Globalization, Global History and Local Identity in ‘Greater China’

Globalization, Global History and Local Identity in‘Greater China’

Q. Edward Wang*Rowan University; Peking University

Abstract

This article offers a brief contour of the differing interests in, and engagements with, the study ofglobalization and global history in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. It argues that in theface of the onrush of globalization, each of these three regions, under the rubric of ‘GreaterChina’, has developed and adopted distinct strategies to perceive and interpret its multifacetedimpact. Scholars, movie makers and journalists in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong haveappropriated different meanings of globalization and engaged with its multifarious impacts fromtheir own localized concerns and interests. Globalization has generated more dialogues among thethree entities and helped highlight their differences.

I would like to start with by defining what I mean by ‘Greater China’. It is a term usedmost commonly in the economics and investment communities around the world. Itincludes mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, despite the uneasiness ofsome Taiwanese scholars about its usage. I offer a brief contour of the differing interestsin, and engagements with, the study of globalization and global history in mainlandChina, Hong Kong and Taiwan and argue that in the face of the onrush of globalization,each of these three regions has developed and adopted distinct strategies to perceive andinterpret its multifaceted impact. Though I use the term ‘Greater China’, I intend toemphasize the very different approaches to the regional and the global in the case ofChina, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Indeed, though Chinese, in its written form, is the lingua franca, there have been nota-ble differences in the ways in which scholars and educators in mainland China, HongKong and Taiwan assess the impact of globalization. These differences reflect the threeregions’ historical experiences and their current positions in the world. They also pointto different expectations on the part of scholars and, to a lesser degree, the leaders of thethree regions with respect to globalization. First, with respect to the level of interest inand anticipation concerning globalization, mainland China is the most enthusiastic,rivalled by Taiwan and then followed by Hong Kong. In mainland China, (quan-qiuhua; globalization) has become a catchword. In fact, the mainland Chinese haveembraced ‘globalization’ even before the phrase ‘globalization’ captured much attentionand the study of it became an academic field around the world. During the 1980s ZhaoZiyang (1919–2005), China’s then premier and later party general secretary, alreadyinstructed that there was no choice for the country other than pushing forward with eco-nomic reform. Inspired perhaps by the futuristic study of Alvin Toffler,2 Zhao believedthat the whole world has become a ‘global village’ ( diqiu cun) and that Chinashould seek to become a member. After Zhao Ziyang disappeared from China’s politicalarena, the phrase ‘global village’ also faded away. But in its place appeared ‘globalization’.Up to the present, some 155 doctoral dissertations deal with the topic, ranging from

History Compass 8/4 (2010): 320–329, 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00667.x

ª 2010 The AuthorJournal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

political science, economics and international relations to sociology, education andcultural studies. Having used ‘globalization’ as the keyword to search in the Chinese Aca-demic Journal Database (CNKI), which contains journal articles from 1979 to the present,I found over 20,000 articles that address globalization’s various impacts in a broad rangeof areas: from fine arts, architecture, tourism and linguistics to international finance, busi-ness and educational administration, political economy and geopolitics, urban develop-ment and religious studies. More interestingly, an overwhelming majority of the articles(19,840) were published after 1994. The wide breadth of topics (some quite unexpected)that these articles have covered shows that globalization has touched upon every aspect ofthe life in today’s mainland China. Insofar as historical study is concerned, about 360 arti-cles were found in the database during the same period, of which 142 were publishedafter 1994. They will be discussed below.

Globalization has also aroused great interest in Taiwan. In Taiwan’s academic journaldatabase, spanning 1999 to today, there have already been 1,510 articles that discuss theimpact of globalization. They have also covered a broad range of topics, from preservingindigenous culture and customs, religious studies and Chinese and foreign language educa-tion to architectural design, agricultural development and tourist industry, though fewrelate to historical study. As for Hong Kong, the impact of globalization too has been wellnoticed. Using the journal database at Chinese University of Hong Kong and the samesearch tool, I found that since 1980 there have been 413 articles that address the topic ofglobalization. (Many of the articles have been published in the recent decade for obviousreasons.) These articles deal with a broad range of topics, though compared with those bymainland and Taiwan scholars, they focus more narrowly on international finance andbusiness management. One caveat, many of these articles appearing in Hong Kong journalswere not authored necessarily by scholars with Hong Kong origin and many which addressglobalization issues did not pertain to globalization’s impact on Hong Kong. Some of themtake a broad Chinese perspective whereas some others treat the subject from a compara-tive, cross-cultural perspective. After Hong Kong was returned to the PRC in 1997, therehas been a notable increase of scholars who grew up on the mainland or Taiwan and cameto teach in Hong Kong after receiving advanced degrees in Europe and North America.In addition, there has been a number of foreign scholars of non-Chinese origin teachingin Hong Kong. Thus, it has become more and more difficult to identify a distinct HongKong academic community. Nonetheless, there is a marked difference with respect notonly to the level of interest but also the expression of such interest in globalization amongscholars in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Second, mainland China differs from both Taiwan and Hong Kong with respect to itsexpectations concerning globalization. To many Chinese scholars who write about glob-alization and China’s future development, globalization represents a new stage of develop-ment in worldwide modernization, in which China’s rapid economic expansion from1978 has been an integral part. From the perspective of Marx’s historical materialism, as anew stage of modernization, globalization is a corollary of the development in world his-tory. It constitutes ‘historical necessity’ ( lishi biranxing), as the title of one articlesuggests.3 The author, Liu Bo, argues that though the idea of ‘globalism’ ( quanqiuzhuyi) had appeared earlier in various cultures, the process of globalization did not beginuntil the 1960s and the 1970s, marked by the ‘information revolution’ buoyed bytechnological innovations such as the Internet. Globalization has reduced the autonomyof nation-states and strengthened interdependence among various regions in the world.No country or region, Liu contends, can be immune from these changes. In short,globalization is an ineluctable historical development.

