Understanding China’s Minorities Through Learning Chinese:

The Portrayal of Minorities in Chinese-as-a-Second-Language Textbooks

『The Journal of Multicultural Discourses』Volume 3.2 (2008)

Chris White

Xiamen University

Abstract: This paper analyzes representations of Chinese ethnic minority groups in thirteen Chinese-as-a-second-language (CSL) textbooks.  Through qualitative and quantitative analysis, it finds that, when present in CSL texts, these portrayals tend to provide the foreign student with a picture of prototypical minorities that sing and dance and are rural, while also focusing on their unique traditional customs and festivals.  This paper further reviews the discourse regarding stereotypes and changes in ESL/EFL and other language textbooks and relates this to the case of minorities in CSL texts.  It concludes, similar to the concern for political correctness in other language texts, the portrayal of minorities in CSL texts is also “politically correct,” but in a different sense.  Currently, popular and official attitudes about minorities in China, unlike the compulsive assimilation policies of the Cultural Revolution, emphasize minority characteristics and signalize the diversity they add to China.  This analysis, while critiquing and explaining the representations of minorities in these texts, shows that in some ways celebration of minoritiness is also present in CSL texts.

Keywords

language textbooks, minorities, Chinese as a second language, stereotypes

Introduction

The post-Mao rise of China as a world power has also witnessed the rise of the Chinese language as a sought-after commodity and the teaching of Chinese to foreign students as a rapidly growing industry.[1]  Statistics show that presently more foreign students are studying in the PRC than Chinese students studying abroad (Johnson, 2005).  Realizing that Chinese-as-a-second-language (CSL)[2] students of today are tomorrow’s business partners, diplomats, or academicians, the Chinese state is obviously and justifiably concerned with the image of China in the eyes of these students.  This paper will address one aspect of this image—the representation of China as a multi-national state with numerous ethnic minority groups.[3] 

Below, after a brief introduction of CSL texts in the PRC, a broad review of research and criticism surrounding the portrayal of marginalized groups in other language textbooks is provided.  Section four will then present the general findings of 13 CSL textbooks that include descriptions of minorities, focusing on which minority groups are depicted (and which neglected) and how they are portrayed (or what they are portrayed as doing).  The following section will discuss this analysis.  Through looking at the history of how minorities have been treated by the state and society since the founding of the PRC, these sections suggest that the current depiction of minorities in CSL texts can be criticized for the stereotypical images of minorities shown to the foreign student.  For example, this research reveals that certain minority groups are included in these texts because they fit a preconceived notion of what a Chinese minority should be like.  Furthermore, the portrayal of minority figures in these texts tends to reinforce stereotypical characteristics, such as singing/dancing or lively festivals.  However, this paper argues that analysis of CSL texts should not stop with this criticism.  Instead, it suggests that a more nuanced understanding, taking into account China’s historical and cultural circumstances, would highlight the emphasis on distinguishing minorities from the Han as also a form of “political correctness.”  This paper hopes to not only place CSL texts under the framework used to analyze minorities or marginalized groups in other language texts, but to add an anthropological and historical perspective, trying to better understand why we see minorities presented in such a way. 

The Chinese state and the foreign student

The first CSL texts produced in the PRC were written in 1950 when teachers assigned the task of teaching a group of Eastern European students studying in Beijing, were appointed to create textbooks for these students (Zhao, 1993: 131).  A more formal set of CSL texts was compiled by Beijing University and issued later in the decade (ibid).  The content of these early texts was markedly political in nature (ibid: 132).  In the early 1980s, as China’s reforms began to open up the country, attracting more foreign students, CSL texts began to change, diversifying their contents in order to seem more appealing (Du, 1993: 124-5).  Today’s texts seem more pragmatic and less overt in their politics. 

While state involvement in CSL teaching existed from the beginning of the PRC, the relationship became even more intimate in 1987 when, under the auspices of China’s Education Bureau, the National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (often referred to as the hanban) was established.   This office, composed of the leaders of many departments of the State Council, intended to standardize CSL teaching and help promote Chinese as a world language.  The office was entrusted with promoting CSL as an industry and specifically with fostering new teaching materials. 

