Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||The Birth of “Primitive Society” in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Picture Postcards, Ethnogenesis, and Indigenous Peoples under Japanese Colonial Rule|
|Authors:||Barclay, Paul D.|
|Issue Date:||2016-01-04 17:05:59 (UTC+8)|
This talk will take a visual-studies approach to Indigenous-outsider relations to argue that the interdependent technologies of photography, postcard production, and ethnic classification “produced” Taiwan Indigenous Peoples as objects of knowledge and government in Japanese ruled Taiwan. I will analyze two important sites of photographic and postcard production to illustrate this process: “Kusshaku” (Quchi) 屈尺and “Kappanzan” (Jiaobanshan) 角板山. Based on close readings of the types of Indigenous imagery produced and disseminated from these sites, I suggest that Japanese colonial rule—in addition to its well documented destructive impact—was productive in this Foucauldian sense of the word. Mori Ushinosuke's森丑之助1902 portraits of two married couples near “Kusshaku” were the first successful photographic documents of “Atayalness” to be made under Japanese colonial rule. These anthropometric-photographs constituted an argument for Indigenous ethnic integrity, to counter the prevailing Qing-Japanese discourse on “savages” (fanren or shengfan), I argue. Through the use of staging and image selection, Mori's most famous photographs also exaggerated the level of Quchi-Atayal cultural isolation from Han peoples in the Xindian River area. The second case I examine is the “domestication” of Jiaobanshan/Kappanzan into a “model Aborigine village.” In 1895, “Kappanzan” was portrayed as the home of “savage” emissaries from unknown mountain locations. By the 1920s, however, Kappanzan was the most accessible Indigenous tourist site in Taiwan. The picture postcard sets distributed at the gift shop in Kappanzan, again through the use of cropping, scene selection, and captioning, told a story of a successful civilizing mission in the highlands among peoples who had been little touched by contact with Han Taiwanese. The visual discourses that constructed internally homogenous “Aborigines” as a population distinct from “Han Taiwan” paralleled practices in “Special Administration” that promoted Indigenous Peoples' isolation from participation in land markets and individually levied tax burdens. “Special Administration” also erected barriers to migration to the plains, ports, and cities of colonial Taiwan, which were ruled under “Normal Administration.” Because Special Administration was based on the notion that Indigenous Peoples were ethnically and temporally distinct from Han Taiwanese, and lacked the capacity to participate in a modern political economy, Police rule obstructed the dispersion of capillary power that characterized the disciplinary regime that obtained under “Normal Administration.” There is good reason to believe, I contend, that the birth of the Fourth World, or Indigenous Peoples as a modern political formation, is tied to practices of administrative bifurcation like the one instituted in Japanese governed Taiwan.
|Appears in Collections:||[2014第七回台日原住民族硏究論壇] 會議論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.