The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives Vol. 17, No. 3, 2018, pp. 55-66
https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ
Understanding the “Local” in Indigenous Taiwan
Yulia Nesterova
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong:
yulia.nesterova@hku.hk
Liz Jackson
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong:
lizjackson@hku.hk
The study reported on in this paper aims to understand, challenge, and
deconstruct what the “Local” means for the development of Indigenous
education in Taiwan. More precisely, it will question the idea of the Local in
this context, as Indigenous people do not necessarily all hold similar views
about Local Indigeneity and its place in educational development in Taiwan.
As research shows, Indigenous people’s views are influenced by intersecting
factors, such as class, gender, rural and urban location, education, and
profession. While some Indigenous people may identify Local as the identity
and interests of their Indigenous community or as their family, others may
seek allegiance, construction of identity, and learning with and from the
transnational Indigenous movement.
The paper starts with a philosophical overview of what is Local and what is
Indigenous. It then analyses the Taiwan case from the historical context of
Indigenous people to contemporary views and perspectives on indigeneity,
Indigenous development, and education. Indigenous perspectives on
development and education are presented based on primary research
conducted with Indigenous people in eastern and western parts of Taiwan,
including data from in-depth interviews, informal discussions, and
observations. The paper concludes by considering the implications of these
understandings for Taiwan’s development and education, and for what is
meant by the Local Indigenous and its influence on education in this case.
Keywords: indigeneity; Indigenous education; Indigenous knowledge;
language policy; Taiwan
INTRODUCTION
Localization as decentralization of education, from the government to small-scale, is an
emerging trend in research and educational governance (see Zajda, 2007). Political and
economic views see localization as a better practice to a top-down approach, because it
can bring about greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability (Barber, 2013, 2017).
From a philosophical and cultural perspective, localization has positive implications for
cultural and identity recognition for the benefit of non-dominant and culturally-different
communities (Taylor, 1992) whose education is then built on their own cultural references
and contextual relevancy.
Over the past three decades, localization discourse in Taiwan has aimed to reorient the
system historically established under colonialism and martial law and develop a new
national identity. This discourse has framed Taiwan as a unified homogenous entity, a
55
Understanding the “Local” in Indigenous Taiwan
fusion of Indigenous, Han Chinese, and Global that has mixed and formed over centuries.
However, in pursuit of this identity, sight was lost of the concerns, needs, and
knowledge(s) of Taiwan’s Indigenous people. Localization discourse has overlooked the
need for cultural recognition and for de-centralization of educational authority for
Taiwan’s Indigenous people.
In 1992, Taiwan’s Indigenous peoples were recognized as a distinct group––called yuanchu minzu in Chinese, or “the people who lived here first.” Since then, 16 groups (2.3%
of the total population) have been officially recognized by the Government and provided
their own legal authorizations and powers. A number of laws and policies have been
issued since to respond to the needs of these Indigenous groups, now viewed as the most
marginalized and vulnerable economically, politically, and socially. These include the
Indigenous Peoples Basic Law (2005) and Education Act for Indigenous Peoples (1998).
In 2016, President Tsai officially apologized for the subjugation and assimilation of
Indigenous people and its oppressive legacy of colonial and authoritarian policies in their
communities.
Yet, an ongoing challenge in these efforts relates to Indigenous education. So far,
education for Indigenous people has not effectively addressed the issues of low socioeconomic status, economic instability, poor health, and risked loss of cultures, languages,
and knowledge systems (Caster, 2016; Chi, 2012; Chou, 2005; Vinding & Mikkelsen,
2016). Indigenous children and youth still find it challenging to adjust to mainstream
education that is built around the cultural heritage of the Han Chinese majority at the
expense of Indigenous minority’s traditions, knowledge, and cultural references. This
omission has led to lack of motivation to study, low academic achievement, high dropout rates, strained relations with non-Indigenous teachers and peers, and erosion of selfconcept and self-esteem (Cheng, 2004; Human Rights Council, 2013; Pawan, 2004, 2009;
Yen, 2009).