Today, the hanban has grown in importance and function as more foreign students are studying in China. Concern for the teaching materials is still a major aspect of this office.  According to stated objectives, a main responsibility (listed first) involves “editing and compiling teaching materials and promoting their application.”[4]  Recently, the hanban has commissioned a new undertaking—establishing “Confucius Institutes” in strategically selected cities throughout the world.  Like the hanban as a whole, a specified goal of these centers is “promoting Chinese teaching materials.”[5]  The importance the central government places on the teaching of CSL is seen in the remarks of former vice premier, Qian Qichen, who described fostering CSL students as “an important component of our country’s diplomacy” (quoted in Liu, et al., 2000: 98).  Other official speeches talk of using the teaching of CSL to shape foreign students into “friends of China” who “correctly understand China” (duiwai hanyu…, n.d. and jiaoyubu, 2000).  As the above demonstrates, official policy shows concern for foreign students’ opinions of China.

Previous language textbook analysis

In the 1960s, a feminist assessment of societal power relations encouraged Western-based researchers, fearing dominant stereotypes were being reinforced through the education system, to begin to analyze textbook contents (U’Ren, 1971; Saario, et al., 1973; O’Donnell, 1973).  Textbook authors, editors, and publishers began to consciously consider how women, minorities, disabled, or other marginalized groups were shown (or if they were shown) in the texts they produced.  This rethinking led to “a flurry of activity to ‘multiculturalize’ textbooks during the late 1960s and early 1970s” (Sleeter and Grant, 1991: 101).

This type of analysis soon prodded researchers to look specifically at English language textbooks for non-native speakers (referred to as ESL or EFL texts).  Hartman and Judd (1978) conducted one of the first of such studies, looking at sexism in ESL texts.  Their research results showed that male characters were used more often in textual dialogues, illustrated more often, and that overall, these texts perpetuated stereotyped roles for both males and females.  Other studies followed, most focusing on gender to show inequality in the texts (for example, see Hellinger, 1980 and Porreca, 1984).  Clarke and Clarke (1990) furthered the analysis by including race and class, along with gender, in their critique of power imbalances in ESL/EFL texts.  They claimed that often times non-white ethnic groups were represented “tokenistically” and found that the texts had numerous “discrepancies with social reality” (1990: 37 and 41).

As was the case with general education textbooks, the imbalance found in ESL/EFL texts has led those involved with creating these texts to be more conscious of how women, minorities, handicapped, or other groups often stereotyped were portrayed.  For example, Van Zante claims that a British author of EFL material was required by the publisher to have “a quota of characters of different races on each page” (quoted in Stanley, 2001).  Likewise, in the US, many states have tried to legislate textbook content to be more multi-cultural and less biased.  For example, California requires ESL texts to represent “ethnic and cultural groups…roughly in proportion to their numbers in the general population” (Adams, 1996: 11).  Another textbook author anecdotally tells of a publisher who, according to official (publisher) policy, made her “desex” a chapter in an ESL book that depicted an Ohio farm with a mother cooking dinner and a father working in the fields (Paulston, 1992: 72). 

Current scholars analyzing ESL/EFL texts, while still at times critical and  not completely satisfied with the voice or visibility marginalized groups receive, do concede that publishers and writers are at least consciously aware of how their texts demographically represent the society they are depicting.  For example, one scholar goes as far as claiming that “sexism has been eliminated to a great extent in [ESL] materials…in the past 15 years” (Firsten, quoted in Stanley, 2001). 

Soon after researchers began critically looking at stereotypes in ESL/EFL texts, others took up the charge by branching out into analysis of texts for students studying other languages.  Freudenstein’s (1978) edited volume was an early work discussing instances of sexism and gender bias found in foreign language texts.  One scholar reviewing French language textbooks, diagnosed the problem: “Women in real life travel, engage in sports, have serious conversations, solve major and minor problems, use initiative, and fix things.”  She then critically asks, “Why can’t we see this in textbooks?” (Schmitz, 1975: 127). 

However, as we saw with analysis of ESL/EFL texts, researchers are reporting that other language materials are also attempting to be more sensitive to identities of those presented in the texts (Kramsch and von Hoene, 1998; Shardakova and Pavlenko, 2004).  For example, Starkey and Osler (2001) report on a French language program for English speakers.  Materials for this course include discussion of Algerian immigrants to France and students are encouraged to consider “who are these immigrants and how do they feel about and adapt their lives to living in France?” (translated from the text by Starkey and Osler, 2001: 318).  They conclude that “there is, then, a specific attempt to provide an ethnic minority perspective in the course materials” (ibid).

