al., 2004).

This moment is often recognised as the predicament of critical self-

reflexivity, as the ‘self’ who is written is at the same time a non-self (Davies et al., 2004). I see this as the expression of agency of the postmodern, constitutive subject who constantly transforms (St. Pierre, 2000). This second layer of reconciliation resonated with the first.

When I wrote about and deconstructed the ‘self’, I was simultaneously

accepting and embracing the externalised part of my subjectivities, an alternative possibility that was categorised as ‘West’ by the discourse.

I have once again emphasised the agency that constructing narratives can provide. However, I also realised certain limitations with the method during the process of deconstruction.

I drew on a Lacanian anecdote about the father and his son, where the

father successfully stated his absolute power and influence over the son’s decisions by acting as if he was open and generous.

This, I claimed, would be a concern if one

overestimates the agency of reflexivity. The overestimation of the power of reflections as a constituted subject in a world of discourses is to prevent oneself from looking for other possibilities that could transform the conscientisation into action.

This is a


130

reminder for myself that critical reflections are only the beginning of decolonisation, which perhaps has no end.

Finally, with the acknowledgement of the limitations of self-reflections, this autoethnographic project and the ‘self’ that I wrote about in these meditations became a point of reference for inter-referencing.

This is another potential of auto-ethnographies,

where the author not only becomes others, but also creates a space for others to become him/her.

I nonetheless claimed that Chen’s (2010) idea of inter-referencing was

problematic, as it proposed the space for inter-referencing and story sharing as limited to among ‘Asian’ scholars and individuals.

I believe that we need to invite individuals who

also internalised the discursive construction of the West/East to become points of reference and illustrate their own inscription to such language.

The action of inter-

referencing therefore goes beyond the essentialist category of ‘Western’ or ‘Eastern’, and includes the deconstructions and self-reflections on the binary from within and outside what is considered the ‘West’ and the ‘East’.


131

Limitations Although the subject, through the use of auto-ethnography, reveals possibilities of selfdecolonisation and discovers moments of agency when reflecting on his own experiences, this project is not free of certain restrictions.

The limitations of this project mainly come

from its adoption of a controversial qualitative research methodology.

The findings

from auto-ethnographic writings are not generalisable due to their subjective nature (Adams et al., 2014; Ellis et al., 2011; Liamputtong, 2007; Pillay et al., 2016).

In Chapter Three, I briefly addressed the tension between evocative auto-ethnography (Ellis & Bochner, 2006; Ellis et al., 2011) and analytic auto-ethnography (Anderson, 2006a; Chang, 2008) in hope of demystifying the already marginalised methodology. By combining the rationale of evocative and analytic auto-ethnography I sought to provide a clearer approach to this project.

However, the use of memories as the sole

source of research data may be contested even within social sciences, as such source is not examinable by the common criteria for trustworthiness, such as member checking or triangulation (Lietz, Langer, & Furman, 2006).

I addressed this concern before with

reference to the adjustment of criteria mentioned by Ellis et al. (2011).

Yet, if I were to

fulfil my goal of utilising this methodology, which is to participate in and enrich the on-


132

going discussion on colonial experiences, I do concede that the issue with the trustworthiness of my narratives may persist.

The adjusted criteria, after all, may not

appeal to other researchers who prefer a conventional standard and may concern scholars who seek to replicate the results of this project.

Future Research Directions The limitations outlined above also point to possible future research directions.

For

example, I indicated in the deconstruction of the third meditation that there is in fact an inherent ambivalence of reflexivity within the poststructuralist framework, which is especially evident in this auto-ethnographic project.

I discovered that this ambivalence

as the moment of agency, where one gazed at the constituted self. From my perspective, critical reflexivity was a key step for self-decolonisation, as it allowed a subject to trace back to specific moments for identifying and challenging the discourses at play.

I also

conceptualised the critically reflexive subject as a point of reference for others to engage with the personal experiences of colonisation and internalisation of the West/East binary. The future research direction, on the one hand, might be to locate different ways of bringing the transformative action beyond the level of self-reflections.