Grounding education in the Local––local ownership, languages, knowledges, and
contexts, for local benefit––can ameliorate inequalities in educational experiences and
outcomes. But whose conceptions of the Local should be used to redefine and reform
education? Can multiple understandings of the Local co-exist efficiently? What the Local
is in relation to education in Taiwan is not straightforward. Yet, it is important to consider
as Indigenous people aim to revive their communities and reform education to meet their
needs. This article explores what is meant by the Local and its implications for education
in Indigenous contexts in Taiwan. The paper starts with a philosophical overview of what
is Local and what is Indigenous. It then analyses the Taiwan case from the historical
context of Indigenous people to contemporary views and perspectives, before presenting
Indigenous perspectives on development and education based on primary research with
Indigenous people in eastern and western Taiwan; including data from in-depth
interviews, informal discussions, and observations. The paper concludes by considering
the implications of these understandings for what is meant by Local Indigenous and its
influence on education in this case.
Understanding the Local and the Indigenous
Local oversight of the structuring and development of education is often seen as an
efficient way to ensure education is empowering to the communities it serves. The use of
a local language as the medium of teaching also helps ensure that education is effective
in early years and can later help children learn and study in a second language. Mother
56
Nesterova & Jackson
tongue education can also help students increase their sense of respect and dignity for
themselves and their communities, and transmit cultural heritage (see Bagga-Gupta,
2010; Hornberger, 2009; Kamwangamalu, 2016; Papapavlou & Pavlou, 2005). Local
language policy can thus empower minority linguistic groups such as Indigenous people.
Understanding the Local for the Indigenous, however, is more political than it is for
groups who simply seek decentralization or local language/mother tongue education. The
concept of “Indigenous” is often misunderstood as simply referring to people who, over
a long period of time, have lived in a certain territory and developed a group identity
attached to that territory. The people who are recognized as Indigenous, however, lay
claims to a different definition of Indigenous and the powers and rights attached thereto.
They assert that their lives, identities, and cultures are linked to their ancestral lands that
they are presently prevented from controlling because of domination and oppression by
the jurisdiction of nation states. Indigenous claims to self-determination and ownership
of land, territories, and resources, as well as cultural and collective rights, are unique in
nature. This is a demand for a unique identity rooted in the Local, and protection from
the era of colonization characterized by slavery/cheap labour, physical and cultural
genocides, dismissal of Indigenous knowledge systems and viewpoints, and racism
against Indigenous people. Such subjugation and oppression led to destitution, low socioeconomic and political status, academic underachievement, substance abuse, prostitution,
and other issues Indigenous people presently experience across the world, including in
Taiwan.
One of the core paths to re-build Indigenous communities and cultures and address
structural disadvantage at a national level has been by focusing on the Local dimension
of people’s lives and returning to Indigenous identity. This cannot be done through
modern education, however. First, education in its present form is oriented towards the
promotion of dominant knowledge and perpetuation of the status quo at the expense of
what the indigene has to offer or needs to recover from. Second, there is no recognition
and clear understanding of who Indigenous people are and of their knowledge, language,
and worldviews in modern education, as people identified because Indigenous are treated
as relics of another age to be integrated into settler communities (Mika, 2017).
Ownership and self-determination of education in smaller units––localized Indigenous
communities or families attached to a particular Indigenous area––is considered by
Indigenous people as a way to revival and healing. This call to Localization and
Indigenization in education is the call to focus on the foundations for Indigenous
socialization and interaction in an Indigenous society built on common local language,
culture, needs, and interests of allegiance to the Indigenous world. These allegiances and
interests can be different from and, at times, in opposition to the sphere of the dominant,
non-Indigenous group. The work of Paulo Freire (1972) is relevant to understanding the
relationship between the Indigenous Local and non-Indigenous National/dominant. In
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire discusses how the interests of common people differed
from those of the government that intended to maintain the status quo. In the same vein,
the local interests of Indigenous people can be seen as being at odds with the national
interests of the state. In terms of education, Freire considered that teachers were
transmitters of knowledge that did not benefit local people.
