Following the postcolonial perspective, the relationship between the elites (who are elites?) and the subalterns (who are subalterns?) can be considered via New Tibetan cinematic representations, in order to think about whether relations between Tibetans and non-Tibetans (Westerners and Han Chinese in this case) and the elite and the subaltern are “an important position for political [cultural and social] mobilization” in the Tibetan context (Spivak
57 1990:60). Because of this, definitely, two “intellectual puzzles” have to be considered at the epistemological level; that is, a) to what extent the research applies postcolonial thought to Mainland China, which is a place without an explicitly colonial history? and b) if the research employs postcolonialism to discuss and explore the relationship between Han Chinese and Tibetans,51 does this mean it is being acquiescent in a “political” history of the Tibetan community as the colonised subjects and Han Chinese as the colonial authorities? To answer and consider these two questions, I would like to draw attention to how postcolonialism can be defined in the different social/cultural/historical layers. According to the Oxford
Dictionary of Sociology (4th ed. John Scott: 581):52
Post-colonialism originated in the work of the Subaltern Studies Group in their studies of Indian history.… [T]hey sought to speak on behalf of the colonized subjects rather than to write history from the standpoint of the colonial authorities.…The aim was to let subaltern, or subordinate, voices be heard and to break with the dominant colonial discourse.…Epistemologically, the post-colonial viewpoint proposes a standpoint theory of knowledge, according to which knowledge and ideas are shaped by the social location of the group in historical distributions of material and cultural resources. This indicates that postcolonialism can be fixed in two layers: post-colonialism and
postcolonialism. The first layer, post-colonialism, refers to a period of history after
colonialism, and the second layer, postcolonialism, a standpoint theory/perspective of knowledge. As has been mentioned in the Introduction, postcolonialism adopts a politics of epistemology, from colonialism to its continuing legacies, historically concerning itself with the relationships between the dominant group and the subordinate group and between the elite and the subaltern, with specific reference to the colonial process and the way it has decisively shaped the economic, political, social, and cultural conditions and powers of today’s world. Therefore, if we put those two “intellectual puzzles” under the postcolonial understanding of the first layer, we will enter a cul-de-sac. The reason can be searched out. On the one hand, there are political reasons, as I have mentioned in the Literature Review. The government of the PRC claims that a) China was a semi-colony of western imperialism (Hong Kong and Taiwan were full colonies, but not the mainland) in its national history from the First Opium War of 1840; and that b) Tibet is a part of China written in Chinese history,
51
I agree that this is a non-European example empowered by the social constructions of Western understanding of non-Western communities.
52
This does not mean that the dictionary explanation can be used in a good way in academic discussion and argument. However, as a first step, it at least provides a “common sense” approach to understanding the meanings of words and cultures.
58 and the Tibetan issue is a PRC internal issue concerning Chinese ethnic minorities.53 On the other hand, this research focuses on the exploration of Tibetan films/cultures rather than discussion of Tibetan vs. (Han) Chinese political issues in international relations studies. In other words, this thesis is not discussing whether colonialism itself is practised in the relationship between Tibetans and (Han) Chinese. Instead, the research takes advantage of the second layer of postcolonialism – postcolonial theory – throughout the methodological and theoretical research framework. As Young (2003:7) has said, “postcolonial theory is not static”, and is about “the relations between ideas and practices: relations of harmony, relations of conflict, generative relations between different people and their cultures.” Looking back to the definition of postcolonialism in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, and combining the theoretical frameworks which have been discussed before, postcolonialism elaborates a politics of “the subaltern” which can be thought of as women, minorities, disadvantaged or dispossessed groups, refugees and exiles. Postcolonial theory as a critical approach focuses on power relationships between colonisers and colonised in colonialism, but also between elites and subalterns in postcolonialism. Therefore, postcolonialism offers a kind of method to accommodate from historical experience and testimony to the current global situation. Now, we will attempt to resolve those “intellectual puzzles” again: a) From a perspective of globalisation, it is important that postcolonialism concerns the argument that “the nations of the three non-western continents (Africa, Asia, Latin America) are largely in a situation of subordination to Europe and North America, and in a position of economic [also political and cultural] inequality” (Young 2003:4). This will also be informed by Foucault’s “power and knowledge” in the relationship between different discourse orders (elite/subaltern), and Said’s “Orientalism” in the notion of the subject/self and “exotic” otherness. b) I agree that “there is no neutral historical ‘truth’ that can resolve whether Tibet was always an independent nation or an integral part of [the People’s Republic of China]” (Anand 2006:287). The focus of this research is on new Tibetan cinematic representations, caring about the voice of the Tibetan (subaltern?) – how far their voice has been spread via the film text, and examining the significance of New Tibetan Cinema in the context of globalisation. In this sense, the research will demonstrate the wider cultural context on subaltern knowledge about the difference of epistemology between the west and the east, and the relationships between Tibetans and non-Tibetans (Westerners and Han Chinese in this case), and between the elites and the subalterns.
53
59 Finally, I would like to briefly draw attention to the limitations of subaltern studies in the practice of the postcolonial approach and application to this research. Importantly, in reference to Spivak’s article “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988), she writes at great length in providing a critical review identifying and examining the subaltern class(es), cohering the conceptions of post-modernism, post-structuralism and Marxism to discuss the subaltern classes. In her article, she has defined the conception of elitism according to Guha’s definition of Indian social production within colonial/postcolonial discourse. Inspired by Spivak’s thought, this offers a great perspective and approach to look at the relationship between Westerners, Han Chinese and Tibetans. However, following her contribution to the “dominant/elitist groups”, this conception will be challenged by this research through contextualising, defining and categorising the “elite” and “subaltern”. It ascribes a fundamental argument to those of whom Spivak concluded in her paper (1988:308) that “[t]he subaltern cannot speak”. However, this forces me to consider the question that if the defined elite cannot speak in a particular situation, then will they become the subaltern? Or must the subaltern be unable to speak? If the subaltern can speak, are they apparently going to be the elite? I agree with those who say that there is a limitation to Spivak’s contribution and to subaltern studies as a principle of epistemology, as the framework of “dominant/elitist construction” in Tibetan society has the character of mobility enclosed with Tibetans in their political position, as was discussed fully in the literature review chapter. Nevertheless, this framework of “dominant/elitist groups” still has its significance in this research. Two reasons can be seen: on the one hand, it provides a macro socio-political structure and approach which enables me to look at/think of Tibetan culture/issues from different sides and levels. On the other hand, it has forced me to rethink about positionality for this thesis in terms of research methods and process. This will be fully discussed in the section on “Positionality and Possible Ethical Issues” later in the chapter.