Years of Poems and Spirits

During the oral defense of my paper, Prof. Chirot asked a question he’d asked us before, “would you call the nationalist sentiments in China, Korea or Vietnam ‘nationalism’”? I thought I answered it rather well: nationalism in its purest form is a Western concept. I am leaning more toward Hans Kohn (”Idea of Nationalism”) and Gellner (”Nations and Nationalism”) that nationalism is a product of the Enlightenment and/or Industrialization. It is associated with the secularization and democratization movement in the 18th and 19th century. With regard to the national identity present among East Asian polities, I stated those should not be labeled “nationalism” because “a body of knowledge only becomes so if it worked. Otherwise, it is just another experiment”.

That is what I implied in the Caribbean paper, that is, nation building does not end with declaration of independence. To expand it further, I don’t think German and Japanese nation building should be labeled as instances of nationalism, since their nation building exercises lead both to path of (self-)destruction. The polities resulted were still monarchical and authoritarian.

In short, my answer to Chirot’s question is not a teleological statement, rather it is a historicist one.

I am also reading Ann Anagnost’s “National Past-Times: Narrative, Representation, and Power in China”. She frequently cited the national narrative in post-colonial countries as references. I wonder whether she’s bought into the structuralist argument of nationalism. But I have to finish reading it first. It is not an easy read by the way–I can re-write her Introduction part with phrases much easier to understand. For example, instead of saying China has large regional differences and varying ethos in recent times, she uses terms like “spatial and temporal” this and that. Scary, scary.

I have very mixed feelings about the papers I just finished.

The first one, the coal mine paper, started in Christine Wong’s class. I was driven by the non-stop coal mine disasters. But never found a framework in CW’s class that I can fit the paper in. CW’s class is perhaps best for MPA students: full of details but lack of narrative. And that is how the first version of this coal paper ended up with.

However, while writing it, I came to realize how BS it is for the showy part of the post-diaster damage control: officials crying for the victims and blaming everything on the locals. It was too late to change anything then.

In winter quarter, I started to consider developing my late realization into a full thesis. Gary really liked it. We hit it off really well. But none others did. Whiting’s reactions really stung. So I lived on Gary’s emotional and academic life support for about a whole quarter. I almost wandered into the Tibetan issue before Migdal stopped me cold. Only then did I forced myself to come up with something: a thesis, a framework, a narrative so I can put things together. I kept telling everyone I had everything ready, I only need a spark.

The spark came late but I delivered on the promise. The first draft took me about ten days. The second a week and last about two and half days. By no means I am satisfied with the final version. I probably never will.

The second paper was the one I did for Chirot’s ethnic conflict class. He has a sharp eye for the world and humanity and a warm personality, but not as much an eloquent lecturer as Joel. I remember after reading Herbst’s book on Africa, I was pretty disturbed and asked whether it was OK to left power consolidation to take its own course. He seemed to agree with that. It was a pretty gutsy statement.

Anyway, that paper was about natioanlism in Jamaica and Puerto Rico. Dan still wonders how I picked those two (answer: inspired by “Life in Debt”) But that was a fun little paper. It was one of those cases where I had little trouble finding support for my argument and was full of “a-ha” moments.

The current version of the coal mine paper is here.

Some excerpts:

Abstract

Today, China has the World’s worst coal mine safety record. According to one account, the number of deaths per million ton in China is about 100 times of that of the U.S., 30 times of that of South Africa, and 10 times of that of India. Although coal mining is considered one of the most dangerous industrial occupations, the fact that fatality rate remains so high for so long (for at least two decades) suggests that something is fundamentally wrong with the Chinese coal industry.

To answer the question, “Why fatality rate remains so high for so long in Chinese coal mines”, this paper studies China’s industrial policy with regard to the coal industry and the impact such a policy had on economic and institutional development. We find that the decentralization development model, often credited with having successfully transitioned China out of planned economy, may be responsible for a larger share of coal mine safety problem than some other popularly accepted factors. In other words, the structural cause of coal mine disasters is a case of flawed development policy.

Comment: promising but fuzzy.

Finally sent out the paper to the three advisors. Not completely happy with it but still thankful. Thought about adding a small paragrah in the end, just to say thanks. Not yet. I will add it to the final draft.

It has not been easy for the last several month. I can’t believe how difficult it was. Do I have a problem creating/contributing? Sure, learning/absorbing has been tremendously fun.

The last week was hellish. Sichuan Quake really saddened me. I was compulsively following the news. until suddenly I realized what a hypocrisy this is: I always have the option to tune out. But if I were a survivor, I have no such option. I have to face death, deprivation and desperation every day.

Suddenly I am silently thankful for the shitty life I have. This is the last push that put me through. This paper is in memory of those people too.