On the other

hand, it would be necessary to identify other ways for the subject, who is trapped in a


133

seemingly deterministic world, to express his/her agency for social change. Thus, the next research question might be: What goes beyond critical self-reflections and how can we imagine possibilities for dissolving the binary other than at an individual level through self-reflection?

Concluding Thoughts This auto-ethnography explored the subjectivity of a colonised subject from a first-person point of view.

I combined three different theories in order to theorise and engage with

the changes of the subject without limiting the analysis to merely identifying discourses. This project differed from much qualitative research that utilise discourse analysis, where I studied my own inscription to language and discourse instead of others’.

The process of discourse analysis in this project was also unique with the use of autoethnography.

Through weaving my emotions and struggles into my stories, I revealed

the subject’s experiences of embodying certain discourses and articulating the feeling of enacting particular subject positions.

The meditations that I performed connected the

past and present, as they were practically a rehearsal of my reality.

In these meditations,

discourse analysis not only revealed the presence of discourses but also captured the


134

shadow of discourse behind my actions, emotions, thoughts and desire.

This project

therefore resides in the existing gap in literature, as the analysis of discourses in this case shifts its focus from the discourses identified to the subject himself.

The theoretical importance of this project is, on the one hand, expanding the application of discourse analysis, in conjunction with psychoanalysis and Hegelian dialectics, while showing that it is possible to encompass both the evocativeness of auto-ethnography and an emphasis on viewing the data analytically.

On the other hand, by questioning,

negating and reconciling with my own subject position in this neo-colonial world, I conceptualised an alternative strategy to break away the imposed binary, and to grasp and grapple with the ambivalence of reflexivity.

This project is therefore helpful for

individuals who also came to realise the existence of the fictional binary between the ‘West’ and the ‘East’, and are puzzled by the contradictions in the conscientising moment. The result of this conscientisation was a highly reflexive subject constituted through this text; a subject who sees the possibilities of solidarity through the inter-referencing of pain and struggles regardless of individuals’ position in the binary.

This is, I claim, the

epiphany after which everything is the same, and everything is different.

135

References Adams, T. E., Jones, S. H., Jones, S. L. H., & Ellis, C. (2014). Autoethnography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Adler, A. (1929). The science of living. Garden City, NY: Garden City Publishing. Ahmad, A. (1995). The politics of literary postcoloniality. Race and Class, 36, 1-20. Ahmad, A. (1997). Postcolonial theory and the 'post-' condition. Socialist Register, 33(33), 353-381. Ali, S. (2007). Feminism and postcolonial: Knowledge/politics: Introduction: Feminist and postcolonial: Challenging knowledge. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 191-212. Alsop, R., Fitzsimons, A., & Lennon, K. (2002). Theorizing gender: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Polity. Anderson, L. (2006a). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395. doi:10.1177/0891241605280449 Anderson, L. (2006b). On apples, oranges, and autopsies: A response to commentators. Journal

of

Contemporary

Ethnography,

35(4),

450-465.

doi:10.1177/0891241606287395 Andreotti, V. (2009). Global education in the '21st century': Two different perspectives on

136

the 'post-' of postmodernism. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 2(2), 5-22. Ang, I. (1994). On not speaking Chinese: postmodern ethnicity and the politics of Diaspora. New formations, 24, 1‐18. Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and cultural and economic reproduction. In Ideology and curriculum (pp. 25‐40). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Armstrong, A. (2008). Beyond resistance: A response to ŽiŽek's critique of Foucault's subject of freedom. Parrhesia: A journal of critical philosophy, 2008(5), 19-31. Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (2013). Post-colonial studies: The key concepts. New York, NY: Routledge. Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn or blind alley? Qualitative Health Research, 7, 325344. Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 400-404. doi:10.1177/0891241606286980 Bacchi, C. (2005). Discourse, discourse everywhere: Subject “agency” in feminist discourse methodology. Nordic journal of women's studies, 13(03), 198-209. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. New York, NY: Routledge.