Globalization, Global History and Local Identity 321

ª 2010 The Author History Compass 8/4 (2010): 320–329, 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2009.00667.xJournal Compilation ª 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Liu proclaims that as a transitional stage, globalization leads ineluctably to the ultimatetriumph of socialism, since, according to Marx, socialism is the stage of social develop-ment that supersedes capitalism. However, few articles explicitly connect globalizationwith socialism or contend that globalization paves the way for the advance of socialism.Indeed, mention of socialism in the globalization literature is sparse. But the idea never-theless lurks within the argumentation. In an article entitled ‘Interpreting ‘socialism withChinese characteristics’ from the perspective of globalization’, the authors make twointeresting and distinct arguments. One is that it was in the course of an earlier globaliza-tion that socialism became possible, and that it became a viable path for China. The otheris that only through globalization could socialism in China come to achieve ‘Chinesecharacteristics’. That is, globalization made Chinese socialism more distinct and notable.First, citing Deng Xiaoping’s directives, the authors state that while he imported marketeconomy into China, Deng also hoped that China’s economic development could benefitthe majority of the people, hence avoiding the wide gap between the rich and poor incapitalist countries. Second, globalization does not mean homogenization. Rather, itencourages alternative ways of modernization. Deng’s economic policy after 1978 pre-sents exactly such a model. Third, China’s modernization is an alternative model becauseit draws on its Confucian tradition, which in turn also underlines its ‘Chinese characteris-tics’.4 Taking a more cautious tone, the other article states that though globalization posesa challenge to China in its endeavour to modernize, it also provides an ‘opportunity’( jiyu), since globalization requires that China open widely its door and engageactively with other regions and countries in developing its economy. As an opportunity,globalization facilitates the goal that the Chinese government has pursued since 1978,which is ‘to use capitalism to develop socialism’ ( liyong zibenzhuyi, fazhan shehui zhuyi).5

To be sure, not all publications on globalization appearing in mainland China areenthusiastic about its impact. Some scholars, including the research fellows in the WorldHistory Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, discuss the ‘negative influ-ence’ ( xiaoji yingxiang) of globalization which undermines nationalist pride amongChinese youth.6 There are others who see the diminished role of nation-states in the faceof globalization as requiring new strategies for China.7 Some even point out bluntly thatglobalization is nothing but a foil for Westernization. But by and large, mainland scholarsembrace globalization, for they do try to distinguish it from Westernization.8 The keydifference between the two, according to these scholars, has a good deal to do with Chi-na’s relation with them. In the case of Westernization, which exerted its impact throughthe course of modern Chinese history beginning customarily with the Opium War(1839–42), China was forced to accept it. By contrast, owing to Deng Xiaoping’s open-door policy, China takes an active part in the course of globalization. Mainland scholars’positive attitude toward globalization has much to do with their assessment of the eco-nomic expansion orchestrated by the Chinese government. As Deng’s open-door policywas instituted in 1978, which coincided with the tide of globalization, and its policy hasappeared successful in promoting economic development in subsequent decades, mainlandscholars tend to view globalization as an opportunity for China to regain its importancein the world, in contrast to the initial decades of the People’s Republic when China wasisolated and suffered from economic stagnation.

