Balancing unity and diversity? Shifting state policies and the curricular portrayal of China’s minority nationalities

Bibliographic Data

ID8097281
AuthorsFei Yan (0000-0001-7477-5990, Department of International Education, Faculty of Education and Human Development, Hong Kong), Edward Vickers (0000-0002-5061-6204, Department of Education, Faculty of Human-Environment Studies, Fukuoka, Japan, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume60
Issue1
Pages39-58
Publication date2023-06-08
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueComparative Education (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0305-0068 • E-ISSN: 1360-0486
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/03050068.2023.2213139
OpenAlexW4379880026
LanguageEN
Citations received22
References cited28

This article analyses the implications of recent policy changes for the portrayal of minority nationalities in the latest China's history textbooks published around 2017. We argue that ideological responses to the fierce ethnic clashes of the late 2000s and the leadership transition since 2012 have generated increasingly contradictory official discourses on the relationship between Chinese identity and cultural diversity, which are manifested in the textbooks. On the one hand, policies and textbooks still appear to endorse a multi-minzu, inclusive understanding of nationhood and Chinese history. On the other hand, an increasing emphasis on nationalist discourses celebrating the Han culture and achievements reinforces assimilationist narratives based on a monolithic and homogenising vision of Chinese nationhood. We argue that such tensions reflect conflicts over contradictory understandings of Chineseness that have intensified since 2008–2009, and that the increasing marginalisation in textbooks of non-Han groups may contribute to further exacerbating problems in the handling of inter-minzu relations.摘要本文分析中国近期的政策变化对2017年最新出版的历史教科书中少数民族形象刻画的影响。我们认为,中国政府在意识形态层面上对2000年代末尖锐的民族冲突的应对和2012年以来国家领导的更替,使官方在国家身份认同与文化多样性的关系上,产生愈加矛盾的话语,并在最新版的教科书中得以体现。一方面,政策与教科书似乎仍支持一种对国家性质和中国历史的多民族的、包容性的看法。但另一方面,对颂扬汉族文化和成就的民族主义话语的逐渐强调,强化了同化主义叙事,而这些叙事基于单一和同质化想象的中国国家性质。我们认为,这种张力反映了自2008–2009年以来,围绕中国国家性质的矛盾理解的争端遭到加剧;而历史教科书中少数民族的逐渐边缘化,或使处理民族关系时的困境愈加恶化。关键词: 少数民族中国课程历史教科书政策 AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to James Leibold and Edmund Waite for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Under the banner of 'bilingual education', Xinjiang faced a 'covert policy of monolingual education' (Dwyer Citation2005, 37–41), with most local schools 'consolidated' into larger Chinese-medium schools, 'subsequently removing the curriculum in other languages almost entirely' (Roberts Citation2020, 139).2 In both instances, Han-operated businesses were a principal target of the rioters.3 Xi's second term (2017-2022) evinced a further intensification of assimilationism. In 2018, Liang Qichao's terminology of 'zhonghua minzu' was included in the revised Constitution, signalling enhanced emphasis on a singular, Han-centric vision of national identity. Here we focus on policy leading up to the 2016-2017publication of the latest history textbooks, but Bulag (Citationforthcoming) and Vickers (Citation2023) deal with more recent developments.4 From 2001 to 2016, a 'one syllabus, many editions' (一纲多本) policy meant that several textbook series competed with the PEP edition.5 Tibet-related content, for example, would be censored by state-organs responsible for minority nationalities, such as the CCP's United Front Work Department, the National Ethnic Affairs Commission and the China Tibetology Research Centre in Beijing.6 Much of Ye's work on pedagogy, including discussions of the 'New History' approach in England, is suggestive of a relatively liberal outlook.7 As for Peking Man, often invoked to give 'scientific' legitimacy to claims of Chinese biological distinctiveness, the 2017 texts are vague regarding his status as an ancestral figure.8 Mongols were the first class; people from Central Asia (色目人, lit., people with colourful eyes) were second; Han people (referring to the people under Jin's rule, including Jurchen, Khitan and ethnic Han people in the north) third; and southerners (those formerly under Southern Song rule) fourth or bottom.Additional informationFundingJapan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), grant number 19K02530.Notes on contributorsFei YanFei Yan is a post-doctoral fellow at the Education University of Hong Kong. He is currently working on a research project examining the textbook representation of ethnic and religious minorities in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. His research interests include Chinese national identity, citizenship education, education for minority nationalities and textbook studies.Edward VickersEdward Vickers holds the UNESCO Chair on Education for Peace, Social Justice and Global Citizenship at Kyushu University, Japan. He writes on the history and politics of education in contemporary Asia, as well as on public history and identity politics. He is the coauthor (with Zeng Xiaodong) of Education and Society in Post-Mao China (2017) and (with Mark R. Frost and Daniel Schumacher) of Remembering Asia's World War Two (2019). He is President of the Comparative Education Society of Asia, and a core member of the War Memoryscapes in Asia Partnership (WARMAP

Banner · China · Curriculum · Diversity (politics · Ethnic group · Ideology · Literature · Narrative · Nationalism · Political science · Politics · Sociology · State (computer science · Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography · China's Ethnic Minorities and Relations · Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics · Gender Studies · History · Law

Tools

Open DOI