137

Barrett, M. (1991). The politics of truth: From Marx to Foucault. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London, UK: Routledge. Bhambra, G. K. (2011). Historical sociology, modernity, and postcolonial critique. The American Historical Review, 116(3), 653-662. Bhambra, G. K., & Holmwood, J. (2011). Introduction: Translation and the challenge of interdisciplinarity. Journal of Historical Sociology, 24(1), 1-8. Bhattacharya, K. (2016). The vulnerable academic personal narratives and strategic de/colonizing of academic structures. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(5), 309-321. Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood. Bové , P. (1990). Discourse. In F. Lentricchia & T. McLaughlin (Eds.), Critical terms for literary study (pp. 50-65). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Butler, J. (1992). Contingent foundations: Feminism and the question of ‘‘postmodernism.’’ In J. Butler & J. W. Scott (Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Routledge. Butler, J. (1995). For a careful reading. In S. Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell & N. Fraser,

138

Feminist contentions: A philosophical exchange (pp. 127-143). New York, NY: Routledge. Butler, S. (2009). Considering “objective” possibilities in autoethnography: A critique of Heewon Chang’s Autoethnography as Method. The Weekly Qualitative Report, 2(51), 295-299. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/WQR/chang.pdf Carabine, J. (2001). Unmarried motherhood 1830-1990: A genealogical analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 267-310). London, UK: Sage publications. Chang, H. (2008). Autoethnography. In Autoethnography as method (pp. 43‐57). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. Chassler, P. (2007). Reading Mannoni's Prospero and Caliban before reading Black Skin, White Masks. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 5, 71-82. Chen, K. H. (1996). Not yet the postcolonial era: The (super) nation-state and transnationalism of cultural studies: Response to Ang and Stratton. Cultural studies, 10(1), 37-70. Chen, K. (2010). Asia as method: Toward deimperialization. Durham, UK: Duke University Press.

139

Cherland, M. (2008). Harry's girls: Harry Potter and the discourse of gender. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(4), 273-282. Childs, P. & Williams, P. (1997). An introduction to post-colonial theory. London, UK: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. Chow, R. (1993). Writing diaspora: Tactics of intervention in contemporary cultural studies. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Coffey, A. (1999). The ethnographic self. London, UK: Sage. Cohen, S. (2008). Are we "post" colonial? A conversation with Ania Loomba. The Humanities Review, 6(2), 121-126. Conquergood, D. (1991). Rethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communication

Monographs,

58(2),

179-194.

doi:10.1080/03637759109376222 Damm, J., & Lim, P. (Eds.). (2012). European perspectives on Taiwan. Wiesbaden, DE: Springer VS. Davies, B. (1989). The discursive production of the male/female dualism in school settings. Oxford Review of Education, 15(3), 229-241. Davies, B. (1990). The problem of desire. Social problems, 37(4), 501-516. Davies, B. (1997). The subject of post-structuralism: A reply to Alison Jones. Gender and

140

education, 9(3), 271-283. Davies, B. (2000). A body of writing. 1990-1999. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Davies, B. (2004). Introduction: Poststructuralist lines of flight in Australia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(1), 3-9. Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., Laws, C., Mueller-Rockstroh, B., & Petersen, E. B. (2004). The ambivalent practices of reflexivity. Qualitative inquiry, 10(3), 360-389. Delamont, S. (2009). The only honest thing: Autoethnography, reflexivity and small crises

in

fieldwork. Ethnography

and

Education, 4(1),

51-63.

doi:10.1080/17457820802703507 Denzin, N. K. (2006). Analytic autoethnography, or Déjà Vu all over again. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 419-428. doi:10.1177/0891241606286985 Descartes, R. (2010). Meditations (D. Clarke, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1641) Dirlik, A. (1994). The postcolonial aura: Third world criticism in the age of global capitalism. Critical Inquiry, 20(2), 328-356. doi:10.1086/448714 Drew, J. (1998). Cultural composition: Stuart Hall on ethnicity and the discursive Turn. JAC, 18(2), 171-196.

