bulag 2003 aa mongolian ethnicity

7/31/2019 Bulag 2003 AA Mongolian Ethnicity

1/25

MongolianEthnicityandLinguisticAnxietyinChinaAuthor(s):UradynE.BulagReviewedwork(s):Source:AmericanAnthropologist,NewSeries,Vol.105,No.4,SpecialIssue:LanguagePoliticsandPractices(Dec.,2003),pp.753-763Publishedby:BlackwellPublishingonbehalfoftheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociationStableURL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567140.Accessed:30/03/201216:06YouruseoftheJSTORarchiveindicatesyouracceptanceoftheTerms&ConditionsofUse,availableat.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspJSTORisanot-for-profitservicethathelpsscholars,researchers,andstudentsdiscover,use,andbuilduponawiderangeofcontentinatrusteddigitalarchive.Weuseinformationtechnologyandtoolstoincreaseproductivityandfacilitatenewformsofscholarship.FormoreinformationaboutJSTOR,pleasecontactsupport@jstor.org.BlackwellPublishingandAmericanAnthropologicalAssociationarecollaboratingwithJSTORtodigitize,preserveandextendaccesstoAmericanAnthropologist.http://www.jstor.org


2/25

URADYNE.BULAGMongolianEthnicityandLinguisticAnxietyinChinaABSTRACTLanguageisoneoftheofficialcriteriaofdefininganationalityinsocialistChina,butitsimultaneouslyhasbeensubjectedtoan"ideologyofcontempt"bytheChineseregimethatbuildsnationalityonlytodestroyit.ThisarticleexaminesthelinguisticanxietydisplayedbytheMongolsandtheircontroversiallanguagerevitalizationeffortsinasocialenvironmentinwhichtheyhavebecomeanabsoluteminorityevenwhiletheyhaveformalautonomyundertheirname.Thetremendouscost-bothemotionalandeconomic-atwhichsuchlanguagemaintenancecomessuggeststhatnationalityinChinamaynotbeunderstoodasprimarilyculturalbut,instead,aspolitical.AsmoreMongolslosetheirlanguage,arguablythelastbastionoftheir"nationality"status,theyfacetheprospectofbe-comingadeinstitutionalized,depoliticized,anddeterritorialized"ethnicgroup"inaracialized"ChineseNation."[Keywords:lan-guage,nationality,ethnicgroup,Mongols,ChineseNationalMulticulturalism]ORMANY,THENAME"InnerMongoliaAutono-mousRegion"(IMAR)conjuresaromanticimageofasteppelandfilledwithnomads.Nothingismoreremotefromtoday'sreality:Bythefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,therewerealreadymoreMongolsengagedinagriculturethaninherding,andChinesesettlersoutnumberedthe

Mongolsbyfivetoone.Today,therearealsomoreurbanMongolsthanherdsmen.YetformanyMongols,pastoral-ismandherdingrepresentthespiritof"Mongolness,"theembodimentofcommunitariansolidarityanddemocracy(cf.Khan1996;seeOstergird1996forasimilarromantici-zation,inthiscaseofpeasantismbytheDanishnational-istelite).DwindlingpastoralareasarenowseenasthelastbastionofMongolcultureinwhichMongolsspeak"pure"Mongolian,andMongolpastoralherdersareimaginedtobeareservoirfromwhichagriculturalizedandurbanizedMongolsmighttaptheirlinguisticspirit.Butthisreservoirisdryingup.Thislanguagerevitali-zationeffortisoccurringinasocialenvironmentinwhich

MongolshavebecomeanabsoluteminorityinInnerMon-golia,despitetheirpurportedpoliticalandgeographical"autonomy."ThishasresultedinwhatIcall"linguisticanxiety,"adeepuneaseabouttheincreasinglossoftheMongolianlanguage,whichhasarisenasMongolshavebeensuccessivelynationalized,consideredtocomprisea"nationality,"anddenationalized-thatis,categorizedin-steadasan"ethnicgroup"(seebelowforelaboration),ac-cordingtochangingChinesepolicies.Iexploretheconse-quencesofthesepoliticalandsocialoscillationsforMongolsandtheMongolianlanguage,andtheirrelation-shiptothecreationoflinguisticanxiety.Drawingonper-sonalexperiences,ethnography,aswellasdocumentary

research,Ishedlightonthetremendouscostofmaintain-ingtheMongolianlanguage.IshowthatMongolianlin-guisticanxietyisemblematicofthefactthat"nationality"inChinaisnotprimarilyculturalbut,rather,requirespo-litical,social,andterritorialreinforcementtobemeaning-ful.AsmoreMongolslosetheirlanguage,arguablythelaststrongholdoftheir"nationality"status,theyarebecomingadepoliticizedanddeterritorialized"ethnicgroup"inanin-creasinglyprimordial,multicultural"ChineseNation."THEPERSONALISPOLITICAL:LANGUAGELOSSINTHE


3/25

PASTORALAREASIwasborninthearidoasisgrasslandofOrdos,insouth-westernInnerMongolia.UnlikemyparentsandothersoftheirgenerationwhowenttoMongolianschoolsinthefifties,manyofuswhowerebroughtupduringtheCul-turalRevolution(1966-76),eveninthepastoralareas,re-ceivededucationinChinese,asMongoleducationprogramswereeliminatedorreduced.In1970-71,afteralarge-scaleslaughterofMongolssubsidedastheCulturalRevolutionenteredaperiodofconsolidation,myeldersisterandeldercousinswenttoMongolianclassesinanewlyreopenedschoolinJira,ourcommune.However,in1972,severalcousinsofmyageandIhadtogotoChineseclasswhennonewMongolianclasswasavailable.In1975,astheCulturalRevolutionwasdrawingtoacloseandthesituationimprovedforMongols,myfamilymovedtotheprefecturalcenterDongsheng,analmostpurelyChinesetown,wheremyfatherwasassignedasadoctorinthenewlyopenedMongolianmedicaldepartmentAMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST105(4):753-763.COPYRIGHT?2003,AMERICANANTHROPOLOGICALASSOCIATION


4/25

754AmericanAnthropologist*Vol.105,No.4*December2003intheprefecturehospital.TherewasnoMongolianpri-maryschoolintheentiretownthen,whichpresentednoproblemformebutforcedmysistertoswitchtoaChineseclass.Bythen,afterrelentlesspracticaljokesandmaliciousverbalabuseofbeingcalled"ChouMengDazi"("stinkingMongolTartar"),IwasalreadyinternalizingtheChinese"ideologyofcontempt"towardtheMongolianlanguage,toborrowanaptphrasefromRalphD.Grillo(1989;seealsoDorian1998).Ithoughtmysister'sclumsyChinesewasanembarrassment.ForunliketheJiraprimaryschoolinwhichMongolsstillcomprisedasubstantialpercentageofstudentsandwherediscriminationfromtheChinesepupilsoftenmetwithMongolianfists,intheDongshengNo.1primaryschoolmysisterandIweretheonlyMon-golsinourclass.AftertheCulturalRevolution,Mongolschoolsatvariouslevelsweresetup,recruitingMongolsfrombothruralandurbanareas.Thisnationalityeduca-tion(cf.Borchigud1995)wasgenerallysuccessfulifmeas-uredbythedegreetowhichonereceivededucationinMongolian.However,thesepositiveprogramssoonpro-ducedtheirownproblems.Aboveall,thisMongolizingprojectfailedtoprepareMongolstudentstofacethenew

challengesahead.Inotherwords,teachingMongolianlanguageinsteadofChinesemadestudents"dependent"onChinesesocietymorethanever;itmadethemlargely"nonproductive,"thatis,economically,politically,andevensociallyincompetentcitizensinaChinese-domi-natedsocietythat,fromthe1980sonward,wasincreas-inglymarketoriented.RatherthanbecomingaculturalandpoliticaleliteinthemultiethnicInnerMongolianso-cietyasawhole,thesenewlyurbanizedMongolseducatedinMongolschoolsbecameeliteonlyvis-a-visMongolpas-toralistsandpeasantvillagers.Notsurprisingly,itisthecultural"victims,"orthosewhohavereceivedChineseeducation,whohavebetter

adaptedtothewidersociety,andsomehavebecomehighlysuccessful.Comingbacktomypersonalexample,IhadmuchbettercareeropportunitiesthanmyMongolianlanguage-educatedsisterandcousins.Iattendeduniver-sityinHohhot,thecapitalofInnerMongolia,andthenCambridgeUniversitytopursueanthropologicalstudy,hopingtobetterunderstandInnerMongoliaandtheworldbeyond.Duringmyuniversityyearsin1982-86inHohhot,IwasinthethickoftheMongolculturalmovementunfold-ingatthetime.ThesuccessIachievedthroughChineseeducationhauntedme,asitalienatedmefrommyownculturalheritage.AsMongolculturestartedtoreviveand

asIsocializedmorewithMongolstudents,Ibegantode-velopa"reverse"inferioritycomplex.AsChina'sculturalnationalisticsentimentdevelopedinoppositiontocom-munistcontrolinamovement,dubbed"culturalfever,"thatactivelyquestionedthereasonforChina'sbackward-ness,Mongolintellectualsandstudentsscrutinizedtheircultureandsurvivalconditions.OneofmyachievementsatthetimewastoreteachmyselftheMongolianlanguage.Thisprovedfeasibleinashorttime:Thankstomylate"ur-banization,"IhadretainedmyMongolianconversational