Despite the noted changes, overall, the framework constructed in these analyses of ESL/EFL and other language texts often criticize the texts for presenting the student with an “idealized voice, ostensibly unaffected by all the vagaries of race, gender, or class” (Kramsch and von Hoene, 1998: 335).    All too often, it seems, the assumptions these criticisms rest upon are not questioned.  Here, I would like to investigate some of these assumptions. 

First of all, criticism of biases or stereotypes found in language texts assumes that these texts should adhere to a different standard than that found in the texts.  For example, Thomson and Otsuji (2003) are quite critical of Japanese business texts for foreign students because they provide a biased view toward females—those in higher business positions in these Japanese texts are disproportionately male.  They argue that, since most of their students (Business Japanese students at Australian universities) are female, these texts are not suitable.  However, as is seen in the statistics they provide, over 90% of division managers and over 60% of supervisors in Japanese companies are male.  Challenging Thomson and Otsuji’s criticism gets at the heart of much of the research on stereotypes in language textbooks and suggests the question: Should these textbooks portray reality or an idealistic society?  And if the latter, whose idealistic society?

Adams (1996) raises this question in his assessment of Porreca’s (1984) evaluation of ESL texts.  In his response, Adams states:

Porreca’s assertions…imply that under-representation or omission of members of any group constitutes an affront to that group.  The only way to avoid giving offense is to include members from each and every group in proportion to their numbers in the general population.  Such a practice is impractical… (underline in original)

       Throughout his article, Adams refers to the “reality” versus “ideal” debate as “accuracy” versus “fairness.”  His article implies that with today’s ESL/EFL texts, the pendulum has swung too far and many texts sacrifice accuracy in their quest to be fair to less dominant groups (whether they be females, minorities, etc.).  However, Adams does not directly address how accuracy can be carried out in language textbooks, especially considering that what is accurate at one place or time may not be accurate at another place or time.  A further critique of Adams may question the importance of accuracy when most material in language textbooks is fiction.[6]

Secondly, the analytical framework used in these studies often seems to overemphasize the power of the text.  More recent scholarly discussion has begun to question the role of the text in the language classroom.  For instance, while not dismissing the text as unimportant, Sunderland, et al. (2000) raises the point that the role of the text should be viewed as dynamic, not limited to what is explicitly written in the text.  They (along with Jones, et al., 1997) give numerous examples of how the content of a text could be transformed in a language class.  For example, a teacher using a text with more male dialogues could switch roles, having females practice male roles and males read female roles; or biases in textbooks could be used by the teacher to start a discussion about stereotypes.

Related to this is the role the student plays in receiving the text.  This is especially relevant for students using CSL texts, who tend to be college-aged adults (as opposed to elementary school or younger students), and are more apt to recognize stereotypes and biases found in the texts they use.  Many of the reports referenced above do not acknowledge this important point, but seem to regard students as passive recipients who will automatically accept and perpetuate the stereotypes found in the texts they use.

General analysis of minorities in CSL texts

This study is different from many of those done on ESL/EFL or other language textbooks highlighted in the preceding section.  Paulston (1992: 70-3) criticizes Hartman and Judd (1978), and her criticism can be applied to many (but not all) of the other analysis cited above, for purposefully selecting texts they knew included stereotyped portrayals to analyze and even selecting specific passages in these books.  She argues that this manipulates textual content to adhere to a preconceived agenda.  In contrast, while collecting the textbooks for this analysis, my goal was to find as many textual references to minorities as possible.  I did not allow the content of the reference to disqualify textbooks from the analysis.  Furthermore, I looked at all mention of minorities in these books, and did not simply single out small passages to the neglect of others.

After searching through over 500 CSL textbooks at numerous bookstores throughout China, 13 CSL textbooks were found to include discussion of minorities (see Appendix for a list of these).  These books are all aimed at intermediate or advanced language students.  I do not claim this selection to be exhaustive.  In fact, the sheer number and rate at which CSL textbooks are being published makes this an impossible goal.  However, I do feel these are representative of CSL texts with discussion of minorities. 