141

Drichel, S. (2008). The time of hybridity. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 34(6), 587-615. Drichel, S. (2013). Towards a "radical acceptance of vulnerability": Postcolonialism and deconstruction. SubStance, 42(3), 46-66. Easthope, A. (1998). Homi Bhabha, hybridity and identity, or Derrida versus Lacan. Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), 4(1/2), 145-151. Ellis, C. (1991). Sociological introspection and emotional experience.

Symbolic

Interaction, 14(1), 23-50 Ellis, C. S., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellis, C. S., & Bochner, A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography: An autopsy. Journal

of

Contemporary

Ethnography,

35(4),

429-449.

doi:10.1177/0891241606286979 Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative inquiry, 13(1), 3-28. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4), 273– 290.

142

Erickson, F. (2004). Demystifying data construction and analysis. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(4), 486-493. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2004.35.4.486 Fanon, F. (1967). Black Skin, White Masks (C. L. Markmann, Trans.). New York, NY: Grove Press. (Original work published 1952) Fanon, F. (2004). The wretched of the earth. (R. Philcox, Trans.). New York, NY: Grove Press. (Original work published 1961) Forber-Pratt, A. (2015). "You're going to do what?" Challenges of Autoethnography in the Academy. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(9), 821-835. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1950) Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume one. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1976) Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 76-100). New York, NY: Penguin Books. Foucault, M. (1986). The history of sexuality: Volume three. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1984)

143

Francis, B. (2000). The gendered subject: students' subject preferences and discussions of gender and subject ability. Oxford Review of Education, 26(1), 35-48. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1970) Friedman, J. (1997). Global crises, the struggle for cultural identity and intellectual porkbarrelling: Cosmopolitan versus locals, ethnics and nationals in an era of de-hegemonisation. In P. Werbner & T. Moddod (Eds.), Debating cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of anti-racism (pp. 70–89). London, UK: Zed Books. Gambetti, Z. (2005). The agent is the void! From the subjected subject to the subject of action. Rethinking Marxism, 17(3), 425-437. Gavey, N. (1989). Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis: Contributions to feminist psychology. Psychology of women quarterly, 13(4), 459-475. Gershenson, O. (2003). The lure and threat of cultural hybridity. Journal of International Communication, 9(2), 106-122. Gibson, N. (1999). Beyond manicheanism: dialectics in the thought of Frantz Fanon. Journal of Political Ideologies, 4(3), 337-364.

144

Gilroy, P. (1994). Black cultural politics: an interview with Paul Gilroy by Timmy Lott. Found Object, 4, 46-81. Graddol, D. (2006). English next: Why global English may mean the end of “English as a Foreign Language.” London, UK: British Council. Griffin, R. A. (2012). I am an angry black woman: Black feminist autoethnography, voice, and resistance. Women's Studies in Communication, 35(2), 138-157. doi:10.1080/07491409.2012.724524 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2008). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 255-286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gunn, A. C. (2012). The construction of disadvantage for boys and men in Aotearoa Ne w Zealand early childhood education: the gender debates continue. In D. Gor don-Burns, A. C. Gunn, K. Purdue, & N. Surtees (Eds.), Te aoturoa tataki: inclusive

early

childhood education: perspectives on inclusion, social

145

justice and equity from Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 115-134). Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press. Hamdi, T. K. (2013). Edward Said and recent Orientalist critiques. Arab Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 130-148. Harker, R. (1990). Bourdieu – education and reproduction. In R. Harker, C. Mahar, & C. Wilkes (Eds.), An introduction to the work of Pierre Bourdieu: the practice of theory (pp. 86‐108). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Hegel, G.W.F (1977). Phenomenology of spirit. (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1807) Heidegger, M. (1982). The basic problems of phenomenology. (A. Hofstadter, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (Original work published 1927) Hilligoss, B. (2014). Selling patients and other metaphors: A discourse analysis of the interpretive frames that shape emergency department admission handoffs. Social Science & Medicine, 102, 119-128. Hollway, W. (1984). Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In J. Henriques, W. Hollway, C. Urwin, C. Venn, & V. Walkerdine, Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation, and subjectivity (pp. 227-263). London, UK: Metheun.

