Ghost Marriages: the Struggle of a Feminist Anthropology Student

In villages of the Taipei Basin, ghosts and ancestors are viewed differently depending on the point of view of a particular person. I have found that the roles of ghosts in these villages are really quite interesting. I want to really focus on the ghosts of unmarried girls for they play an important role in other couples’ marriages.

Girls are not viewed as part of the family but as someone to be given away to another family. They are viewed as outsiders. Because of this, unmarried girls who die are denied the right to a place on her father’s ancestral altar (Wolf, 1974, p. 148). In order to rectify this, at least in “the old days”, a girl’s parents could trap a husband for her, thus ridding themselves of the responsibility of her soul. The parents would write their daughter’s name and horoscope down on a piece of red paper and would conceal it in a purse. The purse was then left beside the road. The first man to pick it up would be considered as fate for him to marry her, usually in exchange for a dowry. The girl’s soul then becomes the man’s first wife and his children are obligated to worship her (p. 150).

Though trapping husbands is no longer practiced, it is still interesting to note that there are still ghost marriages being performed. Some men have a “two-wife fate”, meaning their first wife would die. Since a ghost marriage places the ghost as a man’s first wife, in order to stall the death of the living wife a man would marry the ghost of an unmarried girl. These ghost marriages also give these women children to worship them (p. 150).

As an anthropology student, I find that these practices are really fascinating and it would be refreshing to learn more about the ghost marriages and the role of unmarried daughters. Since this is something that is completely unheard of in the society I grew up in, learning more about this type of marriage is something I would like to do. However, as a feminist, there is always a voice in the back of my mind whenever I read about other societies and the roles of their women. As an anthropology student I know that cultural relativism is one of the most important things that must be practiced when considering other societies, but the feminist part of me is always anxious about young girls and women who are seen as objects and not as people. I felt a bit uncomfortable reading about the ghost marriages because I know that these young girls were not seen as real people by their fathers. They were seen as something to give to another family. And when they died there was nobody who really cared about them, unless they could come in and help another man. I know I should not be judging other societies and how they treat others in their society. These are their practices and this is their worldview and it has been that way for a long time. It just puts me in a difficult place as a feminist anthropology student because I want these girls and women to have voices and be considered people, but I also do not want to impede on the cultural practices of a society I know almost nothing about.

Reference

Wolf, Arthur. 1974. “Gods, Ghosts and Ancestors.” In Arthur Wolf (ed.). Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 131-182.

This week I really want to focus on Mabuchi’s article Sphere of Geographical Knowledge and Socio-Political Organization Among the Mountain Peoples of Formosa (1974) because I found the way he describes the Formosan aborigines and their knowledge of geography to be very interestingly put. He divides the geographical knowledge of the Formosan aborigines into three categories: the geographical knowledge of the “Life Sphere”, the “Observation and Hearsay Sphere” and the “Legend Sphere”.

The geographical knowledge of the “Life Sphere” refers to the geography that the Formosan aborigines are aware of due to the many activities that they practice. For example farming, hunting and fishing are all done in different areas; therefore the aborigines are able to expand their geographical knowledge of their lands. Because these activities are related to their daily lives, they form the “Life Sphere”.

The geographical knowledge of the “Observation and Hearsay Sphere” refers to the geography observed by the Formosan aborigines, as well as the geography that is based indirectly on hearsay from outsiders. Headhunting expeditions, trade relations and endogamous marriage contribute to the observation part of the sphere. Outsiders are those who are not part of the “closedness” of a certain tribe. These are the people who contribute to the hearsay part of the sphere.

Finally, the geographical knowledge of the “Legend Sphere” refers to the geography that is preserved through the oral tradition. This geographical knowledge is still present in legends, but is not necessarily known through the “Life Sphere” or the “Observation and Hearsay Sphere”.

This is a very interesting and new way to approach the knowledge of the Formosan aborigines. I have never seen other researchers present the diversity of knowledge in this fashion.  It’s interesting because it is also true. Daily life activities will contribute to the knowledge of a specific geographic area, especially for peoples who are sedentary. The same areas will always be used each for farming, hunting and fishing and the geographical knowledge will not expand too far from that. However, other activities that do not occur daily, such as marriage and headhunting expeditions, contribute to a different knowledge of geography based on observations made by the people involved. This geography is known, but does not factor into the life sphere for the activities are not daily or repetitive but based on observation. People from different tribes can also provide geographic information to the Formosan aborigines. Lastly, unseen geographical knowledge is left in the hands of oral tradition and legend. This knowledge has not been seen but the aborigines know that it exists because their legends tell them thus.