Freire’s solution to break the status quo was to develop a pedagogy that would focus on
the needs, lives, experiences, and problems of people. One challenge here, however, is
the essentialism of the Indigene or the Local in relation to education. Viewing Indigenous
57
Understanding the “Local” in Indigenous Taiwan
people as one group with a common goal and needs prevents one from recognizing that
Indigenous people are a diverse group with differing perspectives, experiences, and
needs. As Carl Mika (2017) notes,
As to the term Indigenous, there are anecdotal accounts of Maori expressing their
discomfort when it arises in various settings. It may well be that the term is the most
extensive leveller of them all, given its almost phenomenal ability to glide over
highly varied landscapes and their inhabitants—to gloss globally over difference. (p.
10)
Although Indigenous people have common characteristics, experiences, and needs
compared to the groups that colonized them, their standpoints vary. To better understand
the situation of Indigenous people in Taiwan, the context of Taiwan and the cases of
diverse Indigenous people there is now described in more detail.
The case of Taiwan
Taiwan is a multi-cultural and multi-lingual country hosting such groups as the Han
Chinese, which can be further divided into Hoklo, Hakka, and mainland Chinese, and
Indigenous peoples, who are currently divided into 16 recognized groups, with ten groups
in the process of gaining recognition. The Han Chinese comprise over 95% of the
population and the Indigenous people comprise 2.3%. The remainder of the population
are recent immigrants from across the world. The official language and language of
tuition in Taiwan is Mandarin, which uses traditional script. There are also two groups of
national languages, the Hakka and Formosan languages, including around 42 Indigenous
languages, and two regional languages, Hokkien and Matsu.
Indigenous people in Taiwan belong to the Austronesian family that is distinct
linguistically, racially, and culturally from the Han Chinese. These Austronesian people
inhabited the island for thousands of years, according to archeological accounts, until the
first colonial power (the Portuguese) established a settlement in 1624. Other European
colonial powers followed (the Spanish and the Dutch), together with settlers from the
mainland of China (during the Zheng and Qing periods), the Japanese empire, and the
Chinese Nationalist Party, whose imposed martial law ended 1987.
The centuries of colonization (1624–1945) and decades of Nationalist rule (1949-1987),
saw military subjugation of Indigenous people, forceful removal of these groups from
their ancestral lands, and assimilationist policies. The policies, especially those aiming at
integration through education, expected Indigenous people to abandon their cultures,
languages, traditional institutions, and knowledge bases, and internalize the dominant
ideology, lifestyle, ideas of progress, and development (e.g., Five Year Plan to Subdue
the Barbarians designed by Japan in 1910). The result was devaluation of Indigenous
cultures, languages, knowledge, traditional structures and spaces, and dismissal of
Indigenous identity and history.
Since the early 1990s democratic changes in legislation and policies have allowed reevaluation of the education Indigenous people received and enabled studies on the causes
of their academic disadvantage. Cultural deficiency was claimed to prevent Indigenous
children from adapting to the learning environment and adjusting to educational
expectations of the schools (Lee & Chen, 2014; Chen, 2015). To correct such problematic
experiences, education policies re-oriented to a multicultural path. Multiculturalism has
since aimed to provide equal access to quality institutions and equal educational outcomes
58
Nesterova & Jackson
to lift Indigenous people from the socio-economic and political bottom of the society.
This education has focused on preservation of Indigenous cultures (Wang, 2004, 2014)
to create a friendlier environment for Indigenous children to acquire social and cultural
capital and skills to achieve success in mainstream society. This focus on culture,
however, has disregarded the needs of Indigenous communities by ignoring the prejudice
of teachers and peers, who are mostly Han Chinese (Yen, 2009); focusing on developing
Chinese identity in Indigenous students through language and curriculum (Huang, 2007);
and providing inadequate resources and unqualified teachers (Chou, 2005) in Indigenous
schools.