146

Holman Jones, S. (2005). Autoethnography: Making the personal political. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 763791). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Schnurr, S. (2008). Impoliteness and ethnicity: Māori and Pākehā discourse in New Zealand workplaces. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(2), 193-219. Housley, W. (2009). Interaction, discourse and the subject. Subjectivity, 26(1), 69-86. Hoy, W. (2010). The nature of research and science. In Quantitative Research in Education: A Primer (pp. 1-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Huggan, G. (1997). The neocolonialism of postcolonialism: A cautionary note. Links & Letters, (4), 19-24. Inoue, N., & Stracke, E. (2013). Non-native English speaking postgraduate TESOL students in Australia: Why did they come here. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 8, 29-56. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2008). Experience and “I” in autoethnography: A deconstruction. International Review of Qualitative Research, 1(3), 299-318. Kavoori, A. P. (1998). Getting past the latest “post”: Assessing the term “post-colonial.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15, 195-202.

147

Kelan, E. K. (2008). The discursive construction of gender in contemporary management literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 427-445. Kelly, M. G. (2013). Foucault, subjectivity, and technologies of the self. In C. Falzon, T. O’Leary, & J. Sawicki (Eds.), A Companion to Foucault (pp. 510-525). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Kennedy, D. (1996). Imperial history and post‐colonial theory. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 24(3), 345-363. Kenway, J. (2015). 'Asia as Method': Chen's conceptual openings. In H. Zhang, P. W. K. Chan, & J. Kenway (Eds.), Asia as Method in Education Studies: A Defiant Research Imagination (pp. 13-31). New York, NY: Routledge. Kraidy, M. M. (2002). Hybridity in cultural globalization. Communication Theory, 12(3), 316-339. Krauss, S. (2005). Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 758-770. Lather, P. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 673-694. Lam, C. M., & Park, J. (Eds.). (2015). Sociological and philosophical perspectives on education in the Asia-Pacific region. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

148

Lane, C. (2002). Psychoanalysis and colonialism redux: Why Mannoni's" Prospero complex" still haunts us. Journal of Modern Literature, 25(3), 127-149. Lazreg, M. (2013). Poststructuralist theory and women in the Middle East: Going in circles?. Contemporary Arab Affairs, 6(1), 74-81. Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London, UK: Sage. Liberman, K. (1999). The dialectics of oppression: A phenomenological perspective. Philosophy Today, 43(3), 272-282. Lietz, C. A., Langer, C. L., & Furman, R. (2006). Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research in social work: Implications from a study regarding spirituality. Qualitative Social Work, 5(4), 441-458. Lin, A. (2015). Preface. In H. Zhang, P. W. K. Chan, & J. Kenway (Eds.), Asia as Method in Education Studies: A Defiant Research Imagination (pp. xiii-xv). New York, NY: Routledge. López, A. J. (2013). Occupying reality: Fanon reading Hegel. South Atlantic Quarterly, 112(1), 71-78. Lorenzini, D., & Tazzioli, M. (2016). Confessional subjects and conducts of non-truth: Foucault, Fanon, and the making of the subject. Theory, Culture & Society, 0(0),

149

1-20. Mackinlay,

E.

(2012).

Decolonising

Australian

ethnomusicology

through

autoethnography. Creative Approaches to Research, 5(1), 3-14. Mannoni, O. (1990). Prospero and Caliban: The psychology of colonization. (P. Powesland, Trans.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1950) Maréchal, G. (2010). Autoethnography. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 44-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412957397.n19 Mayo, P. (Ed.). (2010). Gramsci and educational thought. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Mayuzumi, K., Motobayashi, K., Nagayama, C., & Takeuchi, M. (2007). Transforming diversity in Canadian higher education: A dialogue of Japanese women graduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5-6), 581-592. McClintock, A. (1992). The angel of progress: pitfalls of the term "postcolonialism". Social Text, (31/32), 84-98. Meredith, P. (1999). Hybridity in the third space: Rethinking bi-cultural politics in Aotearoa/New Zealand. He Pukenga Korero, 4(2), 12-16.