After choosing these textbooks, the chapters discussing minorities were analyzed, focusing on which groups were chosen to be included in the text and how minorities or ethnicity in general were treated.  The present section will discuss the general situation of minorities in these texts and in the following section this will be further analyzed so as to show underlying reasons why minorities are shown in such a way and the significance of these portrayals.

What is most noticeable regarding the representation of minorities in CSL books is not how these people or groups are portrayed, but rather that they are not portrayed.  References to or depictions of minorities are absent in the vast majority of CSL texts.  After searching through hundreds of CSL textbooks, only a handful were found to contain mention of minorities in any capacity. 

In 12 of the 13 texts that do include discussion of minorities, a whole chapter is devoted to the topic of minorities.[7]  Three of these texts limit their approach to one specific minority group, while the other ten texts discuss more than one group.[8]  Two of the texts do not mention a specific minority group, but rather look at the broad category of shaoshu minzu (minority nationalities).[9]  The distinct labeling and division of individual minority groups seems apparent in these CSL texts and five of the texts give population statistics for the groups (or minorities in general).[10]  For example, in China’s Cultural Heritage, the student is told that the Han account for “91.96%” of China’s (mainland) population.  The specific minority groups that are found in these texts and their frequency are found below in Table 1.

Table 1: Breakdown of minorities in CSL texts

* “Focused on” refers to the amount of texts which mention something significant about a specific group.  “Mentioned,” on the other hand, includes texts that include any mention of a group.  For example, China’s Cultural Heritage lists the “Wa and Naxi, along with 15 other ethnic groups” as having between 1 million and 100,000 people.  Since this is the only reference to Wa or Naxi in this text, these groups are not counted as being “focused on,” but are listed as being “mentioned” in the text. 

** According to China’s 2000 census (Population Census Office under the State Council & Department of Population, Social, Science and Technology Statistics National Bureau of Statistics of China. 2002. Tabulation on the 2000 Population Census of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing: China Statistics Press.

The most common characteristic associated with minorities in these texts is singing and dancing.  For example, China’s Cultural Heritage says:

China’s minorities are ethnic groups good at singing and dancing.  The lives of minorities are inseparable from singing and dancing.  Male and female, old and young, all minorities love to sing…

中国的少数民族是能歌善舞的民族。在少数民族生活中是离不开歌舞的。少数民族的男女老少都爱唱歌…

In total, ten of the texts include mention of minority song/dance.[11]  Often related to singing and dancing is another characteristic of minorities as seen in these texts—festivals.  Over half (seven) of the texts describing minorities also describe minority festivals.[12]  Each of these tells of the Dai Water Splashing Festival.  Other common minority festivals are the Mongolian Nadam Fair and the Torch Festival of the Yi and Bai groups.

Minorities in these texts are also characterized as “traditional” and with unique “customs and habits.”  This is most obvious in the use of the Chinese terms chuantong (traditional) and fengsu xiguan (customs and habits).  Chuantong is found 13 times in the chapters dealing with minorities and fengsu xiguan appears 12 times.  For example, text number one says:

Many ethnic groups have their own fengsu xiguan; in many aspects of everyday life they have preserved their own chuantong characteristics.

很多民族都有自己的风俗习惯，在日常生活中的许多方面都保留着自己的传统特点。

Furthermore, minorities in CSL texts are principally depicted in rural settings.  Only one text (number six), places minorities in an urban setting—as students on a university campus.  Related to this, the most common occupation associated with minorities in these texts is animal husbandry.  For example, vol. I of Bridge describes a Tibetan maiden who

under the blue sky and white clouds, on the green grassland…takes her whip and sends the flock out [to pasture].  The sheep around her ‘ba’ and slowly move forward like the clouds in the sky.

蓝天白云，绿色的草原，她手拿牧羊群的辫子，赶着羊群。羊儿在她的周围“咩咩”地叫着，慢慢地向前移动，好像天上飘动着的白云。

A final characteristic of minorities in CSL texts is their lack of voice.  Only one of these texts (number six), presents the foreign student with dialogue from a minority member.  The other twelve texts offer a Han, unidentified person (or narrator), or a foreign student talking about minorities.  Many of these texts use dialogue as a format and the absence of minority voice is even more apparent when contrasted with other chapters in these texts.  For example, in other chapters of Elementary Chinese Course, Chinese characters talk about going overseas to study and discuss China’s middle school education, but the chapter on minorities includes only a Chinese teacher and three foreign students.