Inclusion of Indigenous students into mainstream education has presented them with
synthetic, culturally-insensitive, and contextually-irrelevant curriculum, pedagogy, and
knowledge. In addition to mono-cultural content of teaching and learning, institutional
structures remain largely resistant to change, and education continues to emphasize
textual literacy and standardized curriculum, testing, and competition (Fenelon &
LeBeau, 2006). Taiwan’s institutions are built on the customs, thinking, and justice
conceptions of the Taiwanese people of Han Chinese origin, and Indigenous peoples hold
limited rights (including the control of their education) within this framework (Chi,
2012). As a result, Indigenous knowledge and cultures are devalued, measured by nonIndigenous concepts of economic production and consumption prioritized in the current
system. Indigenous difference from the mainstream is still seen as a deficit, not a potential
richness (Taddei, 2013).
As a response to the failure of the mainstream education system to accommodate
Indigenous identity(ies), culture(s), language(s), and needs, some Indigenous groups have
been working on re-establishing their own education spaces that are rooted in Indigenous
mythology, traditions, and languages. This space is hoped to help revive what was lost
and engineer an academic structure that could benefit Indigenous students. Yet, as the
next section shows, while Taiwan’s Indigenous people identify collectively as
Indigenous, they do not necessarily see development of their communities and the society
at large in the same way. Divergence in standpoints are evident between and within
Indigenous groups, in historical trajectories, socio-economic status, educational level,
perceptions, and local (collective and individual) responses to community and national
development.
Let us consider a few examples. The Amis Indigenous group is the largest Indigenous
group in Taiwan, with 177,000 people (Hsieh & Wu, 2015). Amis people have
historically inhabited the eastern part of Taiwan that, for a considerable amount of time,
was not affected by colonization. The contact with the dominant Other was relatively
recent and less harmful. Amis is currently one of, if not the most, advanced and powerful
Indigenous groups in the country. They were recognized in 1992 when the Constitution
of Taiwan was amended and, since then, its members have worked to re-establish
themselves politically and economically, spread their language and culture through
formal and informal education, and challenge state education for its cultural irrelevance.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is the Saaroa Indigenous group that was recognized
in 2014. The group has 393 members as of 2017 and inhabits the southern part of Taiwan.
The Saaroa’s territory and population were drastically reduced in the centuries of
incursion from colonial powers and neighbouring Indigenous groups (Zeitoun & Teng,
2014). The incursion also led to a negative impact on the language, culture, and traditional
structures. As the group was recognized relatively recently, it has not been able to benefit
59
Understanding the “Local” in Indigenous Taiwan
to a similar extent from government assistance as have other Indigenous groups. Unlike
the Amis, the Saaroa has not attempted to develop their own education or influence state
education, perhaps because of the urgency to address other matters and establish their
own legitimacy in the country among other Indigenous groups. As a result, the group is
more assimilated and faces more challenges and limitations in its development.
Other groups have had different degrees of success or failure in facing non-Indigenous
influence, negotiating conditions of engagement and communication, recovering from
subjugation and assimilation, and re-claiming space. The outcome of such engagement
and influence in relation to the dominant Other (i.e., Japanese and Chinese) now translates
into how each group sees its place in the society and in the development of education.
But along with collective interests, there are individual differences in understanding the
significance of the Local and Indigenous in education within groups as well. These
differences are often a result of individual social and cultural capital determined by
education and family’s standing (class), residency (urban vs rural), and gender. This
Indigenous education movement in Taiwan, its views of Localization, and its internal
diversity is explored in more detail in the following sections.
METHODOLOGY
Twenty-three Indigenous contributors participated in a study exploring education
provided to Indigenous people in Taiwan, and its limitations, challenges, and ways
forward for sustainable development of Indigenous peoples. The participants included
Indigenous professors, government officials and policy makers, activists, and educators
(teachers, curriculum developers, and school principals) who have been working for
Indigenous communities in various locations in Taiwan. The participants occupy rather
privileged positions in comparison with the majority of Taiwan’s Indigenous population.