Scholars in Taiwan also view globalization as an opportunity, though they consider itdifferently. Taiwan’s economic development coincided with globalization and paved theway for Taiwan’s democratization from 1987. This democratization has resulted in self-conscious efforts to transcend the encompassing notion of ‘Chinese nationality’ (

322 Globalization, Global History and Local Identity


Zhonghua minzu) and highlight its multifaceted manifestations in Taiwan, notably the eth-nic diversity of its population comprised of peoples of Hokkien [Minnan], Hakka, othermainlanders and aboriginal peoples. Since the 1980s, ‘globalization’ in Taiwan’s publicdiscourse has been accompanied by growing ‘Taiwanese consciousness’ ( Taiwanyishi). Many scholars address the impact of globalization from the perspective of ‘Taiwanidentity’ or ‘Taiwanese consciousness’, though they differ in their approach and findings.Let us look at two essays, one by Liao Binghui (Ping-huei) and the other by Yang Du(Tu).9 From the perspective of Taiwan’s history, characterized by immigration and colo-nization, both date the beginning of globalization from the 16th century when Taiwanbecame gradually known to the Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese and Dutch. Yang and Liaoview Taiwan’s history as ‘globalization’ writ large. However, for Liao, ‘globalization’ hasgiven rise to a distinct ‘Taiwanese identity’, for globalization must experience a process of‘localization’ ( zaidihua should this be dihua?) and ⁄or ‘re-localization’ ( zaidihua).Globalization, he maintains, is not antithetical to strengthening Taiwanese identity; rather,the more one promotes Taiwanese identity, the more visible globalization becomesbecause globalization also generates interest in local cultures.10 For Yang, if globalizationhas shaped the historical development of Taiwan, then the very term ‘Taiwanese identity’needs to be interrogated, for it has continued to be enriched and expanded. It is at oncean elusive and inclusive term because globalization has continued to exert its impact onshaping Taiwan’s society. As a result, Taiwanese identity or consciousness and globaliza-tion have not been locked in two dichotomous poles. Rather, Yang maintains, the twoare so interdependent that if one emphasizes Taiwanese identity, it will lead to the nega-tion of the interests of other ethnic groups and the diverse cultural traditions that shapeTaiwan. He hopes and expects the islanders to continue their open and tolerant culturalattitude, not being circumscribed by the attempt to identify and promote one identity,which has been grounded, invariably, in the cultural and historical experience of one ortwo particular ethnic groups.11

Though different in their viewpoints, Taiwan is no longer seen as a microcosm ofChinese culture as in the period between 1949 and 1987, but rather as a product ofglobalization wherein a variety of cultures vied for their presence and influence. In HongKong, the issue of transcultural identity has also drawn much attention. Indeed, one mayargue that it has been most visible and acute. If globalization has shaped the history ofTaiwan since the 16th century, then the same can be said about Hong Kong’s history atleast since the 19th century. Yet unlike Taiwan, where attempts to construct a distinctmulticultural identity at a national level have been visible in recent decades, the HongKong identity has by and large been formed at a sub-national level, characterized by‘hybridity’, ‘in-between-ness’, ‘marginality’ and the ‘third space’, all of which areassociated closely with recent patterns of globalization.12 From 1997 when Hong Kongreverted to Chinese rule, all these characteristics have encountered the rush of‘nationalization’, with a clear goal of integrating Hong Kong not only politically but alsoculturally into mainland China. On the one hand, it is clear that this ‘nationalization’cannot be achieved by ignoring Hong Kong’s historical heritage and the complex forma-tion of the Hong Kong identity, for the birth of Hong Kong and its ascendance as animportant financial and trade centre in both Asia and the world has been intertwinedwith the trend of globalization, one in which mainland China has been an active partici-pant in recent years. Yet on the other hand, globalization has paradoxically simulta-neously promoted homogeneity and heterogeneity. In Taiwan’s case, the latter is referredto as a process of ‘localization’, whereas in Hong Kong after 1997, this process hasbecome one of ‘nationalization’, in which Hong Kongers begin to relearn and regain



their ‘Chineseness’. Hence, globalization, localization and nationalization are all present inHong Kong today.13