Discussion of the analysis

As previously stated, the content of CSL texts prior to the Reform Era (1978-present) was quite political.  One example can help illustrate the difference between how these older texts treated minorities as compared to how they are portrayed in current CSL texts.  The main series of CSL texts used in the 1970s was Chinese Reader, published in 1972 by the Commercial Press in Beijing.  The only mention of minorities is found in volume II (of a four-volume series), which contains a chapter describing two young Mongolian sisters caught in a blizzard while tending sheep on the grassland.  During this perilous hardship, the girls encouraged each other with thoughts of “Uncle Lei Feng.”[13]  They are finally rescued by their parents and the production team chief, who, for their concern for the welfare of the sheep (they even asked about the sheep while still in the hospital), tells the girls that they “really are Chairman Mao’s children.”  We can see from this story that even though minority characters are used, the focus is more political than anything else.

It is interesting to compare this story to a modern CSL text.  Meeting in China also describes minorities tending sheep on the grassland.  Chapter 15 highlights the charming scenery of the Kazakh grasslands, the unique ornaments worn by Kazakh female herders, the love songs sung by these girls, and the generous hospitality of the Kazakh people shown in the opening of their yurts to outsiders.  Unlike the example of the Mongolian children above, all of these characteristics in Meeting in China, such as featuring the pristine landscape and the unique culture, differentiate the Kazakhs from the Han.

This evolution of minorities in CSL texts highlighted by these examples mirrors how minorities were treated in China in general.  Beginning with the Anti-Rightists Campaign (1957) and even more so during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), ethnicity was downplayed as everyone, regardless of minzu, was encouraged to unite as one.  Prior to this, the PRC government had adopted a policy of “gradualism,” allowing, because of “special” circumstances, for certain minorities or minority areas to gradually implement some of the socialist policies carried out in Han areas (Dreyer, 1968).  However, this policy was abandoned in favor of a more “red” approach to dealing with “ethnic questions” (minzu wenti).  June Dreyer (1968: 100) explains that

in order to avoid the criticism of over-emphasizing the special characteristics of        minorities, it was preferable not only to avoid acting as if they still existed, but in fact to     avoid mentioning special characteristics at all.  At least on paper, the minorities were        henceforth treated as though they were inseparable from the Han.

This is quite different from the picture we see of minorities in today’s China.  Louisa Schein describes Reform Era China in this way: “In keeping with the reversals that marked the renunciation of the Cultural Revolution, minority cultures, rather than being suppressed or forced into the mainstream, [are] perhaps more than ever before fostered and promoted” (2000: 88).  .  This suggests that this portrayal of minorities in modern CSL texts is a form of “political correctness” in the sense that in Chinese society in general, it seems to be in vogue to signalize the diverseness of Chinese minorities.  According to Stephanie Suhr and Sally Johnson (2003: 9), the term “politically correct” or the concept of “political correctness” gained popularity during the Maoist policies of China in the 1960s and 70s.  It denoted a form of correct thinking and correct opinions.  At that time, these correct opinions, in regards to minorities, were that all Chinese, regardless of ethnicity, were equal and any differences they had were to be glossed over so as to present a united front.  However, during the past 30 years, there has been a gradual shift in official and popular attitudes regarding minorities in China and today it is encouraged, or “politically correct,” to highlight the unique characteristics of minority groups.

However, this celebration of diversity in today’s China is not completely consistent with minorities in current CSL texts.  On the one hand, the texts analyzed in this project do show minorities as distinct from the Han, with their own “special characteristics,” decidedly contrary to Dreyer’s assessment of minorities in the Cultural Revolution and before.  On the other hand, though, overall, CSL texts have not followed the current trend of promoting China’s ethnic diversity.  The vast majority of current CSL texts have no mention of minorities.

In understanding this, it is important to be cognizant of the audience for these texts—foreign students—and the nature of foreign language texts.  The fact that little space and limited vocabulary is available for authors means that the tendency is to generalize in the presentation of any topic, including minorities (Starkey and Osler, 2001).  Additionally, we may not see much attention given to minorities in CSL texts because while the Reform Era started over a quarter century ago, it may take more time for the promotion of ethnicities seen in society at large to trickle down into CSL texts.  To be sure, the ethnic resurgence did not occur immediately after the reforms began in 1978, but has been building.  Also, it should be remembered that the texts collected here were all published in a six year span (1999-2005).  This necessarily freezes the content of these texts, limiting it to this time period.  While Han attitudes (and state policy) may fluctuate, these textbooks, by their nature, are fixed. 