Mabuchi presents five different ethnic groups from Formosa and explains their geographical knowledge based on the three spheres. It is interesting how even within one ethnic group different tribes have different geographical knowledge about their surroundings based on the types of activities they practice and their oral tradition. Those who do not practice headhunting have a different geographical knowledge than those who do practice. Some ethnic groups come from a place located in the “legend sphere” whereas others don’t, again creating a difference between geographical knowledge. I find it interesting how Mabuchi presents the Formosan people this way. It changes how we view the aborigines and their practices. It shows us how different aspects of daily life can contribute to different types of knowledge.

Reference

Mabuchi, Toichi. 1974. "Sphere of Geographical Knowledge and Socio-Political Organization Among the Mountain Peoples of Formosa". Ethnology of the Southwestern Pacific: the Ryukyus-Taiwan-Insular Southeast Asia. Taipei: Chinese Association for Folklore. pp. 175-220

Historiography and the Study of Taiwan

This week’s readings from Corcuff, Tsu and Barclay really focused on the history of Taiwan, as well as the history of anthropological studies in Taiwan. As somebody who has never really studied Asia before, I was rather interested in learning at least the basic history of the country. And of course as an anthropology major, the history of anthropology in Taiwan was also an interesting and eye-opening topic to read about.

I had always known that Taiwan had a very heavy Chinese influence in its culture due to its history, but I was completely unaware that Japan had ruled over Taiwan too. I find this interesting because Chinese culture has made its way into Taiwan but, judging from the articles at least, it doesn’t seem that Japanese culture had made a very big impact on Taiwanese culture. I find this to be quite curious since Japan ruled over Taiwan for many years in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. However, Corcuff does mention how Taiwan exports a lot of cultural products to China, which is something else I find to be very intriguing. He also talks a lot about the liminality of Taiwan. This liminality is based on Taiwan’s relationship with China and how China wants to expand its rule to the small island. These articleas made me more aware of the history of Taiwan and how Chinese influence still holds strong culturally while Japan’s cultural influence doesn’t seem to have much of an impact.

Barclay’s article really focuses on the beginnings of anthropology in Taiwan by discussing and comparing the methodologies and findings of Japanese anthropologists Ino Kanori and Torii Ryuzo. I found it interesting how differently these two men studied Taiwanese culture. Ino used the socio-evolutionary paradigm to describe his findings, whereas Torii appears to be practicing a more physical anthropology. I really liked how Barclay compared the two anthropologists in their research. It gives a better perspective of what theories and methodologies were being used by Japanese anthropologists at the time. The article also shed some light on the Taiwanese culture of the late 19^th century. Learning the history of a culture is important to understand the way the culture is currently being practiced.

To be honest, I had not even been aware that Japan had practicing anthropologists in the late 19^th century, so finding out that two of them collaborated (though never really mentioned this collaboration) together to research and study the Taiwanese peoples was really eye-opening to me. It really shows what we are learning today as anthropology students. Our model is heavily based on European and North American anthropologists and their theories. We never hear about anthropologists from outside of these two continents. I want to learn more about the anthropologists of the world. Hopefully this course will allow for that by showing us that anthropologists don’t have to be white men from Europe or North America. They can be Japanese men who want to study the Taiwanese culture.

References
Barclay, Paul. 2001. "An Historian Among the Anthropologists: The I Kanori Revival and the Legacy of Japanese Colonial Ethnography in Taiwan." Japanese Studies 21 (2): 117-136.

Corcuff, Stéphane. 2012. "The Liminality of Taiwan: a Case-Study in Geopolitics." Taiwan in Comparative Perspective 4: 34-64. Online resource: http://www.lse.ac.uk/asiaresearchcentre/countries/taiwan/taiwanprogramme/journal/journalcontents/tcp4corcuff.pdf last accessed December 9th, 2014.

Tsu, Timothy Y. 1999. "Japanese Colonialism and the Investigation of Taiwanese 'Old Customs'." In Jan can Bremen and Akitoshi Shimizu (ed). Anthropology and Colonialism in Asia and Oceania, pp. 197-218. London: RoutledgeCurzon.