SPICE’s Manager of Curriculum and Instructional Design Rylan Sekiguchi was announced this week as the recipient of the 2021 Franklin R. Buchanan Prize for his authorship of What Does It Mean to Be an American? The prize is awarded annually by the Association for Asian Studies, which will formally honor Sekiguchi in a ceremony at 2pm PDT on March 24, 2021. This is the third time that Sekiguchi has won the award.

SPICE co-developed the website for What Does It Mean to Be an American? with the Mineta Legacy Project. What Does It Mean to Be an American? was inspired by the life of Secretary Norman Mineta, former U.S. Secretary of Commerce under President Bill Clinton and U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President George W. Bush. President Clinton, President Bush, and Secretary Mineta contributed video interviews for the website.

Established in 1995 by the AAS Committee on Educational Issues and Policy and the Committee on Teaching about Asia, the Franklin R. Buchanan Prize is awarded annually to recognize an outstanding pedagogical, instructional, or curriculum publication on Asia designed for K–12 and college undergraduate instructors and learners.

We often think of language as a democratic field, but it is not quite the common property of its speakers, argues Jeffrey Weng, APARC’s 2020-21 postdoctoral fellow on contemporary Asia. Rather, language is a skill that must be learned, says Weng, and it creates social divisions as much as it bridges divides. 

[Subscribe to APARC's newsletters to stay informed on our scholars' research.]

What has shaped your interest and research into the study of language and linguistic dissemination?

As a first-grade student in the early 1990s attending Chinese school in central New Jersey on Saturday mornings, I learned how to write my first complete sentence in the language: “I am an overseas Chinese.” Now, this was a curious sentence to teach to a class full of American-born children of Taiwanese parents, and it’s a reminder that language is never a neutral conveyor of meaning. Language cannot but be freighted with social, cultural, and political import, a lesson reinforced in my high-school Spanish classes, in which I made my first forays into literature in a foreign language: stories by the great writers of Spain and Latin America not only spoke a wholly different language, but they told wholly different stories from those of their British and American counterparts.

Linguistic difference also is a signal of individual and social difference: my childhood visits with family in Taiwan opened my ears to a cacophonous Babel in the media and on the streets—though we spoke Mandarin at home, whenever we went out, people speaking Taiwanese were everywhere to be seen and heard. This was further amplified when I visited mainland China for the first time in my early 20s. Beijing, the supposed wellspring of the nation’s language, was bewildering—I could not understand much of the unselfconscious speech of the locals. And traveling several hundred miles in any direction would only deepen my incomprehension. And yet, on the radio and on TV, during formal events and on university campuses, there was always Mandarin to clear the way. I wanted to learn more about how this language situation came to be. For me, studying the social, cultural, and political nature of language is a way to a deeper understanding of how people are united and divided in vastly different contexts across the globe.

As you’ve looked deeper into how language shapes society and society shapes language, what is something surprising you’ve come to realize about that relationship?

People often see language as the ultimate democratic field when it comes to cultural practice. No matter how much you might tell people not to split their infinitives or end their sentences with prepositions, popular practice will always win the day. Or so we English speakers think. Ever since Merriam-Webster came out with its infamously descriptivist Third New International Dictionary in 1961, Anglophone language nerds have fought over whether dictionaries should be “prescriptive”—that is, rule-setting—or “descriptive”—reflective of popular usage. But really, these are two sides of the same coin. We take it for granted that privately-owned publishers of dictionaries spell out the supposed norms of our language. Not only that, we even think this ought to be the case. French is the usual counterexample: when government language authorities in Quebec or Paris try to stem the Anglophone tide, we think it absurd that so-called authorities would ever try to rule over something so fundamentally unruly as language.

In my research, however, I learned how fundamentally invented Mandarin as a language is—from its highly artificial pronunciation to the way its orthography has been stabilized. There used to be a lot of variability in how characters were written and how they could be used, much like English spelling before the 18th century. Mandarin, both spoken and written, was standardized only in the 1920s to facilitate mass literacy and national cohesion. So linguistic change might often follow and reflect social change, but the process can also operate in reverse—a government can change language in hopes of facilitating social change.