Recent changes in Hong Kong’s movie industry serve as a telling example of the inter-play of the global, the national and the local. Before 1997, the industry produced onaverage 300 movies annually. After 1997, production experienced a noticeable decline.At present, annual production is in double digits. But this decline belies the fact thatHong Kong movie directors have been busy making movies not only in Hollywood andHong Kong but also in the mainland. Owing to China’s open-door policy, China’smovie market has become more and more internationalized. Hong Kong directors havesuccessfully ridden this wave and made an impressive entry. To a great extent, their entryhas been well received by the mainland audience and welcomed also by the government,for it is seen as a part of the ‘nationalization’ referred to above. At the same time, HongKong directors have also succeeded in leaving indelible marks in Hollywood. What thesedirectors have achieved are examples of global collaboration, pulling together Hollywoodtechniques, Chinese stories, local resources as well as a cross-section of actors.14 Forinstance, The Battle of Wits ( Mogong; 2006) was directed by Zhang Zhiliang (JacobCheung), a Hong Kong director, based on a Japanese manga series by Hideki Mori, andplayed by actors from mainland China and Korea. The Red Cliff ( Chibi; 2008–2009)was directed by Wu Yusen (John Woo), another famous Hong Kong director who alsoenjoys a reputation in Hollywood. By portraying Chinese stories, these movies show theprocess of ‘nationalization’. But their making also benefited from the past experience.Prior to 1997, Hong Kong movies mostly drew on aspects of the city’s urban life andaimed for entertainment. Though supposedly a serious war movie, the Red Cliff has somedialogues between historical figures that are anachronistic and clearly aimed for entertain-ment, not for reflecting historicity.

Lastly, I shall discuss briefly the study of global history in mainland China, Taiwan andHong Kong. Given the high level of interest in globalization on the mainland, the studyof global history as a new subfield in historical study has attracted a good deal of attentionamong mainland historians. The Capital Normal University in Beijing has been a newcentre, though other places such as Wuhan University and the Research Institute ofWorld History at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences have also assembled a team ofresearchers and conducted much research on the subject.15 Their publications on globalhistory, totalling about seventy articles, reveals that mainland scholars tend to view global-ization as a new phase in world historical development and associate their research onglobal history with previous studies of modernization. Though some works emphasizethe fact that globalization is rather a recent event, beginning in the postwar years or evenin the 1980s, many others view it as a long process coinciding with the emergence ofmodern capitalism in the 15th and 16th centuries. Some scholars thus have made effortsto trace the origin of globalization by linking its rise with modernization. Drawing onMarxist theory, they maintain that owing to the emergence of capitalism in the West inthe 15th and 16th centuries, world history gradually became an integrated course ofdevelopment; or ‘world history’ in its real sense. The forces behind this were Westerniza-tion or modernization; the former refers to the influence of Western capitalist systemaround the world, whereas the latter to the efforts by many countries to catch up withthe modern West, which was inspired by the Western model yet the end results werenot necessarily its clones. In a word, mainland scholars see Westernization, modernizationand globalization as three sequential stages of development in world history; globalizationis the most recent occurrence.16



In Taiwan, many historians seek to resituate Taiwan in a broader regional and globalcontext than its connection with the mainland. In recent years, efforts have been madeamong Taiwanese historians to reposition Taiwan in East Asia and describe its historicaltrajectory as such. Interestingly, these efforts have been carried out by scholars of differentpolitical beliefs. Wu Micha, a history professor at National Chung-kung University, forexample, is known for his activism in promoting Taiwan’s independence from the PRC.Having collaborated with Masahiro Wakabayashi of Tokyo University, Wu launched aproject to challenge and overcome the tradition of Chinese nationalist historiography,which in Taiwan meant emphasis on Taiwan as an integral part of China. This projecthas resulted in two anthologies: Essays on Taiwan’s Multi-circled Modernization and Tran-scending the Boundary of Taiwanese History: Dialogue with East Asian History, which addressTaiwan’s historical linkages with its East Asian neighbours, especially with Japan.17 HuangJunjie (Chun-chieh), a professor of history at National Taiwan University, has made asimilar attempt, though he is no Taiwan separatist. Having cofounded the Center for theHermeneutic Studies of Confucian Classics in East Asia at NTU back in the late 1990s,Huang has pursued an interest in the development of neo-Confucianism in China(including Taiwan), Korea and Japan. The Center has also organized several internationalsymposiums on related topics; Huang himself edited and authored several books, of whichThe Study of East Asian Confucianism: Retrospect and Prospect (2005) and East Asian Confu-cianism: the Dialectics of Classics and Interpretations (2007) are representative in introducing anew concept of ‘East Asian Confucianism’ (Dongya ruxue).18 By establishing Confucianismas the core of all cultures in East Asia, Huang seeks to strengthen and amplify theChinese element in Taiwanese history, one that was being questioned by the separatists.This emphasis on the exchanges among cultures of East Asia, viewed as a region with acultural entity of its own, is also evident in the work of Chen Guangxing (Kuan-hsing), acommunications and cultural studies professor at Taiwan’s Tsing-hua University. One ofthe founding editors of Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Chen is known for his relentlesscriticism of Taiwanese cultural nationalism, an offshoot of the separatist movement onthe island of the recent decades.19 Like Huang Junjie, Chen rejects the attempt of someTaiwanese scholars to substitute Taiwanese nationalism for Chinese nationalism, in hopesof bolstering and justifying Taiwan’s claim for independence. Yet his interest and workare unmistakably transnational and translocal, as are that of Wu Micha and Huang Junjie,even though Wu’s transnational project is aimed at delinking Taiwan from mainlandChina.20