5/25

skillsandthealphabeticalnatureofMongolianfacilitatedmylearningtoread.Itwasthisself-educationduringmyuniversityyearsthatimpelledmetopursueMongolianstudiesandlatertoembarkonananthropologicalcareer.WhileIwasawaystudyinginBritain,mysistersenthersontoaChinesekindergarten.Infuriated,Isentnu-merousletters,admonishinghertosendmynephewtoaMongoliankindergarten.Marshallingtheoriesfrommyanthropologicalreadingsonethnicityandnationalism,IreasonedthatinanoverwhelminglyChineseenviron-ment,itwasessentialtomaintainone'sculturalidentity,onesymbolizedbytheMongolianlanguage.MynephewwouldpickupChineseanyway,notonlyfromhispeersintheneighborhoodbutalsofromaMongolianprimaryschoolinwhichChineseisnowtaughtfromthefirstgradeasasecondlanguage.TheygaveintomydemandandsenttheirsontoaMongoliankindergarten.In1993,duringatriumphantvisithomewithaPh.D.degreeinhand,Ilearnedtomyhorrorthatmysisterandbrother-in-lawblamedmeforruiningtheirson'sintellectualca-pacityaswellashiscareerprospects.Unlikemysister,someofmycousins,regardlessoftheirownChineseorMongolianeducationalbackground,senttheirchildrentoChineseschools.Foran"anthro-

pologized"me,sensitiveto"culture,"itwaspainfultoheartheirchildrenspeakonlyChinese,comprehendingnoMongolianevenastheirparentsandgrandparentscon-versedinMongolianinfamilygatherings.Theirgrandpar-entsstruggledtotalktotheminasmatteringofChinese,butthelittlechildren'seyesemittedonlyincomprehen-sionandannoyance.WhenIexpressedshocktomycousins,theywarnedmenottointerfereintheirpersonallives.ThosecousinswhoreceivedMongolianeducationnowhavebittercomplaintsabouttheirpoorChinese.InDongsheng,andeventhebannercenters(Mongoladmin-istrativeunitsequivalenttocounties),therearehardlyanyworkunitsinwhichMongolianlanguageknowledgeisre-

quiredorevenuseful.Becausealmostalljobsarecontrol-ledbyChinese,university-levelknowledgeofMongolianisnodifferentfromilliteracy.Itisthisbitterpersonalex-periencethatcompelledmycousinstomakesurethattheirchildrenneverrepeattheir"tragedy."UnderthistremendousChineseeconomicandpoliti-calpressure,apressurederivedfromthehistoryofcoloni-zationandethnicdivisionoflabor,onefindsthatmanyMongol-speakingMongolsareforcedto"collaborateinthedestructionoftheirinstrumentsofexpression"--asPierreBourdieu(1991:7)hassaidinregardstotheFrenchpeasants'willingabandonmentoftheirdialectsinfavorofofficiallanguage.ManynewlyurbanizingMongolsde-

nouncemyownsteadfastcounseloflinguisticresistanceasidealistandimpracticalandsometimesholditresponsi-blefortheirfurthersubordinationundertheChinese.AsmanyMongolswouldnowsay,onlybysheddingthebur-denofMongolianlanguageandbymasteringthelan-guageofthedominantisthereachancetosurviveinInner


6/25

Bulag*MongolianEthnicityandLinguisticAnxietyinChina755Mongolia.Theyhavelittlepatienceforanyargumentfa-voringretentionoftheMongolianlanguagebilinguallyortrilinguallyalongwithChineseplusaforeignlanguage.Instead,theyoftenadvocatelearningEnglishtooutper-formtheChinese(cf.NaranBilik1998a,1998b).CANTHETUMEDRE-MONGOLIZETHEMSELVES?Aparadoxemergesfromtheabovepersonalvignette.IyearnedfortheMongolianlanguageanddisplayedanenormousanxietyaboutmyowneconomicallysecureidentity,onethatIestablishedpreciselythroughmasteringtheexpressiveinstrumentsofthedominantgroupinChina.Intheabsenceofhistory,apostmoderndiagnosiswouldprobablysuggestthatmysentimentisasymptomofhy-brididentity,createdinacosmopolitancondition.ButthepathologicalpainthatIconstantlyfeelandcannoteasilyeradicatemayberootedintheconsciousnessofcapital-izedHistory,arealizationoffailingtofulfillthelinealde-velopmentoftheMongoliannationality,theveryentitytowhichIbelong,voluntarilyorinvoluntarily.Toillus-tratethispoint,Ipresentanothercaseoflinguisticanxi-ety,thistimeatacommunalscale,oftheTumedMongols.TheTumedareaMongoliangroupinInnerMongolia

thatenjoyed,inthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,po-liticalleverageoverbothChineseandotherMongolgroups,thankslargelytothehigh-profileroleplayedbyTumedCommunists.TheTumedwereSinicizedlinguisti-cally(i.e.,theyspokeChinese)inthelate19thcentury,andbytheearly20thcenturytheTumedhadpracticallynoMongolspeakers.Mostalsoengageinsedentaryagri-culture,livinginmixedcommunitiesinthesuburbsofHohhot.ThediscriminationtheysufferedunderChineseruleandthelossoftheirterritorytoChinesecolonizationpriortothePeople'sRepublicproducedalargenumberofMongolnationalists-cum-communists.Theirextensiverevolutionaryexperiencebroughtthemimmensesuccess:

Manyoftheirleadersrosetotheverytopgovernment,party,andmilitarypositionsinthenewlyfoundedIMAR,andsomeattainedleadingnationalpostsinBeijingandelsewhere.TheirsuccessdependedontheirmasteryofChinese,theircommunistconviction,andanethniccon-sciousnessthatenabledthemtobuildtiestootherMon-gols(Bulag2002).Undoubtedly,Tumedethnicconsciousnesswasshapedinpartbythelossofthegroup'sabilitytospeaktheMon-golianlanguage.Afterthe1920s,astheTumedbegantointeractwithotherMongols,theybegantofeelanacutesenseofinadequacyregardingtheirMongolianlanguageskills(Huhehaote2000).Inthefifties,theysetupmany

nationality(minzu)primaryschoolsandmiddleschoolsthatrecruitedonlyMongolstudents.WhereMongolstu-dentswerefew,theymadesurethatageneralschoolwouldhavea"Mongolianstudentclass"(mengshengban),separatefromChinesestudents.Oneoftheaimsforsuch"nationality"schoolsandclasseswastofacilitatethelearningofMongolian,not,however,totheexclusionofChinese.Intheseschools,Mongolianwastaughtasasub-ject,oneconsideredofequalimportancetoChinese,thoughallothersubjectsweretaughtinChinese.During


7/25

theCulturalRevolutionyears,1966-76,Mongolianin-structionwaslargelyabolished.AnewattempttoprovideaMongoleducationbeganinSeptember1979.TheTurnedbannereducationbureauthensetupanexperimentalkindergartenatNationalityPrimarySchoolatBagshiCommune,recruiting59sixyearoldswhoweretaughteverythingfrommathematicstohistoryinMon-golian.SixMongolianteacherswereinvitedfromthepas-toralareas,sothatthechildrencouldlearn"pure"standardMongolian.Inordertocreateagoodlanguageenviron-ment,thekindergartenwaslocatedinaclosed-offcom-pound,wherebothchildrenandteacherslived.Itwascompleteimmersion,withordersissuedthatconversa-tionsineverydaylifeaswellasintheclassroombecon-ductedinMongolian.Thefollowingyear,50childrenfromthekindergartenenteredfirstgradeinprimaryschool,tocontinuetheireducationinMongolian.Chi-nesestudentsmovedtoaseparate,newlybuiltschool.Onthisfoundation,thebannerbuilta"MongolianNational-ityPrimarySchool"inOctober1982inthebannercenter.Theschoolthenhadeightclassesdividedintothreegrades,with201boardingpupils,alltaughtinMongolian.Interestingly,Chinesewastaughtonlyfromgrade5(Tu-mote1987:634-659),thestudentswerenotallowedto

leavethecompoundwithoutpermission,and,duringva-cations,theywereoftensenttothegrasslandtolearndi-rectlyfrompureMongol-speakingherders,lesttheybecontaminatedbytheirChinese-speakingparentsandrela-tivesorChineseneighbors.TheprojectwassomewhatsimilartotheNorthKoreancommunaleducationinJa-pan,whichSoniaRyang(1997)sovividlydescribes.Ko-reanstudentslivedinJapanesesociety,watchedJapaneseTVandfilms;Japanesewasthefirstlanguagemoststu-dentsusedwhentheywereoutsideofschoolandlivingincities.However,ideologicallycommittedtoNorthKoreaastheirfatherlandandloyaltoKimIiSungandhissonastheirleaders,theKoreancommunitybuiltanichewith

strictculturalboundaries,tryingtobuilditsownspaceforsocialreproduction.ManyotherMongolsadmiredtheTumedMongolizingproject.Intheireyes,itwasremarkablethat,havinglosttheMongolianlanguageforoveracentury,theTumedweredeterminedtoreclaimtheirculturalheritage.ManyusedtheTumedcasetowarntheweakwilledtoholdthetillerfast,tosustaineffortstoinculcateMongolianlan-guage.Buttheprojectwasalreadydoomedbeforeitbe-cameasuccess.Asameanstocreateasmallutopiancommunitycutofffromthepollutingsocialworld,theMongolizingedu-cationalenterpriseoffengbishijiaoyu(closed-dooreduca-

tion)hasturnedoutmanypureMongol-speakingTumedMongols.ButalloftheseTumedemergedwithinadequateChineselanguageskillsandwerethereforedeprivedofthevitalsocialabilitytheyneededtosucceedinthewiderInner