In your latest journal publication, you argue that language nationalization in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam between 1870-1950 was a state-led, top-down process directed at remaking society rather than the more traditional view of diffusion through trade, economics, and cultural exchange. Why is this an important distinction to make?

Again, we often see language as a democratic field, the common property of its speakers, but it isn’t really. Sociolinguists are often quick to remind us that linguistic differences reflect class differences—“proper” language is that of “educated” speakers. But language is a skill, and skills must be learned. Some people can learn skills more easily than others, whether through natural ability or, more importantly, the life circumstances they were born into. Rich people can more easily get a good education. Educational disparities are now part and parcel of today’s broader debates about inequality. But the very fact that we think this is a problem is a product of developments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Before then, broad swaths of humanity were totally illiterate and had no chance at being educated, and most people did not think this was a problem. In Europe, the language of the Church and academia, even to some extent in Protestant areas, was Latin until the 18th century. Local vernaculars had gradually developed as independent media of communication in government chancelleries and popular literature since the Middle Ages, but they did not really gain ascendancy until the age of print-capitalism and nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Marxian-influenced scholars have therefore concluded that the rise of national languages coincided with the rise of the bourgeoisie, whose own languages became those of the nations they constructed.

In France, for example, while revolutionaries in the 1790s advocated the use of Parisian French to unify a country divided by hundreds of local forms of speech, into the mid-19th century, even journeying 50 miles outside Paris found travelers having trouble making themselves understood to the locals. It took more than a century for French to gain a foothold in most of the country. Asia, too, was a polyglot patchwork for millennia, unified at the top by an arcane language much like Latin—Classical Chinese. This situation became politically untenable in the 19th century as European imperialism encroached on traditional sovereignties in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. In order to counter the foreign threat, governments sought to strengthen their societies by educating their populations, which required making it easier to learn how to read and write. While standard languages have been described by historians and sociolinguists as “artificial” for less-privileged learners, Asia’s standard languages were artificial even to their bourgeois inventors.

Our understanding of the present is invariably colored by our interpretation of the past: if we understand a national language to be a bourgeois imposition that diffused via economic development, then we more easily see its continued imposition as a perpetuation of class prejudices. If on the other hand, we see an invented national language as a tool for bridging regional divisions and expanding economic opportunity for our children, then we feel much more positively about the spread of such languages. Both interpretations can be true at the same time, but we must remember that one is inseparable from the other.

Do you see any parallels between how language nationalization has occurred in the past to how language and society are shaping one another in the present?

The number of “standard” Mandarin speakers in the early 1930s could be counted on one hand. Today, it’s the world’s largest language by a number of “native” speakers. Though it began as an elite nationalizing project that was largely ignored by the masses of people in China, Mandarin is now more often seen as a hegemonic threat to local languages and cultures. Language can thus bridge divides, but also create new divisions. People in China are often ambivalent about the pace of change these days. When I visited cousins in rural Fujian during the Lunar New Year a few years ago, I noticed that all my nieces and nephews spoke Mandarin in almost all situations, to their parents, and especially to one another. Only my grandparents’ generation used the local Fuqing dialect as a matter of course. My parents’ generation spoke dialect to their parents, but a mix of Mandarin and dialect to their children—the cousins of my generation, who were able to speak the dialect, but were more comfortable speaking Mandarin among themselves and to their children. One of my young nieces who’d grown up in Beijing, where her parents had moved for work, even had a perfect Beijing accent. In a span of three generations, migration due to expanded opportunity had wrought enormous change in language habits. Much had been gained, but also much had been lost.

How has your time at APARC as one of our Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellows aided your research project?