Hong Kong itself is a global city. Yet insofar as the study of global history isconcerned, historians in Hong Kong seem to lag behind their counterparts in Taiwan andmainland China. They are also behind their colleagues in sociology and other social sci-ence and humanities disciplines.21 Yet at the University of Hong Kong, Wang Gung-wulong ago established his reputation as a first-rate global historian on the Chinese diasporain Southeast Asia. Students at the University can also pursue a Global Studies major atthe undergraduate level, though no graduate programme on global studies or globalhistory is currently offered. In addition to Wang Gung-wu, Ian Holliday, a politicalscientist, has been making effort to promote global studies and establish a global studiesgraduate programme at the University.22 At the same time, there are signs that effortshave been made by historians in Hong Kong to strengthen the study of China andChinese history after 1997. At Chinese University of Hong Kong, its history curriculumis consisted of several categories (tracks?) of courses on ‘China’, ‘World’, ‘Hong Kong’,‘Public’, ‘Comparative’, etc. Of these categories, the ‘China’ part definitely has mostcourses. In addition, there are many courses under the ‘Public’ category that deal with



Chinese history.23 At University of Hong Kong, a six-credit course entitled ‘Foundationsof Modern China’ is made at the introductory level and offered in the first semester in itshistory programme, followed by the ‘Introduction to European History and Civilization’,also a six-credit course, in the second semester.24 Meanwhile, in both universities, thenumber of courses on Hong Kong history and culture is also on the rise. All this hasoffered a complex picture of the development of history education in Hong Kong, wherelocalization and nationalization are juxtaposed one with the other, even though the latterhas apparently gained more traction in recent years.

In sum, globalization has strike divergent reactions in regions under the rubric of‘Greater China’. Scholars in mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong have appropriatedthe meaning of globalization and engaged with its impact from their own localizedconcerns and interests. As Bruce Mazlish observes, ‘Globalization, a process, takes onconcrete historical features, rather than floating as a vague abstraction high above actual,even everyday life’.25 Since mainland China’s rise in recent years has coincided with thewave of globalization in the world, Chinese scholars are inclined to view its influencepositively, reflecting a strong hope for their country to continue riding the tide to propelit to a world power status. Consequently, though not unaware of globalization’s challengeto nation-states, the Chinese have downplayed it even though China’s economic successhas been powered by and even fuelled the sense of nationalism among its populace. Bycomparison, scholars in Taiwan and Hong Kong have taken a different and sometimes amore critical view of globalization.26 Taiwanese scholars see globalization both as anopportunity and challenge. It on the one hand helps the island to renew and strengthenits tie with the world beyond mainland China, promoting an East Asian perspective oninterpreting Taiwan’s historical development and foregrounding its diverse cultural tradi-tions. On the other hand, globalization has also brought Taiwan closer to the mainlandeconomically, which has made the attempt at Taiwan’s separation from mainland China alesser possibility. Of the three regions, Hong Kong is clearly the most globalized one withrespect to its connection with economic and financial activities around the world. Yetafter its return to Chinese rule, Hong Kong’s position has become the most complex andambiguous. On the one hand, it serves as an important outpost for mainland China forits robust engagement with globalization. On the other hand, being under the rule ofChinese government, it also has to deal with the new issue of how to become renational-ized while maintaining its unique economic position and cultural identity. Much stillremains to be seen and done. In any case, what we have discussed above has shown thatwithin the communities of ‘Greater China’, there are divergent historical temporalities.The trend of globalization has generated more dialogues among them as well as high-lighted their differences.

Short Biography

Q. Edward Wang is Professor of History and Coordinator of Asian Studies Programat Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey and Changjiang Professor at PekingUniversity, China. He has published widely on the tradition and transformation of histo-riographic practices in China and Taiwan from a comparative, global perspective. Amonghis publications are Inventing China through History: The May Fourth Approach to Historiogra-phy (2001); Writing History in Taiwan: Tradition and Transformation, 1950 –2000 (inChinese, 2002); Mirroring the Past: The Writing and Use of History in Imperial China (coauthored2005) and A Global History of Modern Historiography (coauthored 2008).



Notes

* Correspondence: 201 Mullica Hill Rd, Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA. Email: [email protected].