8/25

756AmericanAnthropologist*Vol.105,No.4*December2003MongoliansocietythatisdominatedbyChineseinallsec-tors.Thedifficultythesestudentsfaceinobtainingem-ploymentcontrastssharplywiththatoftheirparentsandgrandparentswhoweresuccessfulintheregionalpoliticaleconomy.Understandably,localMongolssharplycriti-cizedsuchschemesascripplingtheyoungergenerations.AlthoughtheseschoolshaveloststudentstoChineseschoolsinrecentyears,theprojectneverthelesscontinuestoreceivesupportfromsomeMongolintellectualsandcadres,"whosupportedtheestablishmentoftheschoolandinvestedmuchemotionalcapitalwithpoliticalmeta-phors"(NaranBilik1998b:72).Onecouldinferfromthiscasethatminoritycadre/in-tellectualsmighthaveobjectifiedtheverypeopleforwhomtheyclaimtobestruggling,andthatobjectificationmighthavedisempowered,notempowered,them.Indeed,thissituationisreminiscentoftheBretoninFrancestud-iedbyMaryonMcDonald(1989).McDonalddiscussesthedilemmafacedbyTherese,aBretonpeasantwomanwhowasactivelyexploitedbytheintellectualmilitantsforspeakinggoodBreton,projectedasamodelfortherevivalofBretonlanguage.FortheBretonpeasants,however,in

thehierarchicalworld,Frenchwasthelanguageofupwardmobilitytowhichtheyaspired:AresponsiblemothertriedtoensurethatherchildrenwouldspeakFrench,atleastinadditiontoBreton.However,ratherthansimplisticallydenouncingthenationalistsandmilitantsasMcDonalddid,weneedtograspthesocialcontextthatimpelledsomeMongolintel-lectualstostrivetoproducea"pure"Mongol.Intellectualaspiration,politicalpressureforrepresentation,andindi-vidualsurvivalstrategyhaveallbecomeintertwined,eventuallyproducingthisepisodeincontemporaryInnerMongolianhistory.THEPOLITICALGEOGRAPHYOFMONGOLIAN

LANGUAGELOSSThelinguisticanxietydisplayedbyMongolsoccurredno-whereandatnotimeotherthanpreciselyaftertheyhadbuiltanautonomousregion,apoliticalandterritorialin-stitution.TheIMAR,foundedin1947,wastobeanethnicsafehaveninwhichMongolswouldnolongerbesubjecttoChinesediscriminationandpersecutionastheyhadbeenbetween1912and1947.Howdidthis"autonomy"failtoreproduceMongolsculturallyorlinguistically?SomedevelopmentsduringtheQingdynasty(1644-1911)didnotprepareInnerMongolswelltocopewitheventualChinesecolonization.BecausetheQingcourtde-liberatelysegregatedMongoltribalgroupsfromeachother

aspartofitsdivide-and-rulepolicytopreventtheemer-genceofaunifiedMongolopposition,smallergroupsbe-camevulnerablelinguisticallywhenmoreChinesesettledamongthem.Mongolswhosettled,tookupfarming,andintermixedwithChinesesettlersquicklylosttheirlan-guageandbecameChinesespeakers.TheTumedMongolslivinginthetradingtownofHohhotanditssurroundingfertileplainhadalmostcompletelylosttheirlanguagebytheearly20thcentury.TheHorchin,numericallythelarg-estMongolgrouplivingintheeasternpartoftheregion,


9/25

tookupfarmingandsettledinvillages.TheydevelopedpidginMongolwithaheavydoseofChinesevocabulary(cf.Khan1996).OnlytheMongolsintheshrinkingpas-toralareas,whereChinesepenetrationwaslacking,con-tinuedtospeakpureMongolian.TheMongolianlanguagelosswasthusinlargepartaproductofChinesesettlercolonization.InnerMongoliannationalismintheearly20thcenturydevelopedinre-sponsetoboththisculturallossandcolonization.Thus,itwasthosegroupswhichhadlostthelanguagethatbecamethemostardentnationalistsorcommunist-cum-national-ists.Forinstance,in1925theHarchin,ahighlySinicizedMongolgroupscatteredintoday'seasternInnerMongoliaandLiaoningprovince,foundedandstaffedtheInnerMongolianPeople'sRevolutionaryParty,thefirstall-InnerMongolianpoliticalparty(cf.Atwood2002).AndSini-cizedTumedMongolsledtheInnerMongoliancommu-nistmovement(Bulag2002).Ulanhu,aTumed,thepara-mountcommunistleaderofInnerMongoliawhofoundedtheAutonomousRegion,couldnotevenspeakMongo-lian,althoughhestudiedRussianinMoscow.TheHorchinMongols,thepidginMongolspeakers,whoseintellectualsweremorefluentinChinesethaninMongolian,becamenationalistsandnationalisticcommunists,aspiringfor

Mongolianindependence/autonomy,andtheynowcon-stitutethemajorityofthecontemporaryMongolianlead-ersandintellectuals.HerewehaveaninterestingsituationwhereinlargelySinicizedandhalf-SinicizedMongolsbecameardentna-tionalistsandcommunistsandtookupthehistorictaskofliberatingtheMongolsfromChineserule,orachievingautonomyfrom,andequalitywith,theChinese.Asna-tionalists,theydesiredtoreviveanddeveloptheirownlanguage,Mongolian,perhapspreciselybecausetheywerethemselveslargelybereftofit,andtheysetouttodothisintheIMAR,aspartoftheirnationalitybuildingproject.ManyMongolleadersmarkedthevictoryof1947byshed-

dingtheirChinesenamesforMongoliannames.Forin-stance,mostoftheHorchinrevolutionaries,suchasHafengaandT6mirbagan,wereknownbytheirChinesenamesduringtheRepublicanandManchukuoperiods.ItwasonlyonMay1,1947,withthebirthoftheInnerMon-golianAutonomousGovernment,whenYunZe,theSinicizedMongolianCommunistleader,renamedhimself"Ulanhu,"or"RedSon,"anamewithnationalistandcommunisttinges.IftheInnerMongolianlanguagewasfragmented,Mongolshadotherculturalresourcestotap.MongolsinChinaarenotaninternalminority,butatransnationalone,betwixtandbetweenChinaandMongolia.Outer

Mongolia,theotherhalfoftheMongoliangeobody,de-claredindependencefromthecrumblingQingdynastyasearlyas1911,andtheRepublicofChinaformallyrecog-nizeditsindependencein1946.MongolsinInnerMongolia


10/25

Bulag*MongolianEthnicityandLinguisticAnxietyinChina757acceptedautonomyin1947undertheaegisoftheChi-neseCommunistParty(CCP)afteraseriesofmovementsforunificationandindependence.The15yearsafterthefoundingofthePeople'sRepublicofChina(PRC),duringwhichInnerMongoliaexercisedareasonablyhighdegreeofautonomy,coincidedwithaninternationalcommunisthoneymooninvolvingChina,theSovietUnion,anditsallytheMongolianPeople'sRepublic(MPR),formerlyOuterMongolia.Mongolsinthesethreestatesfellinthesameideologicalcamp-dividedonlybyinternationalborders-allofwhomenjoyedtheeuphoriaofthepostwarexpansionofcommuniststatesinEasternEuropeandEastAsia.Nonetheless,afundamentalquestionremained:Be-causetheMPRwasclosertothe"communist"hearth,thatis,theSovietUnion,shouldInnerMongoliathereforelookupprimarilytotheMPR,whichwasalsocloserintermsofkinship,ortothePRC?TheSovietUnionansweredthisquestionwithitsowndivide-and-rulepolicy.Inanefforttocurbapan-Mongoliansentiment,theSovietUnionresortedtonationalitybuild-ingamongdifferentMongoliangroupsintheSovietUn-ionbyCyrillicizingtheirdialects,thatis,forcingthemto

abandontheclassicalMongolianorthography,whichhadthepotentiallinguisticpowertounifyalltheMongols.TheKalmyksandBuryatswerepromotedasdistinctna-tionalitieswithdistinctcharacteristicsincludingtheirseparate"printlanguages."Likewise,MongolsintheMPRwereforcedtoadoptaCyrillicscriptbasedonthedialectoftheHalh,thenumericallydominantMongolgroup,inthe1940s.Bythe1950s,onlytheMongolsinChinastillkepttheirclassicalscript,althoughitsusewasaswideashopedfor.CommunismmeantfragmentationfortheMon-golpeoples.InnerMongols,however,sawtheMPRasastrongmagnet,andtheylookedtoitforguidanceincultureand