Another reason is that an emphasis on minorities may not be viewed as necessary for foreign students who are learning the language of the Han (hanyu).  Analyses of other language texts are critical for how women or minorities are absent, and this may be justified, but what I hope to do here is not simply criticize CSL texts for their exclusion of minorities, but to rather try to understand why this may be the case.  The PRC’s premier anthropologist, Fei Xiaotong (1989: 1), compared the historical inclusion of Chinese ethnic minorities as “a big snowball that got bigger as it rolled,” encompassing more and more groups.  This description, while subject to criticism for being contrived or naïve, is nevertheless important because of its wide acceptance.  It emphasizes the unity of China’s peoples—all part of the “snowball” that is China.  CSL textbook authors and publishers would surely not want to create an illusion, especially for their foreign students, that China’s different minority groups are not integral to China as a whole.

Related to this, another reason why we may not see minorities equally represented in CSL texts, is the (subconscious) opinion that, as Dru Gladney says, “‘Han’ is generally equal to Chinese” (2004: 13).  In providing a broad picture of Chinese life through the content of CSL textbooks, many authors may not feel it necessary to include a focus on such a small percentage of the population.

This analysis found that in nearly all CSL texts which include mention of minorities, the topic is limited to one chapter and within these chapters, the different minority groups are distinctly distinguished from one another. The practice of grouping discussion regarding any minority together seems to be a form of “containment,” and tends to lend itself to the application of an “us/them” dichotomy, contrasting minorities to the Han.  When being compared amongst themselves, minority groups follow a strict, state-formulated classificatory scheme.  However, when the Han are included in the mix, the number of categories immediately shrinks from 55 to two: Han and non-Han.  Under the broad heading of “minorities,” China’s ethnic groups clearly differ from one another.  The state’s classification work in the 1950s produced a total of 54 minority ethnicities within China (with one more group added in the 1970s) and today each citizen is identified (for example, as seen on their identification card/papers) as being Han or a member of one of these groups.[14]  The Chinese penchant for naming, or “classificatory impulse” to use Stevan Harrell’s term (2001: 36), means that the lines between categories are not gray but rather a bold black.

The classification of minorities is one area these texts differ from CSL texts produced outside of China.  John DeFrancis’s (1967: 995-6) early Chinese text, Intermediate Chinese Reader, follows Sun Yatsen’s ethnic breakdown by noting that China consists of five ethnic groups (Han, Manchu, Mongolian, Tibetan, and Hui, which DeFrancis calls “Mohemmedans” and included all Muslim groups).[15] More recent texts from outside of China reflect an ambiguity regarding the exact amount of minority groups in China.  For example, A New China (Chou, et al., 1999: 228-33) describes China as having “50 or 60 minority groups.”  Similar vagueness is seen in Oh, China (Chou, et al., 1997: 410-21), which mentions China as hosting “tens of minority groups.”  These texts drastically differ from CSL texts in their treatment of the classification of ethnic groups.

I now turn to discuss which groups are depicted in these texts and the characteristics they are associated with.  As illustrated above in Table 1, the most populous minority groups found in China are not necessarily those most prevalent in CSL texts.  Susan Blum explains that minorities that do gain the attention of Han are not necessarily the most numerous groups, but rather the most “salient” (1992: 268).  In other words, those groups that best fit a preconceived notion of what a minority should be like are those made most visible.  This also seems to be true for minorities within CSL texts.  I found that the Dai, ranked number 19 in population among the ethnic groups in China (accounting for less than 0.1 % of China’s population), are referred to most often.  Because of their well-known Water Splashing Festival (an annual event in which Dai splash water on their lovers), their unique costumes (especially for women), their famous peacock dance (a dance based on Buddhist scriptures and fairy tales that imitates the movement of peacocks), and the fact that they live in a border area known for tourism, the Dai embody many elements that lend to being easily romanticized as the ideal counter of the Han and can be described as a prototypical minority group—a quintessential opposite for the Han (Blum 2001: 104; 1992).