1 The author wishes to express his appreciation of the help provided by Prof. Wei-ying Ku and his assistantLan-ting Tsai at National Taiwan University in finding information on the impact of globalization in contemporaryTaiwan. An earlier version of this article was presented at ‘Global History and East Asia’ at Duke University onJanuary 5–6, 2009. The author would like to thank the conference organizer, Professor Dominic Sachsenmaier forhis invitation and its participants, especially Professor Mark Selden, for their constructive criticisms.2 Alvin Toffler’s works such as Third Wave and Future Shock were translated into Chinese and enjoyed a warmreception.3 B. Liu, ‘Shilun quanqiuhua de lishi biranxing’ (An Exploratory Discussion of the Historical Necessity of Global-ization), Helongjiang dianda xuekan (Journal of Helongjiang TV University), 2 (2003): 52–53.4 Y. Xu and P. Gong, ‘Zai quanqiuhua de shiyu zhong jiedu Zhongguo tese the shehui zhuyi’ (Interpreting ChineseSocialism from the Perspective of Globalization), Kexue shehui zhuyi (Scientific Socialism), 5 (2008): 4–34.5 S. Yu, ‘Miandui quanqiuhua de Zhongguo xiandaihua’ (China’s Modernization in the Face of Globalization),Kexue shehui zhuyi (Scientific Socialism), 5 (2008): 119–121.6 C. Sun, ‘Shilun quanqiuhua dui qingshaonian guojia minzu yishi de xiaoji yingxiang’ (A Tentative Study of theNegative Influence of Globalization in Youth), Gansu lianhe daxue xuebao (Journal of Gansu Allied University), 5(2008): 3–6.7 L. Zhao, ‘Shixi wenhua quanqiuhua yu minzu wenhua zhenghe’ (A Preliminary Analysis of Cultural Globaliza-tion and the Reconstruction of National Culture), Heilongjiang jiaoyu xueyuan xuebao (Journal of Educational Collegein Heilongjiang), 10 (2008): 51–52; Y. Zhang, ‘Lishi shiye zhongde quanqiuhua yu minzu-guojia’ (Globalizationand Nation-States: A Historical Perspective), Shijie minzu (World Nationalities), 2 (2007): 13–18.8 T. Luo, ‘Quanqiuhua shi xifanghua ma?’ (Is Globalization Westernization?), Jiaoxue yu yanjiu (Teaching andResearch), 4 (2000): 68–72. The author’s answer is negative.9 Liao, with a degree in comparative literature from Berkeley, is now professor of English at Tsing-hua Universityin Xinzhu, whereas Yang, with a degree in history from Taiwan University, is a writer.10 B. Liao, ‘Bentuhua yu quanqiuhua de tiaozhan’ (Localization and the Challenge of Globalization), Xinshiji zhikuluntan (Think-tank Forum of the New Century), 22 (2003): 36–43.11 D. Yang, ‘Quanqiuhua yu Taiwan’ (Globalization and Taiwan), Shijie huawen wenxue luntan (Literary Forum ofthe Chinese Speaking World), 1 (2004): 17–23.12 See X. Li, ‘Quanqiuxing, minzuxing yu bentuxing: Xiang Gang xueshujie de houzhimin piping he Xianggangren wenhua rentong de zaijiangou’ (Globality, Nationality and Locality: Postcolonial Critique in Hong Kongand the Reconstruction of Hong Kongers’ Cultural Identity), Shehui xue yanjiu (Studies in Sociology), 4 (2005):189–246. Also, Yongsheng Luo (ed.), Sheide chengshi? Zhanhou Xianggang de gongmin wenhua yu zhengzhi lunshu(Whose City? Civic Culture and Political Discourses in Postwar Hong Kong) (Hong Kong: Oxford UniversityPress, 1997) and Qingqiao Chen (ed.), Wenhua xiangxiang yu yishi xingtai: Dangdai Xianggang wenhua zhengzhi lunping(Cultural Imaginary and Ideology: Contemporary Hong Kong Culture and Political Review) (Hong Kong: OxfordUniversity Press, 1997).13 Ibid.14 S. Chen and D. Liu, ‘Shiji jiyu: quanqiuhua dianying geju zhongde xin Xiang Gang dianying’ (The Encounterof the Century: New Hong Kong Movies in the globalizing Environment of Movie Production), Yishu pingping(Arts Criticism), 7 (2007): 6–10; K. Hu and H. Liu, ‘Quanqiuhua, Xiang Gang xing, da Zhonghua: Xiang Gangdianying shinian huiwang’ (Globalization, Hong Kong, and Greater China: Hong Kong Movies over the PastDecade), Dianying yishu (Movie Art), 4 (2007): 5–10.15 See, for example, Pei Yu (ed.), Quanqiuhua yu qianqiushi (Globalization and Global History) (Beijing: Shehuikexue wenxian chubanshe, 2007). Yu was then the director, and now a fellow, of the Research Institute of WorldHistory.16 R. Luo, ‘‘‘Xiandaihua’’ de lishi dingwei yu dui xiandai shijie fazhan de zairenshi’ (The Position of ‘Moderniza-tion’ in History and a New Understanding of the Development of the Modern World), Lishi yanjiu (HistoricalResearch), 3 (1994): 153–165; S. Li, ‘Lun shijie lishi lilun yu quanqiuhua’ (On World History Theory and Global-ization), Beijing daxue xuebao (Journal of Beijing University), 2 (2001): 5–12; Z. Ding, ‘Guanyu quanqiuhua desikao’ (Thoughts on Globalization), Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), 11 (1999): 62–66;H. Yang, ‘Xiandaihua, quanqiuhua yu shijie lishi de zhongheng fazhan’ (Modernization, Globalization and theLinear and Horizontal Development of World History), Xihua shifan daxue xuebao (Journal of Xihua NormalUniversity), 3 (2008): 45–49.17 Masahiro Wakabayashi and Micha Wu (eds.), Taiwan chongceng jindaihua lunwenji (Taipei: Bozhongzhe wenhuayouxian gongsi, 2000) and Kuajie de Taiwanshi yanjiu: yu Dongya shi de jiaocuo (Taipei: Bozhongzhe wenhua youxiangongsi, 2004). Wu’s words are in the latter, vi–ix.