language.TheHalh-basedCyrillicscriptintheMPRwasattractive,notjustbecauseitwaseasiertolearnthanMon-golclassicalscriptbutalsobecauseoftheimplicationsforastrongpan-Mongoliansentiment.ThosewhowantedtoenrichmodernscientificMongolianvocabularyinInnerMongoliapreferredtoadoptRussianterminology,filteredthroughtheMPR,ratherthanChineseterminology.AsChingeltei,thetopInnerMongolianlinguist,complainedasearlyas1953:SomeMongolianlanguageworkerswouldgototheotherextreme;theyrefusetorecognizetheMongolizedChinesevocabularyandareunwillingtowritethemsoastogivethemlegitimacy....Butwhatisstrangeisthatthose

comrades,whoarenotwillingtouseMongolizedChinesewords,generallyliketouseRussianwords.[Chingeltei1998a:7]TheChinesegovernmentinitiallytoleratedthissentimentbecauseChinawasalsoideologicallysubordinatetotheSovietUnion,andthequestionofwhetherandhowtoCyrillicizetheMongolianlanguageremainedopen.Inspring1957theIMARgovernmentdispatchedaMongolianlanguagedelegationtotheMPRtodiscusshowtocoordinatelinguisticunification.Ulanhuinstructedthe


11/25

delegationleaderErdenitogtohandInnerMongolia'sdep-utypropagandachiefTog6sthatInnerMongolianlan-guageandterminologyshould,whereverpossible,followthepracticesoftheMPR.Everpoliticallyastute,UlanhumadetheargumentinChinathatInnerMongoliashouldadoptMPRlinguisticpracticesinordertouseInnerMon-goliannewspapersandbookstopropagateMaoZedongThoughttotheMPR.Forthisreason,InnerMongolianeednotinsistonretainingdistinctiveInnerMongolianlan-guagepracticesbutshouldfollowthoseoftheMPR(Tu-menandZhu1995:135).This"publictranscript"ingen-iouslydisguisedanInnerMongolianaspirationforculturalunificationwiththeMPR.AninterestingepisodeillustrateshowMongolsfeltabouttheirlanguageatthetime.OnMay1,1957,UlanhuaddressedthemassrallyinMongolianonthetenthanni-versaryofthefoundingoftheIMAR,towhichonlytheMPRsentalargeofficialdelegation.ManyMongolsweremovedtotearsandcouldnotforgethisspeechevenafterUlanhu'sdeathinlate1988.Theyinterpretedhisspeech,deliveredinMongol,asdefianceoftheChinesechauvinistonslaughtagainstMongolculture.Itwassensationalbe-causeUlanhucouldnotspeakMongolian.HereadhisspeechfromatextwritteninCyrillicthatwastranslated

fromhisoriginalChinesetext(hespokeRussianfluently)(Bulag2002:232-234).However,nosoonerwasajointMPRandInnerMon-golianlanguageunificationcommitteeformedthantheprojectwasbannedinChina.WiththepassingoftheLatin-basedChinesepinyinscriptschemeinearly1958,Chinesepinyinwasalsopromotedasthe"commonbasis"forcreatingandreformingminoritylanguages,asthepre-mierZhouEnlaidemanded:"Henceforth,allnationalities,increatingorreformingtheirwrittenlanguages,shouldinprincipletakethepinyinasthebasis,and,moreover,shouldconformtotheChinesepinyinschemeinthepro-nunciationandusageofthealphabets"(Zhou1960:

90-91).ThechoiceofLatinratherthanCyrillicwasonesignofthedeepeningriftbetweenChinaandtheSovietUnion,but,aboveall,Chinawasdeterminedtodomesti-cateitsownminorities.InInnerMongolia,this"NewMongolian"wasanon-starter.In1958,duringtheanti-Rightistcampaign,Mon-golculturalexpressionsandaspirationsforautonomyweresuppressedasexpressionsoflocalnationalism.Asaresult,Mongols-insteadof"propagatingMaoZedongThought"(TumenandZhu1995:135)totheMPRbyadoptingthenewterminologycoinedintheMPR-begantobesubjectedtostrongpressuretoadoptmorefromthe"advanced"languageChinese.Chingeltei,thesamelin-

guistwhohadadmittedthatadoptionofRussianandMongolianterminologyusedintheMPRhadenrichedIn-nerMongolianvocabularyinhis1953piece,gaveChinesevirtuallyexclusiverightstoinfluencetheMongolianlan-guageinChinain1961:


12/25

758AmericanAnthropologist*Vol.105,No.4*December2003TheotherimportantspringforenrichingthemodernMongolianlanguageistheinfluenceofothernationalitylanguages,primarilythatoftheChineselanguage.FortheMongoliannationality,muchofthematerialwealth(meansofproductionandmeansofsubsistence)andmuchofthespiritualwealth(progressivethoughtandrevolutionarytruth)camefromtheHanChinesenation-alityorthroughtheHanChinesenationality.AstheMongolianpeopleandmassesreadilyacceptthismaterialandspiritualwealth,sometimestheymatchChineseex-pressionswithMongolianlinguisticmaterials,andsome-timestheydirectlyborrowChinesewords.[Chingeltei1998b:107-108]ThedomesticationoftheInnerMongolianlanguageposedanewquestion:Whereshouldthestandardnowbe?WiththeCyrillicscriptdelegitimized,in1962twoIn-nerMongoliandialects,theShuluunHohbannerdialectandtheBairenbannerdialect,werechosenasthestand-ardsforwesternandeasternMongoliangroups,respec-tively.Thiscouldwellbeunderstoodastheformaldomes-ticationoftheMongolianlanguageinChina.However,thesedialectswerechosennotjustbecausetheyhadthe

leastdialectalcharacteristics,therebybeingacceptabletoallMongolspeechgroupsinInnerMongolia,butalsobe-causetheyarecloserthananyotherInnerMongoliandia-lectstotheHalhdialectspokenintheMPR.In1980theShuluunHohbannerdialect,whichisclosesttotheHalhdialect,wasdesignatedasthestandardInnerMongolianspeech(seeHuhbator1999foradifferentinterpretation).TheconflictbetweenthetransnationalMongolsandtheloyalty-demanding,nationalizingcommuniststateisplaininthisengineeringoftheMongolianlanguage.Butinspiteof,orperhapspreciselybecauseof,thefactthattheMongolianlanguageinInnerMongoliabegantobedomesticated,thuscuttingoffthelanguagefromits

cousinacrosstheborder,moreMongolsstartedtolosetheirlanguageandMongolintellectualsstressedtheirlan-guagerequirementevenmore.Thequestforthestand-ardizationofMongolianinInnerMongoliawasaproductasmuchofadomesticationoftheMongolsinChinaasaprotestagainsttheimpositionofChineseasthenationalstandardlanguagetowhichallminoritylanguageswereforcedtoconform.ThissituationhasastrikingsimilaritytothatinFranciscoFranco'sSpain,wheretheattempttobanishtheBasqueandCatalanlanguagesinfavorofSpan-ishasaunifyingnationallanguagemetonlywithdefianceandledthespeakersofminoritylanguagestoembraceandconservetheirownlanguageseventhoughthatsome-

timeswentagainsttheirowneconomicinterests(cf.Fer-gusonandHeath1981).IFONLYTHECHINESEWOULDLEARNMONGOLIAN...Chinesecommunistnationalitypolicyhasabuilt-incon-tradiction:Itsclass-nationalapproachimpelsittotakeaf-firmativeactiontowardminorities,butitsimultaneouslysubscribestoan"ideologyofcontempt"forminoritylan-guagesandcultures.Anin-builtmajoritarianmoralityofcommunismenabledtheChineseleadershiptomaketheChinese,byvirtueoftheirnumericalmajorityandalsoof


