Miaoyan Yang's monograph introduces a fresh round of investigation into the critical issue of ethnic identity amid China's growing nationalism. Learning to be Tibetan is a well-crafted output which results from longitudinal qualitative research. Yang insightfully breaks down the often over-generalized conception of Tibetan ethnicity by delving into the complexity of internal sub-groups of Tibetan students in China's most prestigious university for ethnic minorities. Yang discovers “the process and internal diversity” (p. 232) of Tibetan university students’ ethnic identity construction, where they “are constantly involved in the power dynamics of the assignments and assertions of ethnicities” (p. 231). She identifies four sub-cohorts of Tibetan university students, dividing them as having been educated primarily in a Tibetan-language (min kao min) or Chinese-language (min kao Han) medium, and whether or not they are majoring in Tibetan language and culture, or other subjects. She conceptualizes four types of ethnic identification for these students: being a “mission,” for those min kao min students majoring in a Tibetan studies; being a “difference,” for those min kao min majoring in non-Tibetan studies; showing “reflective awareness” for those Inland Tibetan School graduates; and lastly, being a “symbol” for those min kao Han students.
Two different streams of theory in ethnic identities run through Yang's research: Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann's 2007 constructionist approach (Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Changing World, Pine Forge Press), and Richard Jenkins's consideration of power and authority in the social construction of ethnicity (Rethinking Ethnicity, 1997, Sage). Yang squarely integrates them into her analytical framework, which consists of state-level factors, campus-level factors and group/individual-level factors.
Running through the multi-layered depictions of Tibetan students’ cultural representations, organizations and activities, the core element of Tibetan culture on campus was the Tibetan language. Internally, the level of Tibetan fluency was an indicator to differentiate the above-mentioned four cohorts of Tibetan students, respectively, possessing the highest to lowest levels of Tibetan fluency. As language and identity are interwoven, this proficiency was also deemed as a barometer to gauge the Tibetan students’ ethnic identity. The Tibetan language functioned as a binding social capital to foster varied levels of ethnic identities from Tibetan students’ sub-groups. Externally, the Tibetan language acted as an invisible borderline to demarcate the ethnic boundary between Tibetan and other ethnic groups, and particularly with the majority Han on campus.
The contribution of Yang's book can be linked to two seminal studies: Stevan Harrell's Ways of Being Ethnic in Southwest China (University of Washington Press, 2001), and Mette Halskov Hansen's Lessons in Being Chinese: Minority Education and Ethnic Identity in Southwest China (University of Washington Press, 1999). Harrell's studies of the Yi people were contextualized in the grassroots rural communities in Sichuan. Yang's research was set in a dislocated background for young Tibetan elites in China's political and cultural heartland of Beijing. Nevertheless, both share a commonality in deciphering how to be ethnic in China. Hansen's work implies that ethnic identity and national identity are two sides of the same coin in the identity politics of multiethnic China. It is especially pertinent for some minority groups with a long history and well-developed linguistic and religious culture, such as Dai people near the southern borderland in Sipsong Panna, and those non-min kao Han Tibetan students in Beijing. The Tibetan students’ national identity is also hinted at, though less discussed, in Yang's study. She provides some thought-provoking data, for example, regarding some Tibetans’ responses to the Dalai Lama, and some Tibetan students’ satirical remarks on the state-imposed knowledge of Tibetan culture and history.
This thorough description and coherent analysis of “learning to be ethnic” eventually leads Yang to conclude by suggesting an idea of “the politics of culture,” which offers much for readers to contemplate. The politics of culture here hints at the complexity of the Chinese ethnic minority problem, particularly for groups like Tibetans and Uyghurs. The Party-state has promoted the long-held socialist ideology of ethnic equality. In Yang's case, Tibetan language and culture can be displayed and maintained within a micro-environment. While Tibetan students invariably expressed positive impressions of minority universities as a distinctive mechanism for gaining upward social mobility, they did not indiscriminately accept officially assigned national and ethnic identities. Yang's nuanced elaboration unveils Tibetan students’ experiences of constructing self-asserted cultural and religious identity.
Yang's book suggests that the state's authority in ethnic identity can be porous in a market economy and in a globalized era. This book was written upon a reflection of a mainstream Han academic's empathetic understanding of Tibetan people and culture. A short opening sentence, “I am a Han Chinese,” manifests a spiritual journey of searching the meaning of ethnicity in contemporary China. It is a neglected issue for the Han people and a challenge for many ethnic minorities. This book will be a much-valued reference for researchers and postgraduates in the fields of Tibetan studies, Chinese minority education and identity studies, and is pertinent to the broader discipline of sociology of ethnicity.