18 Junjie Huang (ed.), Dongya ruxue yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang (Taipei: Taiwan University Press, 2005); idem,Dongya ruxue: jingdian yu quanshi de bianzheng (Taipei: Taiwan University Press, 2007).19 See, for example, K. Chen (Guangxing), ‘The Imperialist Eye: The Cultural Imaginary of a Subempire and aNation-State’, Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 8 ⁄ 1 (Spring 2000): 9–76.20 K. Chen, ‘Positioning Positions: A New Internationalist Localism in Cultural Studies’, Positions: East Asia Cul-tures Critique, 2 ⁄ 3 (Winter 1994): 681–711.21 Alvin So, a sociologist, has been noted scholars in examining the global connection between East Asia and theworld beyond. See, for example, Alvin So and Stephen Chiu, East Asia and the World Economy (Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage, 1995).22 Ian Holliday’s presentation at Global Studies Consortium in Sophia University, Japan, in May 17–18, 2008,http://globalstudiesconsortium.org/tokyo-2008.23 http://www.history.cuhk.edu.hk/CourseWeb/c_category_0809.htm.24 http://www.hku.hk/history/courses.html.25 http://www.newglobalhistory.org/docs/mazlich-the-new-global-history.pdf, 6.26 See, for example, G. Chen and Y. Qian, ‘Quanqiuhua zhixia Taiwan de xueshu shuxie’ (Academic Writings inTaiwan under Globalization), Dushu (Reading), 2 (2005): 56–66. The authors argue that in view of the recentdevelopment in Taiwan’s academic circle, it seems that globalization actually means ‘Americanizaion’ in that whathas been established in the US are also being taken as standard by Taiwan scholars, such as ranking and evaluatingpublications by measuring how many times they are being referenced by other scholars and indexed and abstractedby certain databases. Although they published this article in a mainland journal, such critique has not been seen inthe works of mainland scholars, even though the same move too has occurred in the PRC.

Bibliography

Chen, G., and Qian, Y., ‘Quanqiuhua zhixia Taiwan de xueshu shuxie’ (Academic writings in Taiwan under glo-balization), Dushu (Reading), 2 (2005): 56–66.

Chen, K. (Guangxing), ‘Positioning Positions: A New Internationalist Localism in Cultural Studies,’ Positions: EastAsia Cultures Critique, 2 ⁄ 3 (Winter 1994): 681–711.

Chen, K., ‘The Imperialist Eye: The Cultural Imaginary of a Subempire and a Nation-State,’ Positions: East AsiaCultures Critique, 8 ⁄ 1 (Spring 2000): 9–76.

Chen, Q., (ed)., Wenhua xiangxiang yu yishi xingtai: Dangdai Xianggang wenhua zhengzhi lunping (Cultural imaginaryand ideology: contemporary Hong Kong culture and political review) (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Chen, S., and Liu, D. ‘Shiji jiyu: quanqiuhua dianying geju zhongde xin Xiang Gang dianying’ (The encounter ofthe century: New Hong Kong Movies In The Globalizing Environment of Movie Production), Yishu pingping(Arts criticism), 7 (2007): 6–10

Ding, Z., ‘Guanyu quanqiuhua de sikao’ (Thoughts on globalization), Shijie jingji yu zhengzhi (World economicsand politics), 11 (1999): 62–66.