13/25

theirleadershipoftherevolution,thechosen"people,"andtheirlanguagetheadvancedlanguageofdestiny.Bythislogic,minoritynationalitieshavebeendefinedas"backward,"meaningthattheirownsalvationliesinbe-ingassimilatedtotheChinese"people"(seeHarrell1995forhisdescriptionofthere-ConfucianizationoftheCom-munistcivilizingproject).Fromthisperspective,thein-itial"creationandreform"ofminoritylanguages,ostensi-blypresentedtopromote"nationalityequality,"had,ineffect,puttheminthelowerrungoftheChinesecommu-nistideologicalhierarchyoflanguages(cf.Dwyer1998;Harrell1993).Therefore,persistentclingingtoone'sna-tionalityandlanguagewaspronetobeingseenas"reac-tionary,"ifnotasdeliberatesabotageofthesocialist"cause."Thus,theminoritylanguagerightgrantedinthepackageofnationalityautonomyhaditsowntraps.FullyexercisingthisrightriskedprovokingthewrathoftheChinese"people."Thepartymighthavetoleratedthecon-tinueduseofminoritylanguagesifitsawsuchtoleranceasusefultoenhancetheircommunistconsciousness,or,ifconditionswerenot"ripe,"thatis,ifnotenoughindige-nousleadershadbeentrainedascommunists,asinthecasesofTibetansorUighurs.ButMongolsfacedadifferent

problem.TheInnerMongolianautonomousmovementwascarriedoutandledbyMongolcommunists,manyofwhomcouldneitherspeaknorreadMongolian.Thus,iftheMongolcommunistsinsistedonusingMongolian,notforofficiallysanctionedpurposesoftheChinesestate(suchasluringbacktheMPR),but,rather,forexpressingtheiridentityandbuttressingtheirautonomy,theChi-nesestatewouldgrowsuspicious.ThenhowcouldInnerMongoliancommunistspro-motetheirlanguage,especiallyatatimewhentheyhadbecomeanabsoluteminorityevenintheir"autonomousregion,"andwhennationalitybecamelessameritfor"proletarianinternationalism"thanaliabilityassociated

with"localnationalism"?AlthoughMongolcommunistsdominatedthehighestlevelsofpowerintheAutonomousRegion,theywerealsovastlyoutnumberedbyChinesecommunistcadres,someofthemnewarrivals.Thesecom-munistcadreswhocametoInnerMongoliaostensiblyas"helpers"werenowpoisedtobecomemastersofInnerMongolia.Someofthembegantodemonstraterenewedchauvinism,thistimecouplingtraditionalChinesedeni-grationofMongolswiththenewlylearnedcommunist"ideologyofcontempt"towardminorities.Therefore,In-nerMongols,inordertocontinuetospeaktheirownlan-guage,facedadoubleproblem:theirminorityconditionwithintheAutonomousRegionandthechauvinistideo-

logicalonslaughtfromChinesecadres.Asearlyas1953UlanhureportedthatsomeChinesecadrestookoffensetoMongolsreadingMongolian:"IfyoureadonlyMon-golian,youstillhaven'tovercomeyournarrownationalistthought.Proletariansarenotdividedbynationality."Hecitedanotherexample."IntheChaharLeague[prefecture],a


14/25

Bulag*MongolianEthnicityandLinguisticAnxietyinChina759publicsecurityofficerspokeinChinese.Whensomepeo-plesuggestedhespeakinMongolian,anothercadreshoutedasloganagainstthissuggestion:'Opposenarrownationalism!'"(Ulanhu1997:174).TheobstaclestoMongolsusingtheirownlanguageinInnerMongoliawereformidable,althoughtheycontin-uedtoexpandMongolianeducationthroughouttheAutonomousRegion,includingtheTumedarea,asde-scribedabove.RealizingthatinspiringMongolstolearntheirownlanguagerequiredthecreationoffavorablecon-ditions,theInnerMongoliangovernmentlaunchedapro-gramin1962torewardfinanciallygovernmentemployeesandpartycadreswholearnedMongoliananduseditintheireverydaywork.ThisprogramwasopennotonlytoMongolsbutalsotoChineseandothernationalitiesinIn-nerMongolia.Infact,aChinesewhodemonstratedMon-golianlanguageabilitywouldbebetterrewardedthanaMongol(NeiMengguZizhiqu1962:40-43).However,un-liketheprovinceofQuebecinCanadawhereminority-languageFrenchislegallyenforced,inInnerMongolia,thismeagermaterialrewardprovedineffective.Inthena-tionalizingcommunistregime,bribingChinesetolearn

"backward"Mongolianwasliabletobeviewedasanideo-logicaloffense.MongolsneededafarmoresophisticatedjustificationiftheyweretopersuadeorforcetheChinesetolearnMongolian.Inatheoreticalformulationdesignedtostaveofftheever-mountingChinesesentimentthatallthingsMongolarebackward,ifnotreactionary,Ulanhu(1967)-duringthesocialisteducation(alsoknownasFourCleanups)movementof1963-65-insistedonestablishingpolitical,economic,andculturalfoundationssothatChinacouldbeunifiedasastatewithallofitsnationalitieslivinginharmony.Toformapoliticalfoundation,UlanhuinsistedthatsincetheMongolcadreswerecommunists,theywere

unitedwiththeChinesepolitically;hencetheyshouldnotbesubjecttopoliticaldiscrimination.Todemonstrateaneconomicfoundation,hearguedthattheMongolianpas-toraleconomyshouldnotbeatargetforeliminationinfa-vorofagriculture.BecausepastoraleconomywaspartofthenationaleconomyofChina,anyefforttodestroyitwastantamounttosabotagingthenationaleconomy.Morepertinenttothisarticleishisarticulationontheculturalfoundation.ArguingagainsttheviewthattheMongolianlanguageconstitutedbackwardnessanduse-lessness,UlanhumaintainednotonlythatMongolsshouldcontinuetospeakandwriteMongolianbutalsothatChineselivingandworkinginInnerMongolia,espe-

ciallyChinesecadres,shouldlearnanduseit,too.Hispro-motionofbilingualismamongChinesecadreshadacleverclassring.HearguedthatMongolsinthecountrysidewerethemasses,henceitwasthedutyofthecadrestoservethemasses.HavingthedutytodisseminatesocialistideasandMaoZedongThought,theydosointhebest(or,forsome,only)languageunderstoodbytheMongolmasses.UlanhuseverelycriticizedagrowingnumberofMongolcadreswhoneglectedstudyingMongolianandatthesametimeurgedtheChinesetospeakMongolian."Iwanttoask,are


15/25

theChinesecadresworkinginInnerMongoliaservingtheChineseortheMongols?IsayyoushouldservetheMon-gols,butifyoucan'tspeakthelanguage,whatcanyoudoifyoucan'tcommunicatefeelings?"(1967:37).Heespe-ciallyemphasizedthepsychologicaleffectthecadres'in-abilitytospeakMongolianhadontheMongols,insistingthat"Mongolsrecognizewhatlanguageyouspeak,notwhoyouare"(1967:37).Ifthatpsychologicalbarrierwereremoved,hereasoned,socialisteducationwouldbeveryeasytoachieve.ItwasthereforeopportuneforChinesecadrestoshowtheirsincerity,thusdifferentiatingthem-selvesfromtheChineseNationalistchauvinists.Hesub-sequentlyorderedthatanambitiousMongolianlanguagelearningprogrambeimplementedinInnerMongolia.Butitwasdoomedbeforeitbegan,asUlanhuwassoonperma-nentlyremovedfrompower,andInnerMongoliawasgrippedinagenocidalcampaigncoincidingwiththeCul-turalRevolution,inwhich,byofficialreckoning,over16,000Mongolswerekilled(TumenandZhu1995).Accompanyingtheethnopoliticalwitch-huntwasavigorouscampaigntopromoteChineselanguagethrough-outInnerMongolia,includingthecountryside.Mon-golianwaspracticallybanned;indeed,evenbearingMon-golnameswasseenasanindicationofbetrayingChina.

WhenIwenttoschoolin1972,myparentsgavemeaChi-nesename,whichIuseduntil1975.ItwassmallwonderthatimmediatelyaftertheCul-turalRevolutionformallyendedin1976,strongresistancetolearningChineseemergedamongMongols.In1981ChuluunBagan,aMongollinguist,stronglyarguedinfa-vorofconservingMongolian,insistingthatforcingMon-golstolearnChinesewasnodifferentfromanassimila-tionismoftheworstkind:SincetheMongolianlanguageisinasocialenvironmentinwhichChineseoccupiesanabsolutelyadvantageousposition,itfacesthedangerofnaturalassimilationeveryminuteandeverysecond.However,undersuchcircum-

stances,ifyoustillsubjectivelyadoptso-called"Mon-golian-Chinesebilingualism,"encouragingonlyMongolstolearnChinese,butnotChinesetolearnMongolian,itistantamounttousingacovertadministrativemeasuretorestrictandlimitthedevelopmentoftheMongolianlan-guage,anditcanonlyacceleratetheprocessofthelossofMongolian.[ChuluunBagan1981:122-123]PromotionofChinese,accordingtoShenamjil,aveteranMongolianlanguageworkerwritingin1990,jeopardizedminorityintellectualdevelopment:EncouragingthosechildrenwhodidnotknowChinesetostudyChinesedirectlyresultedinadismalsituationinwhichtheylearnedwellneitherChinesenortheirnation-

alitylanguage.Thispracticehaswastedminoritytalents,adverselyimpactedthedevelopmentoftheintelligenceofthepeopleofminoritynationalities,andnegativelyinflu-encedthedevelopmentofeconomyandcultureofminor-ityregions.[Shenamjil1990:54]Thispost-CulturalRevolutionanti-ChineselanguagesentimentspurredenthusiasmthroughoutInnerMongolia


