SOCIAL DYNAMICS AND MARGINALIZED PERSPECTIVES DURING QING GOVERNANCE IN TAIWAN

The factors contributing to the unstable and “difficult-to-govern” society in Taiwan can be traced back to the period of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644). During this time, Guangdong and Fujian provinces ranked first and second in terms of social chaos, which accounted for 55% of incidents nationwide. Under the Qing dynasty's governance of Taiwan (1683-1895), officials showed little intention of governing effectively, resulting in poor administration, corruption, factionalism, and lax military discipline. This indirectly contributed to the reemergence of the hometown behavior patterns of Minnan Han immigrants in Taiwan. Several additional factors contribute to this instability: (1) The migration history has shaped the complex psychological state and cultural identity of the Han people from southern Fujian. Their “identity uncertainty” mentality has led to the reemergence of marginalized personalities and hometown behaviors, which in turn exacerbate social instability and other social issues in Taiwan. (2) The shifting political power during the Ming and Qing dynasties, particularly after 1644, triggered profound conflicts among the Han people in southern Fujian-especially among officials, intellectuals, and various social classes-regarding concepts of “loyalty,” “identity,” and “national identity.” A crisis of identity emerged concerning whether they belonged to the Ming or Qing dynasties. (3) The development of national sovereignty in Taiwan was incomplete. During the Qing dynasty's rule, the entire population of Taiwan was not fully integrated into the national system, resulting in many Han Chinese in Taiwan lacking a sense of belonging to the Qing dynasty and a unified national identity. The marginalized identities of the Han people from southern Fujian are not necessarily passive or disadvantaged. They have navigated dynastic changes throughout Chinese history and developed survival strategies that operate within the space between the center and the periphery. However, this marginalization can easily lead to the fragmentation of national identity.