It’s certainly been a strange year to be a postdoc, given how we’ve all been operating remotely. Nevertheless, life and work have continued, and we’ve all been able to find new ways of building community and getting things done. I’ve personally benefited from the access to the vast academic resources of Stanford—library access, even online alone, is a lifeline to any researcher. Moreover, I’ve had the opportunity to chat on Zoom with Stanford faculty about research and connect with my fellow postdocs to support one another as we figure out how to move forward in our careers in these challenging times.

With your recent appointment as an assistant professor at National Taiwan University in Taipei, how do you anticipate your research interests growing and developing given the tension between Taiwan and China?

I am gratified to begin my academic career in a place of such diversity and openness as Taiwan. Language and identity are constant sites of contention in Taiwan's politics, and I look forward to expanding my on-the-ground understanding of these issues as I begin teaching in the sociology department at National Taiwan University. It is nothing short of miraculous that democracy has flourished at such an intersection of empires, colonialism, repressions, and struggles. And it is unsettling to see that flourishing takes place in such a precarious geopolitical location. NTU's sociology department is at the forefront of understanding all of these vital issues as we barrel forward into an ever more uncertain future.

The 2020 US election occurred in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic, yet the voter turnout was the highest in 120 years.  After all the mail-in ballots were counted, former Vice President Joseph Biden was declared the winner of the popular vote and the Electoral College vote by a wide margin.  Yet, Donald Trump refused to concede defeat for two months after the results became clear and mounted a series of court challenges to fight the results, including taking his baseless claims of fraud to the Supreme Court.  Even more unprecedented, mobs of Trump supporters assaulted the Capitol building on Jan. 6, forcing an evacuation of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  In the aftermath of that insurrection in Washington, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the insurrection and not stopping the mob action, making him the first president in US history to be impeached twice.  To help understand this historic US election and its aftermath, SCPKU on Jan. 13, 2021 convened a distinguished roundtable titled “The 2020 U.S. Election: Stress Test for American Democracy.”

The Stanford participants were Professors David Brady and Bruce Cain; Professors Pan Wei and Wang Yong joined from Peking University.  Professors Jean Oi from Stanford and Wang Dong from PKU moderated.  The event was part of an ongoing collaboration between SCPKU and Peking University.

Professor Brady analyzed the election results at the presidential level and down-ballot.  Using survey data, he highlighted the extreme divisions within the electorate.  However, the results of the election as a whole show that it was a referendum on Trump at the top of the ticket, where he failed, but down-ballot the Republicans made gains, especially in the House.  The crucial issue that drove the loss for Trump was his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.  That cost former President Trump five battleground states and the election.  Prof. Brady cautioned that the progressives and the Democratic Party would be wrong if they thought the election outcome signaled a huge surge to the left.

Professor Bruce Cain analyzed the aftermath of the election, including the decision to impeach Trump, which had happened only on the morning of our program, asking why the Democrats had chosen that route and where the Democratic and Republican parties are headed after the election.  The impact of seeing the far-right extremists breach the Capitol cannot be overstated.  Regardless of whether one calls it a coup, a riot, or an insurrection, it was traumatic for members of Congress.  This trauma made it unacceptable to do nothing, even if some Republicans were willing to go down that route.  There had to be accountability.  Impeachment was the better choice to ensure that nothing like this would ever happen again.  As for where the parties might be headed, Prof. Cain thinks we are likely to see consensus regarding the need to fix some of the problems in the electoral system and the way it is administered.  He questioned how much foreign policy would figure into the agenda of the Biden administration in the first year.  He stated that the progressives are going to force the Democratic Party into something a little bit closer to what Trump was trying to do in terms of paying attention to the implications of economic policy.  Prof. Cain further offered that there will probably be more of a renewal than was seen under the Trump administration towards human rights.