16/25

760AmericanAnthropologist*Vol.105,No.4*December2003toreviveMongolianlanguageuseinpublicandinprivate.EvensomeSinicizedMongolssetouttoreclaimtheirlin-guisticheritage,astheTumedcaseillustratesabove,onlytofindthatthesocialconditionsforsustainablelinguisticrestorationhavebeenirreparablydamaged.MONGOLSDENATIONALIZED:THERACIALLOGICOFTHECHINESENATIONALMULTICULTURALISMBynowitshouldbeclearthatIamnotadvocatingtheabandonmentofMongolianinInnerMongolia,claimingthatitisalanguagewithlittlepracticaluse,onethatsim-plymakesMongols"feelgood"abouttheirheritage.Farfromit.ThetremendouslinguisticanxietyshownbyMongolsatthepersonal,communal(ortribal),andna-tionallevelsandtheseeminglyquixoticlinguisticresis-tancearetheresultofmanyparadoxes.MongolsarethetitularnationalityoftheIMAR,buttheyconstituteanab-soluteminorityeventhere-tosaynothingofChinaasawhole.Asaminority,theyaresubjectedtothehegemo-niesofboththedominantChinesestateandsocialistmoralandpoliticalconstructionsofethnicity.Althoughsocialismpromisedequalityandnationalliberation,na-tionalitywasseennotasanendinitselfbutasameansto-

wardachievingsocialism,whichinturnbecameindistin-guishablefromintegrationintotheChinesestate.However,onceacquiringregionalnationalityautonomyintheformoftheIMAR,theMongoliannationalityturneditselfintosomethingakintoan"intentionalcommunity"-thatis,onethatwasnottobeassimilatedormeltedaway,but,rather,onemeanttoreproduceitselfinordertoenjoylon-gevity(cf.Brown2002).Putinthisway,wecanbetterappreciatetheenormoustensionbetweentheminorityMongolsandthemajoritarianChinesestate,theformerfightingforrightfulexistenceagainstanyattemptbythestatetoforceassimilation.ThedebateonlanguagerightsinChinaislessaprivilegeddomainofintellectualreason-

ingaboutuniversalityorparticularityasitisintheWest(Paulston1997)thanapoliticalbattledeterminingtheter-ritorialandpoliticalrightsofminorities.BecauseChinaisanationalizingregimewithastrongsenseofHistory,itisbentonsociallyengineeringitsminoritiestoshedmoreoftheirparticularisticculturalfeaturesandattainmoreofethnicChinesecharacteristics.Therefore,minoritiesareoftenforcedtoturnagainsttheircollectiveinterestandpursueindividualsurvivalstrategy,asthisarticlehasshown.Inthiscontext,itisnaturalthatsomedoctrinesofso-cialistnationalitycollide:thedoctrineofcommonlanguageasoneofthefourcriteriaindefiningnationalityvis-a-visthedoctrineof"nationalinform,socialistincontent."In

otherwords,equalityforminoritynationalitieswaspro-motedthroughlanguagerightsandlimitedformsoflocalautonomy,and,yet,simultaneouslyaminoritylanguagewasseenassimplyanemptyvesselthatcouldbefilledupwithcommunist-cum-majoritarianChinesecontent.Atadifferentlevel,Mongolianlinguisticanxietypointstothedisparitybetweenfunctionalistandconstructivistunderstandingsofnation/nationality.IfwefollowBene-dictAnderson(1991),printcapitalismorsocialisminIn-nerMongoliaissufficienttomakeMongols"imagine"


17/25

theirethnonationalcommunity.However,asErnestGellner(1983)pointsout,sustainingtheimaginedcommunityre-quiresastrongeducationalsystem.Thissuggeststhatboundaryandcontentofamodernethnonationalcom-munityshouldbelargelycongruent.Inthisregard,FrederikBarth's(1969)suggestionthattheprincipaltaskinstudyingethnicityistheexaminationofboundariesbutnotcontentismisleading.Histheorycannotappreciatethedialecticalformulaof"nationalinform,socialistincontent"asappliedinsocialistmultinationalstates.Be-causethesocialistcontentisnotalwaysuniversalisticbutisoftenimposedbydominantgroups,theminorityna-tionalityorethnicformisoftenundermined.TheproblemisespeciallyacuteinChinawherethecontentofanation-alitydeterminestheform,includingeventheclassifica-torynameofaminority.Toputitdifferently,ifthecon-tent(suchasdistinctpoliticalandterritorialinstitutions,language,economy,andsoon)ofaminoritydeterminedtheraisond'etreforpoliticalrightsintheformofterrito-rialautonomyinasocialiststate,thelossofcontentcouldwellleadtothedemiseofautonomy(seeBulaginpressforthisfaitaccompliinInnerMongolia).Preciselyforthisreason,territory,economy,language,andculture-thefourStalinistcriteriadefiningnationalitythathavebeen

widelyusedinChina-havebeenfieldsof"content-ion"betweenanationalizingregimeanditsminoritynationali-ties.Largelybereftof"commonterritory"and"commoneconomy,"aswellasthe"commonpsychologicalmake-up,"languageisthelastlineofMongols'defenseof"na-tionality"againstbecomingaracialized"ethnicgroup,"aconstituentpartofan"ethnicized"ChineseNation,ZhonghuaMinzu.Letmediscussthisissuebywayofcon-clusion.Ihavesofarusednationalitytodenotewhatiscalled"minzu"inChina.MinzuisatermadoptedbyChinesena-tionalistsfromtheJapaneseminzokuinthelate19thandearly20thcenturytoconceptualizeboththenew"nation"

ofChina(ZhonghuaMinzu)anditsfiveofficiallyrecog-nized"nationality"groups:Chinese(Han),Manchu,Mon-gol,Muslims,andTibetan(Pan2000:9).TheChinesecom-munistsinheritedthistermandsimplyendoweditwithsomeStalinistovertones,reservingitforminorities,whileexpungingZhonghuaMinzu,"ChineseNation,"fromtheCommunistlexicon,replacingitwithZhongguoRenmin,meaning"Chinesepeople."Inthelasttwodecades,asChinabegantoattractsubstantialoverseasinvestment,es-peciallyintheaftermathoftheSovietandYugoslaviancollapsealong"nationality"linesintheearly1990s,therehasbeenamovementwithinChineseacademicandpo-liticalcirclestorevivethenotionofthelong-expunged

ZhonghuaMinzu,"ChineseNation"andcallit"zhonghuaminzuduoyuanyiti,"ora"multiculturalunityoftheChi-neseNation"(seeFei1999).ThisiswhatIcall"ChineseNationalMulticulturalism,"whichcameintobeinginthe


18/25

Bulag*MongolianEthnicityandLinguisticAnxietyinChina761ageofglobalcapitalismandnationalismanddemon-stratesvirulentracismtotheexternalOther.AndtotheinternalOther,orminorities,aChineseNationalMul-ticulturalismpatronizes,inthewordsofSlavojhiiek"re-spectforlocalcultureswithoutrootsinone'sownparticu-larculture"(1997:44).Thatis,"respect"forlocalculturescancomeonlyfromarearrangementofgroupranking:Minzumustbeappropriatedfromastigmatictermformi-noritieswhoweretobeeventuallyassimilatedintothe"Chinesepeople,"todesignatethe"ChineseNation,"whichpurportedlyhas5,000years'glorioushistoryofcivilizationandapermanentfuture,consistingofaroundfiftycolorfulcultural"ethnicgroups."Theextenttowhich"ethnicity"anditsfamilyoftermshaveprovedattractivetotheChinesestateapparatuschargedwithrunningminzuaffairscanbegaugedintheofficialretranslationoftheEnglishnameofChina'sflag-shippropagandajournalMinzuTuanjiefromNationalityUnitytoEthnicUnity,and"theStateNationalityAffairsCommission"to"StateEthnicAffairsCommission"in1995,aswellasthesubsequentretranslationofallthelawsandregulationsconcerningminoritynationalities,

changing"nationality"to"ethnicgroup"(cf.StateEthnicAffairsCommission2000).Althoughthegovernmentcon-tinuestouseminzutodenoteboth"nationality"and"na-tion"inChinese,thestatelanguage,andalthoughAlmazKhandismissesanypossibilityofchallenging"thehegem-onyoftheminzudiscourseatall"(1999:40),Chinesescholarsnowroutinelyclassifygroupsbymakinguseofaclearterminologicaldistinctionbetweenzuqun,whichisusedtodenote"ethnicgroup,"andminzuorguozu,whicharebothreservedtodenote"nation"(cf.NaranBilik2000).Thisdistinctionisaclearattempttogetoutofanallegedconfusioncausedbythemultivalenceofthetermreferringtoethnicgroup,nationality,andnation.The

ChinesequestforwhatIcall"terminologicalinequality"hasclearlybeeninspiredbothbythe"international"standardsorconventionsthatarenowdeemedmoresci-entificandlessideologicalthantheusagesofminzuandnationality,and,morepertinently,bythenationalizationoftheChinesecommunistregime.ItisclearthatbehindtherectificationofnamesarequestionsofreconceptualizingtheentirearenaofChina'snationalityissues,fromthelegalpositionsofthenation-alitiestotheirterritorialandotherrightsassociatedwithautonomy.Atissuearequestionsofre-representationandrecategorizationofChina'sminorities.AsNicholasDirkshasobservedofBritishcolonialisminIndia,"repre-

sentationinthecolonialcontextwasviolent;classifica-tionatotalizingformofcontrol"(1992:5).WesternscholarshiponethnicityandnationalisminChinahasbeenoverwhelminglyconcernedwithChina'sidentificationandclassificationofminorities,howpartypolicyhashardenedthesupposedlyfluidboundariesbe-tweenethnicgroupsintoethnonationalism,andhowclas-sifiedminoritynationalitiesonthegroundcontinuetodefyofficialpressurestoSinicize.Furthermore,amoreef-fectivevehicleforunderstandingethnicprocessesissaid