They come from urban, middle class backgrounds, have had opportunities to successfully
progress academically in Taiwan and study in English-speaking countries. Because of
their educational backgrounds and fluency in English, they are able to represent Taiwan’s
Indigenous people in international academic and professional circles and in the
transnational Indigenous movement. To complement the understanding provided,
informal discussions with the same participants and with ordinary Indigenous people at
local community and family events were also included.
The data were collected in August 2016, August 2017, and April-May 2018 in cities
across Taiwan (i.e., Taichung, Taitung, Hualien). Each participant participated in indepth semi-structured interviews lasting a few hours. The interview protocol was
developed with the help of two interpreters from Indigenous communities, who also
assisted with recruiting the participants. The criteria for participant selection included
substantial work in Indigenous affairs for the benefit of Indigenous communities (at least
15 years), leadership in their respective communities and on projects related to
Indigenous rights and development, and experience with government institutions.
Content analysis informed by postcolonial and decolonial theories was used to understand
their viewpoints.
60
Nesterova & Jackson
FINDINGS
Scope of Localization
Although the participants acknowledged the need for society-wide Localization, for them,
Localization essentially meant oversight and development of education for Indigenous
people by Indigenous people. All the participants, therefore, proposed that to develop an
education model that could benefit and empower Indigenous communities, efforts should
be localized in the hands of Indigenous communities and smaller units, namely families.
Localization for these contributors meant that, geographically, schools should be located
in the communities they serve, local circumstances of communities are accommodated,
and knowledge, teaching strategies, and teaching material are based on local wisdom. The
first reason for Localization is Indigenous peoples’ belief that they are connected to the
land they come from and this connection shapes their historical experiences, culture, and
values as well as how a group behaves, operates, and makes decisions. The other reason
is that learning to understand themselves and their history from their own perspectives
and cultural values and principles can help Indigenous people re-build identities, selfesteem, and self-respect. Geographical localization of Indigenous schools would also
allow two factors of Indigenous education to be fulfilled: Indigenous elders could be in
the classroom to pass down wisdom, and learning could happen in the community,
outdoor and indoor for further exploration and connection with the environment. It would
also address the needs and wants of those Indigenous students who are reluctant to leave
their families and communities for mainstream schools in other areas, preferring to stay
in the areas that are connected to their ancestors.
Participants expressed that Localization can be reflected in the curriculum, text books,
and pedagogical approaches. These should be culturally appropriate, emphasize multigenerational involvement of parents and elders and their wisdom, and focus on the
environment around students and their own experiences. Epistemologically and
pedagogically, it should reflect Indigenous peoples’ beliefs, values, and cultural and
linguistic richness. Significant aspects of knowledge- and meaning-production in the
classroom should be interwoven with their physical environment. Thus, Indigenous
students can internalize the social behaviour of their communities, acquire financial skills,
manage relations with family members, maintain good health, master their language, and
learn to communicate efficiently with outside communities. School subjects should be
relevant and promote self-determination, self-esteem, and legitimacy of Indigenous
groups and their knowledge. The study of Indigenous history, language, culture, art,
philosophy, and legal and policy issues can enable understanding of local realities and
allow students to prepare and work for the betterment of their people.
Decisions on all elements of education should be influenced by families and communities
with the help of Indigenous educational experts. What is crucial is that teachers should
come from these local Indigenous communities, regardless of whether they have formal
qualifications. Their main qualification is the knowledge of Indigenous ways of being
and doing, not the knowledge of a subject. As one Indigenous participant observed,
Indigenous teachers know more about the language and culture. It is better for
children to learn that from the teacher. If the teacher doesn’t know anything about
the culture, and the language, it’s just general.
61
Understanding the “Local” in Indigenous Taiwan
Debates over language, culture and identity
Language is the most urgent issue on the Indigenous agenda, as the revival of cultures,
identities, knowledge, and traditions is strongly linked to fluency in Indigenous mother
tongues. A strong theme in interviews was that strengthening Indigenous identity and
self-respect is linked to the revival of local languages, because language helps correct
understanding of and relationship with their culture. All participants emphasized the need
to know who they are as Indigenous people. As one of them reflected:
You need to know you are Indigenous. You need to know your culture, you need to
learn your language. Only your language will correctly interpret your culture.