Professor Pan Wei offered his observation that three big changes are dividing Americans and undermining the basis of the American democracy.  The first is a widespread anti-intellectualism; the social respect for scientific knowledge is degrading among the ordinary people.  The second change is the rapid growth of individualism, which he sees manifest in the strong and healthy not wanting to wear a mask to protect the health of the old.  The third change Prof. Pan noted was the manipulation of the new capital of social media, where groups strengthen their political identities.  He blamed government for not regulating media platforms, allowing companies to ban individuals, including the president.  He reasoned that the cause for the three major changes is a new digital technology, which is bringing the US deep into the age of tertiary industry.  The US leads in the decentralization of digital technology, where individuals are creating innovative ideas that create rich overnight.  Prof. Pan worries about the increasing competition and inequality that will come from such developments, especially surrounding the ability to attend elite universities.  He concluded that it is America against America.  This contradictory combination of the three changes has brought about the current social and political results in the US.  He stated that President Trump catered to the anti-intellectualism, which led to the mishandling of COVID-19.  Were it not for that, Prof. Pan thinks Trump would have been reelected.

Professor Wang Yong argued that we need to go beyond President Trump to explore the reasons for the problems in the US democracy.  He focused on the effects of economic globalization and argued that the US, as its biggest beneficiary, has seen a widening wealth gap and more inequality.  In addition, he remarked that the US has overreached in international relations and expended too many resources intervening in other countries, fighting two wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  The consequences have manifested in the handling of COVID and the outcome of the election.  COVID changed the way people vote, which made the election more chaotic.  He submitted that the US political system had failed the stress test, and that perhaps it was a good time for people in the United States to talk about the reform of the 100-year-old tradition that is its political system.  American political division is seen by many as the world’s biggest challenge in 2021.  Prof. Wang concluded with questions and hope that the Biden administration will lead to a positive impact on US China relations.

Following the presentations, the participants engaged in a lively discussion and Q&A on a number of different topics.  One clear conclusion was that the Stanford participants all agreed that the US did pass the stress test, even if it was difficult, and that possibly the US may be stronger for it.  

SCPKU will continue to host similar programs in the coming months and deepen the understanding between the US and China.

“Reception Hall with Tang Ning” is one of the most popular internet interactive broadcast shows in China with a very large audience base across the nation. Mr. Tang Ning is the founder and CEO of CreditEase Group and the host of “Reception Hall with Tang Ning Show.” 

On January 26, Josh Cheng, Executive Director of Stanford Center at Peking University, was invited to make an appearance in the show with two other guests: Professor Xiao Zhixing, and Mr. Jingsheng Huang, who retired last June from the post of Managing Director of Harvard (Shanghai) Center. The issue focused on the discussion, once again, was an extremely hot topic in China nowadays…. “Pursuing studies in America.”  It was estimated by CreditEase staff, and the January 26 show attracted close to a million viewers.

In the discussion, Mr Cheng strongly advises Chinese parents that if the family had the means and capabilities, sending kids to study in America is a decision that “goes without saying.”  Cheng alluded, based on his personal experience, that education in the US had completely changed his mindset, opened up brand new horizons, and equipped with a new set of perspectives and angles that had been guiding his career life. Stanford's education has profoundly changed his life and his family life for many generations to come.

Strategically, Cheng advised, Chinese parents ought to urge their youngsters to come to North America to explore and discover new fields, a new society, new ways of thinking, and more importantly, to discover themselves. Parents should not urge and expect their youngsters to come to America by living in a very closed Chinese speaking cluster and isolated from American society at large and forget about the mission of coming to American is not only taking some courses and get some degrees but to experience a discovery process that explores humanity, society, technologies, universe and themselves.

Professor Xiao Zhixing, who taught at China Europe International Business School (CEIBS), has worked with many entrepreneurs in China for a long time. Those entrepreneurs are more likely to send their kids abroad earlier; thus, their children lacked a sense of purpose and motivation. He pointed out that entrepreneurs should pay more attention to their children's cultural identity, self-identity, and sense of belonging and cultivate their creativity and leadership.

Mr. Huang commented on whether to go abroad at present: at a strategic level, education is a marathon, the same as life. It is unwise to be bound by age. Studying abroad is something that any age group can do, and it can be a lifelong plan. At the tactic level, for Chinese students who are currently facing the choice of studying abroad, they can make full use of the gap year to enrich themselves and improve their abilities in all aspects. Parents need to broaden their horizons and understand their children's wishes. Studying in Britain and the United States is not the only choice.