19/25

tolieinthestudyof"ethnicrelations"ratherthan"na-tionalityquestions,"nowthatnationalityautonomy,thecentralpraxisoftheChinesestatethroughwhichminori-tieshavebeenorganized,ispatentlyindisarray.Christo-pherAtwood(1994),inhisstudyoftheMongoliantermandtranslationofminzu,rightlycriticizedthescholarshipthatfocuseson"nationalityquestions"forattributingtoomuchpowertothemodernChinesestateforcreatingeth-nicidentities,andforcompletelyomitting"theroleofpo-liticalconceptsandcorporateinstitutionsinmediatingbetweentheultimatesovereignpowerandtheindividual"(1994:71).ThedesignationofMongols,Tibetans,Mus-lims,Manchus,andHanChineseasminzusince1911"representedthedrasticdelegitimation"oftheMongolnationalinstitutions,suchasthebannersystem,Ching-gisidnobility,andtheestablishedBuddhistchurchfoundundertheQingdynasty(Atwood1994:71-72).Oneimportantpointbearsemphasis.ThediscussionofChina'skeypoliticalconceptssuchas"minzu"(nationornationality)and"zuqun"(ethnicgroup)shouldpayat-tentiontohistory-or,rather,bothHistoryandhistories-andtheinstitutionalization-andde-orreinstitutionaliza-tion-intheprocessofrectifyingkeynames.Letmemakeaquickexcursionintohistory.Thekindofreconceptuali-

zationandreclassificationfromminzutozuqunisnotanewphenomenonofthelasttwodecades,theperiodof"globalization."Alreadyintheearly1920s,theChineseNationalistParty(GMD)begantodevelopmisgivingsaboutthefoundationalconceptionoftheoriginalRepub-lic,thatis,thatChinaconsistedoffiveminzu(Fitzgerald1996).Inthelate1920sthenationalistgovernmentestab-lishedChineseprovincesandcountiestoreplacenon-Chi-neseterritorialadministrativeunitsinthenorthernandwesternfrontiers.Inordertoquellthebourgeoningmi-noritydemandforindependenceorautonomy,itpro-ceededtopromotetheideaoftheChineseNation(ZhonghuaMinzu)basedonHanChinesehegemonyand

designatedthefourotherminzuasthebuzu,subordinate"tribes"orethnicgroupsofthe"Nation."Itwasthisinsti-tutionalizationandrectificationofclassificatorynamesthatlegitimatedtheRepublicofChina'sagendatoassimi-lateallminoritynationalitiesintotheChineseNation,bymeansofmilitaryconquestandmassiveChinesemigra-tionintonon-Chineseareas.InresponsetothisChineseonslaught,InnerMongolsroseupagaininarmsinthe1930s-40stodefendtheirhomeland,astheyhaddonein1911-13.Foritspart,theCCP,thenaminoritypartyseekingtosurviveinthenorthernhinterlandsbycarvingoutrevolutionarybases,begantoseetheMongolsaspotentialallies.TheCCPcriti-

cizedtheGMD'schauvinismandcalledforautonomy/na-tionalself-determinationfornon-Chineseminorities,es-peciallyMongols(cf.Bulag2002).TheissuesweremademorecomplexbyJapanesebidsforMongolsupportandthedynamicsofGMD-CCPconflictandcooperation,leadingtoanoften-troubledunitedfrontagainstJapan.


20/25

762AmericanAnthropologist*Vol.105,No.4*December2003Althoughshortofgenuineautonomy,theterritorialautonomyofInnerMongolia,whichwassetupinMay1947evenbeforetheestablishmentofthePeople'sRepublic(inOctober1949),wasaloud,thoughCCP-sanctioned,Mon-golrebukeofChinesenationalisterasureofMongoliden-tity.TerritoriesandinstitutionswerethereforecentraltoMongolianandotherminorityself-determinationmove-ments.AndthesubsequentadoptionoftheInnerMongo-liaAutonomousRegionasamodelforaCommunistsolu-tiontothe"nationalityquestion"wasaconcession.Thatis,itwasneitherablessingnoragift,norwasitanideo-logicalblunder,onthepartoftheCCP.Asaconsequence,thePRCwasestablishedasa"state"withpeoplesofvari-ousnationalities,butnotasa"ChineseNation."ThecentralandmostvisibleproblemofminzuinChinafromthattimeforwardhas,however,centeredontheconflictbetweentheaspirationsoflargeterritorialna-tionalitiessuchastheMongols,Tibetans,andUyghurstoretainautonomy,andthatofthenationalizingChinesestatetohomogenizeitsdiversepopulationsandintegratethemwiththeChinese.Equallyimportantfromtheper-spectiveofthepeoplesconcernedhasbeenissuesof

autonomyandculturalpreservationofsmallerandscat-terednationalities.Indeed,throughoutthe1950s,Chinesescholarscontinuedtousebuzu(tribe),atermChinesena-tionalistsusedtodesignatefournon-Chineseminzus,es-peciallyintheirtranslationofnarodnost'(acategorybe-tweentribesandnations)inLenin'sandStalin'sworks.Theyadoptedminzuasauniformtermonlyin1962whentheywerepromptedbystrongminoritycriticisms(YaandSun1985:61).AndduringtheCulturalRevolutionbe-tween1966-76,attemptstoassimilateminoritynationali-tieswereintensified.WemaysaythatinvocationofthetermZhonghuaMinzu,revivedfromthedustbinofhistoryandusedsincethe1980s-afterasinglepost-Cultural

Revolutiondecadeofmorefavorabletreatmentofminor-itypeoples-isasmuchanattempttonationalize(i.e.,Sinicize)theChinesestateasanefforttodepoliticize,de-institutionalize,anddeterritorializeminoritynationali-ties.Inasmuchasitisreminiscentofthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,thecurrentstateofaffairsshowsthathis-toryrepeatsitself;however,thecultural,institutional,so-cial,andterritorialconditionsforminorityresistancehavebeenfundamentallyalteredthroughfourdecadesofso-cialistChinese"nation-building."ThestudyofChina'sethnicityrequiresthatwepayat-tentiontothis"process"ofmovingfrom"nationality"to"ethnicgroup,"andChina'spassagefromamultinational

"state"toamultiethnic"nation."Thisrequiresheight-enedawarenessoftheparadigmaticconceptionofhegem-onyatwork.JacobLevy(2000)hasrecentlycastigatedcontemporarynormativetheoristsofnationalismandeth-nicityfortypicallyconceptualizingnationhoodandeth-nicityasprimarilycultural,divorcedfrommateriallife.Hearguesthattheyshouldbeunderstoodaspoliticalmatters,and"nationalismandindigenousethnicpoliticscannotbewellunderstoodwithoutreferencetoatleastonemate-rialgood:land"(Levy2000:197).Withouttheawareness


21/25

ofthematerialityofnationalismandethnicity,asIhavedocumentedinthisarticle,Iwouldfurtherargue,asidefromdisplayingourownprofoundignoranceandincom-prehension,weriskeitherblamingminoritiesforexhibitingethnonationalismoutoftheblueorblamingtheempire'sredressiveaffirmativeactionsforpromotingminoritypar-ticularism,asmanyrecentdiagnosticsofSovietnational-itypolicieshavedone(cf.Martin2001;Slezkine1994).ThestoryofMongolianlanguagerevivalandlossindi-catesthattheyareindeedrapidlylosingtheirminzuchar-acteristicsandattainingthoseofanethnicgroup.Astheybecomeincreasinglyurbanized,theirhomelandpenetratedbyChinese,theyhavelostthevitalconditionsfordevel-opingasafull-fledgednationalitywithinstitutionalandterritorialintegrity.Ironically,socialismandautonomy,bothofwhichpromisedtodelivernationalsalvation,be-cametheverytombinwhichwereburiedMongolianaspi-rationsfordevelopingasacivicnationality.InthisnewmulticulturalInnerMongoliaofChina,inwhich"ChineseNationalMulticulturalists"show"racismwithadistance"(2ifek1997:44),domesticatedMongolscannowchoosetosinganddanceastheyplease,evenspeaktheirlanguageiftheycare.Buttheyhavelosttheeconomic,social,andcul-turalpreconditions,aswellasthepoliticalpowersthatcan

meaningfullydefinethepurposeandqualityoftheirna-tivespeech.URADYNE.BULAGDepartmentofAnthropology,HunterCol-legeandtheGraduateCenter,CityUniversityofNewYork,NewYork,NY10021NOTESAcknowledgments.IwouldliketothankSallyMcLendonfororigi-nallyinvitingmetopresentthispaperatthe2001AAAAnnualMeetinginWashington,D.C.,andforhereffortsingettingthis"In-Focus"underway.Heartfeltthanksfortheirhelpfulcommentsandeditorialadvicearealsoextendedtotheeditors-in-chiefoftheAmericanAnthropologist,SusanH.LeesandFrancesE.Mascia-Lees,AAreviewersStevanHarrell,JamesS.Boster,andananonymous

reader,aswellasMarkSelden.REFERENCESCITEDAnderson,Benedict1991ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism.London:Verso.Atwood,ChristopherP.1994NationalQuestionsandNationalAnswersintheChineseRevolution;Or,HowDoYouSayMinzuinMongolian?IndianaEastAsianWorkingPaperSeriesonLanguageandPoliticsinMod-ernChina5:37-73.2002YoungMongolsandVigilantesinInnerMongolia'sInterreg-numDecades,1911-1931.Leiden:Brill.Barth,Frederik

1969Introduction.InEthnicGroupsandBoundaries:TheSocialOrganizationofCulturalDifference.FredrikBarth,ed.Pp.9-38.Boston:Little,Brown.Borchigud,Wurlig1995TheImpactofUrbanEthnicEducationonModernMon-golianEthnicity,1949-1966.InCulturalEncountersonChina'sEthnicFrontiers.StevanHarrell,ed.Pp.278-300.Seattle:Univer-sityofWashingtonPress.