Yet, despite the understanding that mother tongue education helps master a second
language and protect knowledge systems and traditions, many people desired education
in more dominant languages (e.g., Chinese and English) that, they perceive, bring greater
value and social capital to their children to succeed in society. Similarly, local Indigenous
knowledge of traditions, mythology, environment, hunting, and gathering are not viewed
by some Indigenous people as currencies to advance socially and economically. The
challenge is multiplied by the fact that many Indigenous groups have lost or are losing
their knowledge systems and their sense of Indigenousness. As one participant noted:
[A]nother challenge coming from Indigenous communities ourselves. Because we
are used to the value concept from the colonizers. We need to change that. It’s like
internal colonization, colonization of the mind, of the way of thinking. We all lost
our traditional Indigenous perspectives. It will be very hard, very hard.
In our study, the people who placed a greater value on revival of local Indigenous
languages, identities, and cultures were mostly those who came from educated urban
backgrounds. These people at the forefront of the development of Indigenous education
and advocacy in Taiwan observed that they found their inspiration in the international
Indigenous rights framework, the transnational Indigenous movement, and best practices
in Indigenous communities across the world (for example, they listed Aotearoa New
Zealand and Canada). As the participants reflected on their own standing in relation to
other Indigenous people in the country, they noted that knowledge and the vision(s) they
had were acquired because of their and their families’ socio-economic position in the
country, which allowed them to succeed academically and, later, with family investment
of resources, receive advanced degrees (often at doctoral level) in English-speaking
countries. It is this combination of social and cultural capital, advanced educational
achievements, access to high level and intellectual jobs, and fluency in English which
allowed these participants to communicate with Indigenous academics and activists
across borders, making it possible for them to focus on language and identity issues in
education.
As one Indigenous participant involved in developing a local Indigenous school put it,
“We need to design an exemplary school that will persuade the parents to send their kids
to learn the Indigenous way.” Another participant supported this idea by expanding:
You need to be competitive with other people, and if the school does not provide,
parents will not choose it. They will choose a better Chinese school, not Indigenous
school. This school will teach them to speak Chinese and be Chinese. They will learn
English and world affairs. If Indigenous school won’t do it, Indigenous parents will
not want it.
62
Nesterova & Jackson
For such participants, it is evident that their intention and willingness to educate their
children in what all the participants called “the Indigenous way” would not bring potential
negatives. Their children already had the capital required to flourish in the mainstream
society provided by educated parents with adequate resources. As the participants
suggested, for Indigenous people with less education, who work in urban areas as migrant
manual workers (which are the majority) or in rural areas as farmers (if they have work
at all), education in mainstream non-Indigenous schools remains a chance for their
children to acquire skills and knowledge to be competitive, when they as parents cannot
provide these elsewhere. As a result, other Indigenous people’s needs, the participants
shared, lay largely in fighting for survival in an unfriendly environment and not for
revival of local languages and identities.
This context becomes even more complicated when considering the viewpoints of
Indigenous people who migrate from rural to urban areas for manual work. As their Local
experience and identity change, their perspectives on the position of Indigenous
languages, cultures, and identities may shift as well. In circumstances where a family is
lacking financially, or family structures become compromised due to migration from rural
to urban areas, the sense of collectivity and belonging to a collective Indigenous entity
becomes weaker, and people tend to focus on individual success or simple survival, rather
than on group or collective Indigenous identity, well-being, or revival of the lost
languages. This is a contrasting position to what the Indigenous elite represented. Their
challenge of more advantaged Indigenous people in Taiwan, therefore, is not only to
persuade non-Indigenous people that Indigenous is a self-standing concept for
Localization to lead to their empowerment. Their challenge is also, as one participant
shared, “to persuade our peoples themselves.”
