Peking Opera and Politics in Taiwan (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Peking Opera and Politics in Taiwan Cecilia J. Pang Nancy Guy Peking Opera and Politics in TaiwanChampaignUniversity of Illinois Press2005Pp. 240$35.00. Historically, the polemics between Art and the State have been a preoccupation of philosophers and statesmen. From Louis XIV to Adolph Hitler to Mao Tse-Tung, the State has exercised considerable control over Art, except with regard to traditional art forms where aesthetics preside over politics and governments seldom interfere. As detailed by Nancy Guy in her perceptive new book, Peking Opera and Politics in Taiwan, however, "The story of Peking Opera on Taiwan is that of an art caught up in a whirlwind of ideologies" (4–5). In seven clearly defined chapters, the book presents a historical and sociological time line for the development and dismantling of Peking opera in Taiwan. To begin with, Guy carefully chronicles the Taiwanese people's initial patronage of Peking opera as a quest for Chinese identity during the Japanese colonial subjugation, their subsequent passive resistance of the Chinese performance tradition used primarily as a propaganda for mainland recovery by their second colonial Nationalist ruler, and finally their outright rejection of the transplanted art form under the postcolonial rule of Taiwanization since 1988. The relation between Peking opera and the Taiwanese people is intricately complex as the rise and fall of Peking opera's popularity depends entirely on who sits on the ruling throne. Inherently enlightening and informative, Guy's book offers its readers an inspired understanding of how politics and the arts collide in the Republic of China. Her thesis provokes reflections on the parallels between the development of Peking opera in China versus its development in Taiwan. On the mainland, Peking opera evolved from a popular regional entertainment for the people to winning the imperial patronage of Emperor Qinlong during the Qing dynasty (1735–96). Likewise, as a result of the establishment of public theaters and touring troupes across the Taiwan strait, Peking opera rose to tremendous popularity in Taiwan during the Japanese colonization, becoming a state-supported art when the Nationalists ( kuomintang) came into power. Moreover, China's meticulous maneuver of Mei Lanfang's international tour success in the thirties revealed that Peking opera could be used as a cultural pawn to spread Chinese culture and identity. Not surprisingly, the Nationalist government took advantage of the Cultural Revolution when traditional Peking opera was supplanted by the model opera in mainland China; it used the opportunity to vie for international recognition by conducting extensive cultural exchange overseas of Peking opera tours so as to disseminate "the image of Taiwan as the bastion of 'authentic' Chinese culture" (57). According to Guy, the Nationalist government, in the name of preserving the "national essence," made a huge effort in Peking opera reform with increased [End Page 252]spending on sponsoring touring troupes, establishing Peking opera training schools, advocating school performances, and publishing Peking opera materials. Yet in their attempts to colonize the Taiwan natives with Chinese culture by preserving and promoting Peking opera, the Nationalist regime eradicated vestiges of the indigenous Taiwanese culture, just as the Communists did away with traditional Chinese cultural heritage. Curiously, while on the mainland, the Red Army was responsible for the disbandment of traditional culture; in Taiwan, the imported culture was financed and operated by the Department of Defense. Its main purpose was to entertain the military and the ruling class. Now it is a customary belief among observers of non-Western theater that globalization, with its implications of technological hegemony and commercialization over tradition, might have sounded the death knell for traditional art forms. Reforms have been underway by various governments including China and Japan to stop the cultural extinction. Therefore, Guy's notion that in Taiwan the government is responsible not only for a lack of interest in the perpetuation of Taiwanese opera but also for the downsizing of the traditional Peking opera is all the more ironic and tragic. In addition, as a reaction to counter the Cultural Revolution, the Nationalist government took an active role in regulating the Peking opera repertoire including banning any post-1949 operas from the mainland. The strict and arbitrary as well as unfairly censored rules...