22/25

Bulag*MongolianEthnicityandLinguisticAnxietyinChina763Bourdieu,Pierre1991LanguageandSymbolicPower.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Brown,SusanLove,ed.2002IntentionalCommunity:AnAnthropologicalPerspective.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Bulag,UradynE.2002MongolsatChina'sEdge:HistoryandthePoliticsofNa-tionalUnity.Lanham,MD:RowmanandLittlefield.InpressMunicipalizationandEthnopoliticsinInnerMongolia.InMongolsfromCountrytoCity:FloatingBoundaries,Pastoralism,andCityLifeintheMongolLandsduringthe20thand21stCen-turies.LiNarangoaandOleBruun,eds.Richmond:CurzonPress.Chingeltei1998[1953]Guanyumengguyuwengongzuodejigewenti.InMinzuYanjiuWenji.Pp.1-8.Beijing:MinzuChubanshe.1998[1961]Lunxiandaimengguyuwendedafazhan.InMinzuYanjiuWenji.Pp.102-130.Beijing:MinzuChubanshe.ChuluunBagan1981Jianchiminzuyuyanwenzidepingdengdiwei.InNeiMengguZizhiquMinzuYanjiuXuehuiShoujieNianhuiLunwenXuanji.Neimengguzizhiquminzuyanjiuxuehui,ed.Pp.

120-130.Huhehaote(unofficialpublication).Dirks,NicholasB.1992Introduction:ColonialismandCulture.InColonialismandCultureNicholasB.Dirks,ed.Pp.1-25.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.Dorian,NancyC.1998WesternLanguageIdeologiesandSmall-LanguageProspects.InEndangeredLanguages:LanguageLossandCommunityRe-sponse.LenoreA.GrenobleandLindsayJ.Whaley,eds.Pp.3-21.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Dwyer,ArienneM.1998TheTextureofTongues:LanguagesandPowerinChina.InNationalismandEthnoregionalIdentitiesinChina.WilliamSa-

fran,ed.Pp.68-85.London:FrankCass.FeiXiaotong1999[1989]Zhonghuaminzudeduoyuanyitigeju.InZhonghuaMinzuDuoyuanYitiGeju.FeiXiaotong,ed.Pp.3-43.Beijing:ZhongyangMinzuDaxueChubanshe.Ferguson,CharlesA.,andShirleyB.Heath,eds.1981LanguageintheUSA.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Fitzgerald,John1996AwakeningChina:Politics,CultureandClassintheNation-alistRevolution.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.Gellner,Ernest1983NationsandNationalism.Oxford:Blackwell.Grillo,RalphD.

1989DominantLanguages:LanguageandHierarchyinBritainandFrance.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Harrell,Stevan1993LinguisticsandHegemonyinChina.InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage103:97-114.1995CivilizingProjectsandtheReactiontoThem.InCulturalEn-countersonChina'sEthnicFrontiers.StevanHarrell,ed.Pp.3-36.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress.Huhbator1999StandardizationoftheMongolianLanguageinInnerMon-


23/25

goliaintheTwentiethCentury.Paperpresentedattheconfer-ence"MongoliansfromCountrytoCity."NordicInstituteofAsianStudies,Copenhagen,Denmark,October28-30.Huhehaote(HuhehaoteShiZhengxieWenshiheXueshiWeiyuanhui)2000Qiuxuesuiyue:Mengguxueyuan,mengguzhongxueyi-wang.HuhehaoteWenshiZiliao,13.Huhehaote:Zhongguoren-minzhengzhixieshanghuiyiHuhehaoteshiweiyuanhuiwenshiziliaoyanjiuweiyuanhui.Khan,Almaz1996WhoAretheMongols?State,Ethnicity,andthePoliticsofRepresentationinthePRC.InNegotiatingEthnicitiesinChinaandTaiwan.MelissaJ.Brown,ed.Pp.125-159.Berkeley:InstituteofEastAsianStudies,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.1999SplitIdentities:MakingMinzu/EthnicSubjectsinInnerMongolia,People'sRepublicofChina.Ph.D.dissertation,Depart-mentofAnthropology,UniversityofWashington.Levy,JacobT.2000TheMulticulturalismofFear.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Martin,Terry2001TheAffirmativeActionEmpire:NationsandNationalismintheSovietUnion,1923-1939.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.McDonald,Maryon1989"WeAreNotFrench!":Language,Culture,andIdentityinBrittany.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.

NaranBilik1998aLanguageEducation,IntellectualsandSymbolicRepre-sentation:BeinganUrbanMongolianinaNewConfigurationofSocialEvolution.InNationalismandEthnoregionalIdentitiesinChina.WilliamSafran,ed.Pp.47-67.London:FrankCass.1998bTheMongol-HanRelationsinaNewConfigurationofSo-cialRevolution.CentralAsianSurvey17(1):69-91.2000XiandaiBeijingxiadeZuqunJiangou.Kunming:YunnanRenminChubanshe.NeiMengguZizhiqu1962NeiMengguZizhiquXuexiyuShiyongMengguYuwenJian-gliBanfa.InFeiFazhanFanrongMengguYuwenZuochuXindeGongxian.Pp.40-43.Huhehaote:NeiMengguRenminChubanshe.

0sterg~rd,Uffe1996PeasantsandDanes:TheDanishNationalIdentityandPoliti-calCulture.InBecomingNational:AReader.GeoffEleyandRonaldGrigorSuny,eds.Pp.178-201.NewYork:OxfordUniver-sityPress.Pan,Jiao2000"Minzu"deBolaijiXiangguandeZhenglun.Ph.D.dsserta-tion,DepartmentofNationalityStudies,CentralNationalitiesUniversity,Beijing.Paulston,ChristinaBratt1997LanguagePoliciesandLanguageRights.AnnualReviewofAnthropology26:73-85.Ryang,Sonia

1997NorthKoreansinJapan:Language,Ideology,Identity.Boul-der:WestviewPress.Shenamjil1990Yuyanyuzhilikaifa.Huhehaote:NeiMengguRenminChubanshe.Slezkine,Yuri1994TheUSSRasaCommunalApartment,orHowaSocialistStatePromotedEthnicParticularism.SlavicReview53(2):414-452.StateEthnicAffairsCommission


24/25

2000ACollectionofChineseLawsandRegulationstoGuaranteeUrbanEthnicMinorities'RightsandInterests.Beijing:ZhongguoZhigongChubanshe.TumenandZhuDongli1995KangShengyuNeirendangYuanan.Beijing:ZhonggongZhongyangDangxiaoChubanshe.Tumote(TumoteZuoqi'TumoteZhi'BiancuanWeiyuanhui)1987TumoteZhi.Huhehaote:NeiMengguRenminChubanshe.Ulanhu1967[1965]Wulanfuzaiqingzhuershizhounianchouweizhaokaidezuotanhuishangdejianghua(yuanshijilugao),1965nian12yue21rishangwu.InDuCaoJi:WulanfuFangemingYanlunXuanbian,vol.3.Pp.11-19.Huhehaote:HuhehaoteGeminZao-fanLianluoZongbu,PidouWulanfuFandangJituanLian-luozhan.1997[1953]Dalijiaqiangmengguyuwengongzuo.InWulanfuLunMinzuGongzuo.NeiMengguWulanfuYanjiuhui,ed.Pp.170-179.Beijing:ZhonggongDanshiChubanshe.Ya,Hanzhang,andSunQing1985[1979]Jianguoyilaiminzulilunzhanxiandeyichanglun-zhan.InMinzuXingchengWentiLunwenXuanbian.Pp.59-68.Huhehaote:NeiMengguDangxiao.Zhou,Enlai1960[1958]DangqianWenziGaigedeRenwu.InMinzuZhengce

WenjianHuibian,vol.3.Pp.90-91.Beijing:RenminChubanshe.Zifek,Slavoj1997Multiculturalism,Or,theCulturalLogicofMultinationalCapitalism.NewLeftReview225:28-51.


25/25

bulag 2003 aa mongolian ethnicity

Documents