CONCLUSION
In Taiwan, the mainstream discourse on Localization has been a kind of response to the
historical legacy of Chinese-centric authoritarian rule that lasted from 1949 to 1987. The
new Taiwanese identity the government set since then has focused on blending the
identities of all ethnic groups inhabiting the country (i.e., Indigenous people and Han
Chinese) into one. This is contradictory to the belief of Indigenous people of the island,
that, for their communities to move out of cycles of poverty and marginalization, there
needs to be a special attempt to Localize “the Indigenous way,” starting with education.
This is, however, not an easy task. While there are similarities across and within
Indigenous groups, which includes a common history of subjugation by dominant powers,
resistance to oppression, fight for their status, land, and the revival of their cultures and
languages, their levels and ways of engagement with the dominant Other (represented
currently by the Han Chinese) have differed throughout the centuries of intercultural
contact. For individuals and families, it largely depends on socio-economic class,
education level, whether they reside in rural or urban areas, and what profession they
occupy. For Indigenous groups as communities, the starting point is their numerical,
political, and economic power, and their years of recognition and engagement with
Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups, among other factors.
Given the differences in viewing the basis of Indigenous cultures and development, the
challenge is to determine what foundation education for Indigenous people should be
built upon and what elements it should have. Essentially, the question is, in developing
“Indigenous education”, whose voice matters? Indigenous people in Taiwan agree on the
63
Understanding the “Local” in Indigenous Taiwan
concept of “Indigenous,” which they have collectively fought for in legal recognition and
constitutional change, and have since started benefiting from that recognition––although
the benefits are limited. In this context, it may be natural for some people to assume that
their concerns and their preferred or recommended ways to address them are all the same,
or similar. In conceptualizing Indigenous education, one might hope that Indigenous
people can draw their unity and solidarity from colonial and postcolonial experiences,
and the matters that such a legacy brings.
It is, however, dangerous to essentialize the plights of Indigenous communities in Taiwan,
and their responses to them. Indigenous leaders in Taiwan tend to understand that. NonIndigenous people working with them may lack the same level of awareness. As a result,
they see Indigenous people as a static system, and overlook essential developments and
changes in communities and individuals as societies, identities, and cultures shift, and
people redefine their lives. Focusing on Indigenous identity and culture, instead of the
plurality of these forms, contents, and expressions, is misguided and dangerous, as it can
lead to exclusion and further marginalization of these individuals and groups when they
are not seen as authentically fitting the box which non-Indigenous people have
comfortably placed them in.
Educators working on behalf of Indigenous youth in Taiwan also need to be mindful that
relationships between and within Indigenous communities can be political, too––there is
nothing neutral or impartial in Indigenous definition and re-definition of the world they
are living in collectively and individually. Approaching Indigenous education and
development in the country may then be seen as a daunting task as so many ethical
questions emerge. Who is to speak on behalf of the community or Indigenous people as
an entity? Whose vision of education is the vision to build upon? Or can multiple visions
or models of education co-exist? There are no correct answers to these questions. What
can be assumed, however, is that by devoting time and resources to listen to and work
with the smallest and often most marginalized units of Indigenous communities––a
family and a child––is a way to start a conversation and action on re-orienting education
that will solidify Indigenous identities, respond to their local needs and interests and, in
the long run, will benefit the communities and the society.
REFERENCES
Bagga-Gupta, S. (2010). Creating and (re)negotiating boundaries: Representations as
mediation in visually oriented multilingual Swedish school settings. Language
Culture and Curriculum, 23(3), 251–276.
Barber, B. J. (2013). If mayors ruled the world: Dysfunctional nations, rising cities. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Barber, B. J. (2017). Cool cities: Urban sovereignty and the fix for global warming. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Caster, M. (2016). East Asia. In P. Grant (Ed.), State of the world's minorities and
indigenous peoples 2016 (pp. 155–162). London: Minority Rights Group
International.