150

Ministry of Education. (2014). 103 年我國學生赴主要留學國家簽證人數/比例 [Pie chart]. 教育部外國大學參考名冊查詢系統 . Retrieved from http://fsedu.cloud.ncnu.edu.tw/pages/%E7%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E7%B5 %B1%E8%A8%88%E8%B3%87%E6%96%99.aspx Mishra, V., & Hodge, B. (1991). What is post (‐) colonialism?. Textual Practice, 5(3), 399-414. Mizutani, S. (2013). Hybridity and history: A critical reflection on Homi K. Bhabha's post-historical thoughts. Ab Imperio, 2013(4), 27-48. Muijs, D. (2004). Introduction to quantitative research. In Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (pp. 1-13). London, UK: Sage. Murray, L., Pushor, D., & Renihan, P. (2011). Reflections on the ethics-approval process. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(1), 43-54. Nandy, A. (1983). The intimate enemy: Loss and recovery of self under colonialism. New Delhi, IN: Oxford University Press. O'Loughlin, M. (1997). Corporeal subjectivities: Merleau‐Ponty, education and the postmodern subject. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 29(1), 20-31. Pace, S. (2012). Writing the self into research: Using grounded theory analytic strategies in autoethnography. TEXT Special Issue Website Series, 13.

151

Pack, S., Tuffin, K., & Lyons, A. (2016). Accounting for racism against Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand: A discourse analytic study of the views of Maori adults. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26(2), 95-109. Palti, E. A. J. (2003). Poststructuralist marxism and the “Experience of the Disaster.” On Alain Badiou's theory of the (non-) subject. The European Legacy, 8(4), 459480. Pannian, P. (2016). Edward Said and the question of subjectivity. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Parris, L. T. (2011). Frantz Fanon: Existentialist, dialectician, and revolutionary. Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(7), 4-24. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pelias, R. J. (2003). The academic tourist: An autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 369-373. Petitt, B. (2009). Borrowed power. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(5), 633-645. doi:10.1177/1523422309352310 Phillips, L. A. (1998). Lost in space: siting/citing the in-between of Homi K Bhabha’s The location of culture. Scrutiny2, 3(1), 16-25.

152

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (1996). Linguistic imperialism: African perspectives. ELT Journal, 50(2), 160-167. Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5(1), 1-43. Phipps, A. (2007). Re‐inscribing gender binaries: Deconstructing the dominant discourse around women's equality in science, engineering, and technology. The Sociological Review, 55(4), 768-787. Pieterse, J. N. (2001). Hybridity, so what? The anti-hybridity backlash and the riddles of recognition. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2-3), 219-245. Pillay, D.,

Naicker,

I.,

&

Pithouse-Morgan, K.

(Eds.). (2016).

Academic

autoethnographies: Inside teaching in higher education. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Plato. (2012). Republic. (C. Rowe, Trans.). London, UK: Penguin. (Original work published ca. 380 B.C.) Prasad, A. (2003). The gaze of the other: Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis. In Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement (pp. 3-46). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

153

Reed-Danahay, D. E. (1997). Auto/Ethnography: Rewriting the self and the social. Oxford, UK: Berg. Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Riehl, C. (2001). Bridges to the future: The contributions of qualitative research to the sociology

of

education.

Sociology

of

Education,

74,

115-134.

doi:10.2307/2673257 Rollins, J. (2007). ‘And the last shall be first’: The master-slave dialectic in Hegel, Nietzsche and Fanon. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of SelfKnowledge, 5(3), 163-178. Rozmarin, M. (2005). Power, freedom, and individuality: Foucault and sexual difference. Human studies, 28(1), 1-14. Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Said, E. W. (1985). Orientalism reconsidered. Cultural critique, (1), 89-107. Said, E. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York, NY: Knopf. Sandretto, S., with Klenner, S. (2011). Planting seeds: Embedding critical literacy into your classroom programme. Wellington, NZ: NZCER Press. Sandretto, S., & Tilson, J. (2014). “The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present”: Preparing your students for their multiliterate future today.