Hu, K., and H. Liu, ‘Quanqiuhua, Xiang Gang xing, da Zhonghua: Xiang Gang dianying shinian huiwang’ (Globa-lization, Hong Kong, and Greater China: Hong Kong Movies over the Past Decade), Dianying yishu (Movie art),4 (2007): 5–10.

Huang, J. (ed)., Dongya ruxue yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang (Taipei: Taiwan University Press, 2005).Huang, J. (ed)., Dongya ruxue: jingdian yu quanshi de bianzheng (Taipei: Taiwan University Press, 2007).Li, S., ‘Lun shijie lishi lilun yu quanqiuhua’ (On world history theory and globalization), Beijing daxue xuebao (Jour-

nal of Beijing University), 2 (2001): 5–12.Li, X., ‘Quanqiuxing, minzuxing yu bentuxing: Xiang Gang xueshujie de houzhimin piping he Xianggang ren

wenhua rentong de zaijiangou’ (Globality, Nationality And Locality: Postcolonial Critique in Hong Kong andthe Reconstruction of Hong Kongers’ Cultural Identity), Shehui xue yanjiu (Studies in sociology), 4 (2005): 189–246.

Liao, B., ‘Bentuhua yu quanqiuhua de tiaozhan’ (Localization and the Challenge of Globalization), Xinshiji zhikuluntan (Think-Tank Forum Of The New Century), 22 (2003): 36–43.

Liu, B., ‘Shilun quanqiuhua de lishi biranxing’ (An Exploratory Discussion Of The Historical Necessity Of Globali-zation) Helongjiang dianda xuekan, (Journal of Helongjiang TV University), 2 (2003): 52–53.

Luo, R., ‘Xiandaihua’ de lishi dingwei yu dui xiandai shijie fazhan de zairenshi’ (The position of ‘modernization’ inHistory and a New Understanding of the Development of the Modern World), Lishi yanjiu, (Historical research), 3(1994): 153–165.

Luo, T., ‘Quanqiuhua shi xifanghua ma?’ (Is globalization Westernization?), Jiaoxue yu yanjiu (Teaching and research),4 (2000): 68–72.

Luo, Y., (ed)., Sheide chengshi? Zhanhou Xianggang de gongmin wenhua yu zhengzhi lunshu (Whose city? Civic Cultureand Political Discourses in Postwar Hong Kong) (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1997).

So, A., and Chiu S., East Asia and the World Economy (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).



Sun, C., ‘Shilun quanqiuhua dui qingshaonian guojia minzu yishi de xiaoji yingxiang’ (A Tentative Study of theNegative Influence of Globalization in Youth), Gansu lianhe daxue xuebao (Journal of Gansu allied university), 5(2008): 3–6.

Wakabayashi, M., and Wu, M., (eds)., Kuajie de Taiwanshi yanjiu: yu Dongya shi de jiaocuo (Taipei: Bozhongzhewenhua youxian gongsi, 2004).

Wakabayashi, M., and Wu, M., (eds)., Taiwan chongceng jindaihua lunwenji (Taipei: Bozhongzhe wenhua youxiangongsi, 2000)

Xu, Y., and Gong, P. ‘Zai quanqiuhua de shiyu zhong jiedu Zhongguo tese the shehui zhuyi’ (Interpreting Chinesesocialism from the perspective of globalization), Kexue shehui zhuyi (Scientific socialism), 5 (2008): 4–34.

Yang, D., ‘Quanqiuhua yu Taiwan’ (Globalization and Taiwan), Shijie huawen wenxue luntan (Literary forum of theChinese speaking world), 1 (2004): 17–23.

Yang, H., ‘Quanqiuhua, xiandaihua yu shijie lishi de zhongheng fazhan’ (Modernization, Globalization and theLinear And Horizontal Development of World History), Xihua shifan daxue xuebao (Journal of Xihua NormalUniversity), 3 (2008): 45–49.

Yu, P. (ed)., Quanqiuhua yu qianqiushi (Globalization and global history) (Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe,2007).

Yu, S., ‘Miandui quanqiuhua de Zhongguo xiandaihua’ (China’s Modernization in the Face of Globalization),Kexue shehui zhuyi (Scientific socialism), 5 (2008): 119–121.

Zhang, Y., ‘Lishi shiye zhongde quanqiuhua yu minzu-guojia’ (Globalization and Nation-States: a HistoricalPerspective), Shijie minzu (World nationalities), 2 (2007): 13–18.

Zhao, L., ‘Shixi wenhua quanqiuhua yu minzu wenhua zhenghe’ (A Preliminary Analysis of Cultural Globalizationand the Reconstruction of National Culture), Heilongjiang jiaoyu xueyuan xuebao (Journal of Educational College inHeilongjiang), 10 (2008): 51–52.



Documents

Globalization, Global History and Local Identity in ‘Greater China’