Watch the discussion here.

According to a local report there are more than 600,000 students from China currently studying in the US and millions of Chinese families are planning to send their kids to pursue their education in North America.

However, the deterioration of Sino US relations in recent years, combined with uncertainties from the pandemic around the globe had had a profound impact on those students who are already studying in the US and parents who are preparing to send their kids to study in America.

Stanford Center at Peking University, along of other peer institutions in China, had been approached by various groups seeking perspectives and insights on critical issues: Is it still safe and sound to send kids to study in America? Are there indications that US universities and schools are closing their doors to Chinese students?  Should parents and students start to seek other options, perhaps study in the UK or other countries?

In response to such concerns and with a desire to serve local communities, a round table panel discussion was held at the Yale Center of China in Beijing on Dec 26, 2020.   Stanford’s Executive Director, Josh Cheng, was among the nine directors of American education institutions with Centers in China who participated in the discussion.  Others (shown in the photo) participating in person were Yale, Chicago, Cornell, Notre Dame, and Columbia.  Representatives from Harvard, Wharton and Princeton participated virtually.

The directors shared with their personal experiences as well as institutional practices to directly address many concerns expressed by Chinese parents and students.  They believe US universities and schools will continue to welcome Chinese students, both in undergraduate and post graduate programs.  Having international students is an inseparable part of the global extension effort by almost every American educational institution. 

Stanford University just issued a statement in support of Stanford's international students and scholars, explicitly including those from China.

https://news.stanford.edu/today/2021/02/08/statement-president-marc-tessier-lavigne-support-stanfords-international-students-scholars/

Josh Cheng shared his perspectives on the safety and security concerns with Chinese parents. Using practices at Stanford, and other American universities, Mr. Cheng reiterated that American universities always make the safety and security of its students, staffs and faculties top priority.

The panel discussion was well attended, and it was agreed that if the pandemic policy of limiting visitors by PKU is lifted in near future, the Stanford Center at Peking University could serve as next host of the continuing discussion on US China Education.

Image

The past few months have been the strangest time. It was additionally peculiar for me in that, since I was learning remotely in China, most of my classes took place from midnight to morning. Sitting in front of my laptop each night while the world slumbered around me was difficult. But I also remember the way, from time to time, glimmers of conversations on zoom would absorb me entirely and make me forget I was alone and in the dark. Having met those wonderful people saved me from the coldness of seclusion, and made my quarter so much better:’) 

-2024, ALICE

I thought online college would be a disaster, but luckily, I was wrong. The teaching teams made lots of efforts to accommodate to the challenges in online instruction, so the learning experience was still of great quality despite being a different format. Moreover, the communities are amazing! My classmates and the student orgs I joined, especially the Gaieties team, always made my day in the past quarter. Can't wait to continue my journey at Stanford! 

-2024, SHAWN

This was definitely not how I expected college to start. The empty abyss of those Zoom squares with cameras off, those awkward moments of silence in breakout rooms, those bookmarked school events I didn’t attend: all things that made up my first quarter in college scream “human_interaction == 0”. Added on to my FOMO was the decreasing motivation to talk to people online. Therefore, when I went to Beijing to see my friends for the first time, I felt relieved. “They went through the same struggles I did.” I thought, “I’m with them.” There is a silver lining after all. 

-2024 RACHEL

I always thought that waking up at 5:00am would be the biggest challenge of online learning. But that becomes trivial when I face the real challenge --- lack of partnership. I remember the many hours stuck on a coding problem, alone; the many days spent looking for online studying buddies who could match my time zone; the many weeks of struggle to keep myself energized by my sheer curiosity of knowledge. It is at the freshman in-person gathering in Beijing that I truly feel my draining energy become to restore by the laughter, compassion, and wittiness of my classmates. It is people who makes Stanford attractive. 

-2024 DAVID

Image