154

SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, 51-60. Sandretto, S., & Tilson, J. (2015). Discursive constructions of literacies: shifting sands in Aotearoa New Zealand. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1-13. Schoepflin, T. A. (2009). On being degraded in public space: An autoethnography. The Qualitative Report, 14(2), 361-373. Scott, J. (1988). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist theory for feminism. Feminist Studies, 14(1), 33-50. Sen, A. (2010). The idea of justice. London, UK: Penguin. Shih, S. M. (2003). Globalisation and the (in) significance of Taiwan. Postcolonial Studies: Culture, Politics, Economy, 6(2), 143-153. Short, N. P., Turner, L., & Grant, A. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary British Autoethnography. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers. Shumar, W. (2010). Homi Bhabha. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(2), 495-506. Singer, P. (2001). Hegel: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Singh, M. (2015). Against Asia-centric methods: Australia-China theoretic-linguistic knowledge co-production. In H. Zhang, P. W. K. Chan, & J. Kenway (Eds.), Asia as Method in Education Studies: A Defiant Research Imagination (pp.

155

144-162). New York, NY: Routledge. Sparkes, A. C. (1996). The fatal flaw: A narrative of the fragile body-self. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(4), 463-494. Sparkes, A. C. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Reflections on criteria in action. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21-43. Spry, T. (2001). Performing autoethnography: An embodied methodological praxis. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 706-732. Stewart, C. (2011). Creolization, hybridity, syncretism, mixture. Portuguese Studies, 27(1), 48-55. St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477-515. Sung, C. C. M. (2012). Exploring the interplay of gender, discourse, and (im) politeness. Journal of Gender Studies, 21(3), 285-300. Suzuki, A. (1999). The Performativity of the self: Subjectivity formation in Althusser, Foucault, and Butler. 跡見英文学, 13, 65-77. Takayama, K. (2014). Deploying the post-colonial predicaments of researching on/with ‘Asia’in education: A standpoint from a rich peripheral country. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(1), 70-88.

156

Tamas, S. (2011). Autoethnography, ethics, and making your baby cry. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 11(3), 258-264. Tikly, L. (2004). Education and the new imperialism. Comparative education, 40(2), 173198. Van der Veer, P. (1997). The enigma of arrival: Hybridity and authenticity in the global space. In P. Werbner & T. Moddod (Eds.), Debating cultural hybridity: Multicultural identities and the politics of anti-racism (pp. 90–105). London, UK: Zed Books. Villet, C. (2011). Hegel and Fanon on the question of mutual recognition: a comparative analysis. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 47, 39-51. Vryan, K. D. (2006). Expanding analytic autoethnography and enhancing its potential. Journal

of

Contemporary

Ethnography,

35(4),

405-409.

doi:10.1177/0891241606286977 Wall, S. (2006). An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 146-160. Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(1), 38-53. Wang, C. M. (2007). Thinking and feeling Asian America in Taiwan. American

157

Quarterly, 59(1), 135-155. Ward, A. R. (2015). Enabling resistance: Rethinking Bhabha's Fanon. Angelaki, 20(4), 225-242. Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Bourdieu and secondary schools. In Under standing Bourdieu (pp. 105-126). Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Weedon, C. (2004). Identity and culture: Narratives of difference and belonging. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Werbner, P. (1997). Introduction: The dialectics of cultural hybridity. In P. Werbner & T. Moddod (Eds.), Debating cultural hybridity: Multi-cultural identities and the politics of anti-racism (pp. 1-26). London, UK: Zed Books. Willig, C. (2008). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Yang, S. (2012). An autoethnography of a childless woman in Korea. Affilia, 27(4), 371380. doi:10.1177/0886109912464480

158

Yoshimi, S., & Buist, D. (2003). ‘America’ as desire and violence: Americanization in postwar Japan and Asia during the Cold War. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 4(3), 433-450. Young, R. C. (1995). Colonial desire: Hybridity in theory, culture and race. New York, NY: Routledge. Žižek, S. (2007). How to read Lacan (1st ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.