Chen, S.-H. (2015). Promoting international education for indigenous elementary schools
in Taiwan: School principals’ perspectives. Asian Social Science, 11(9). doi:
10.5539/ass.v11n9p21
64
Nesterova & Jackson
Cheng, S. Y. (2004). The politics of identity and schooling: A comparative case study of
American Indians and Taiwan Aborigines (China). (PhD), University of California,
Los Angeles. (AAT 3146619)
Chi, C. C. (2012). Indigenous movements and the making of multicultural Taiwan. Taipei,
Taiwan (R.O.C.): Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica.
Chou, H.-M. (2005). Educating urban indigenous students in Taiwan: Six teachers'
perspectives (PhD thesis). University of Maryland, USA.
Fenelon, J. V., & LeBeau, D. (2006). Four directions for Indian education: Curriculum
models for Lakota and Dakota teaching and learning. In I. Abu-Saad & D.
Champagne (Eds.), Indigenous education and empowerment: International
perspectives (pp. 21–68). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Books.
Hornberger, N. H. (2009). Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties
(grounded in indigenous experience). Language Teaching, 42(2), 197–211. doi:
10.1017/S0261444808005491
Hsieh, C-c. & Wu, J. (2015). Amis remains Taiwan’s biggest aboriginal tribe at 37.1%
of
total.
Focus
Taiwan
News
Channel.
Retrieved
from
http://focustaiwan.tw/news/asoc/201502150011.aspx
Huang, W.-D. (2007). Indigenous students’ negotiation of cultural differences: The
construction of linguistic identities amongst Amis students in Taiwan. Paper
presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,
Institute of Education, University of London.
Human Rights Council. (2013). Report of the special rapporteur on the rights of
indigenous peoples: Consultation on the situation of indigenous peoples in Asia
(A/HRC/24/41/Add.3). United Nations General Assembly.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2016). Language policy and economics: The language
question in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Lee, L., & Chen, P. (2014). Empowering indigenous youth: Perspectives from a national
service learning program in Taiwan. The International Indigenous Policy Journal,
5(3). doi: 10.18584/iipj.2014.5.3.4
Mika, C. (2017). Indigenous education and the metaphysics of presence: A worlded
philosophy. London: Routledge.
Papapavlou, A. & Pavlou, P. (2005). Literacy and language-in-education policy in
bidialectal settings. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6(2), 164–181. doi:
10.1080/14664200508668279
Pawan, C. (2004). Indigenous language education in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 11th
Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Conference, University of California at
Berkeley.
Pawan, C. (2009). Indigenous language revitalization in early childhood education in
Taiwan. Paper presented at the Arizona State University in Temple, US.
65
Understanding the “Local” in Indigenous Taiwan
Taddei, R. (2013). Difference, education, and the perversities of common sense: Notes
on the relation between Indians and non-Indians in Brazil. Critical Literacy:
Theories and Practices, 7(1), 63–72.
Taylor, C. (1992). Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Vinding, D., & Mikkelsen, C. (2016). The indigenous world 2016. Copenhagen,
Denmark: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA).
Yen, S.-H. (2009). Effective strategies for teaching Taiwanese minority students with low
achievement and low socio-economic backgrounds. Asia Pacific Education Review,
10, 455–463. doi:10.1007/s12564-009-9053-9
Wang, L.-j. (2004). Multiculturalism in Taiwan: Contradictions and challenges in cultural
policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 10(3), 301–318.
doi:10.1080/1028663042000312534
Wang, L.-j. (2014). Cultural rights and citizenship in cultural policy: Taiwan and China.
International
Journal
of
Cultural
Policy,
20(1),
21–39.
doi:10.1080/10286632.2012.729823
Zajda, J. (Ed.). (2007). Decentralisation and privatisation in education: The role of the
state. Dordrecht: Springer.
Zeitoun, E. & Teng, S. F. (2014). The position of Kanakanavu and Saaroa within the
Formosan languages revisited. Academia Sinica: The 14th International
Symposium on Chinese Languages and Linguistics (IsCLL-14).
66