 Another group mentioned by many of these texts is Tibetans.  However, two of the five texts focusing on Tibetans really center more on Tibet.[16]  While previous generations of Han may have viewed Tibet as feudal, backward, and dirty, the picture presented in these texts tends to extol Tibet for its unique religion and beautiful scenery.  For example, vol. II of Bridge depicts Tibet as exuding a “special enchantment.”  This corresponds to Schein’s description of modern Tibet as signifying “geographic distance and the romance of a pristine landscape enshrouded in mystical beauty” (2000: 5).  The fact that Tibet, Xinjiang (home to most Uyghurs), and Inner Mongolia, as geographic entities, are easily romanticized may also help explain the frequency of these groups in CSL texts and the innocuousness with which they are portrayed.

It is notable that the largest ethnic minority group in China, the Zhuang, is focused on in only two of the analyzed texts.  Seven groups are referred to more than the Zhuang.  In her analysis of the Zhuang, Katherine Palmer Kaup (2000) offers a possible explanation of why this is so.  She argues that traditionally the Zhuang were not thought of as very different from the Han.  In more recent times, the trend in emphasizing one’s minoritiness, what Gladney (2004: 20) terms “coming out,” has meant that the Zhuang today are unquestionably thought of as a distinct group.  However, in terms of their lifestyle, they are not very noticeably different than the surrounding Han.  Because of this, the Zhuang may not be considered a relevant minority to be shown to foreign students and are not very prevalent in CSL texts.

In addition to the Zhuang, the second and third most populous minority groups, the Manchu and Hui, are also not prominently featured in these texts.  Many times classification is the forbearer of difference, and the most obvious difference between a Manchu, Hui, and Han is that their identity status would mark them as distinct.  Gladney (2004) explains that members of the Hui ethnic group in China are simply thought of as Han Muslims in Taiwan.  Why the difference?  China’s state ethnic taxonomy has (arguably arbitrarily) decided to make the Hui an ethnic group.  Although labeled a minority group, the Hui may not seem “Other” enough to be a major focus in CSL texts’ depictions of minorities.  The fact that they speak Chinese, basically dress as Han do, and have no unified characteristics (other than avoiding pork, which is not even mandatory for Hui identity), means that they are quite similar to the Han (ibid: 155 and Fan, 2001).  Although different in terms of historical significance, the Manchu of today, like the Hui, are also similar to the Han.  They are a group “long thought to be assimilated to the Han Chinese majority” (Gladney, 2004: 20; also see Harrell, 1993).  Moreover, the relatively high level of education and income of the Manchu are not conducive to a depiction of them as the ideal “Other.”[17]

Another group rarely focused on in chapters on ethnicity is the Han.  The Han, as a distinct ethnic group, is mentioned in seven of these chapters, but focused on only once.[18]  The presence of the Han is treated as a given and exists on a different plane.  The Han are not seen as something requiring explanation.  Blum has described the Han as “invisible because they are so pervasive” (1998: 217).  She goes on to say that “the [minorities] are always marked; the Han are unmarked” (ibid). 

The absence of a focus on Han in these CSL texts’ chapters seems to reflect an assumption of ‘Han-ness.’  An example of this can be found in chapter 6 of Speaking Chinese about China, which shows three foreign students visiting a dance class the Central Nationalities University in Beijing.  The text, presented in dialogue form, opens with Teacher Li explaining to the three foreign students that China has 56 ethnic groups.  She then goes on to divide them into the broad categories of Han and non-Han.  Teacher Li explains that the present class has one Han student and the rest are minorities. 

Teacher Li:  China has a total of 55 minority groups…In this class, there is only one student who is Han, and the others are all minorities. 

李老师：中国一共有五十五个少数民族…这个班只有一个学生是汉族，其他都是少数民族。

One by one, the students of the class go around introducing themselves and their ethnic group.  This specific class (coincidentally?) consist of all females (this is seen in the use of the plural, feminine form of the pronoun “they”—她们).  Another noticeable point is that the Han student never introduces herself. 

This specific text is the only one of the 13 that includes speech from a minority.  While numerous Western governments and organization, such as Amnesty International (for example, see Amnesty International, 1999), berate China for not permitting enough freedom or “voice” for minority groups, some scholars are beginning to argue that minorities today are gaining a form of voice through emphasizing their ethnicity.  For example, Gillette (2000) shows that urban Hui in Xi’an are being able to become more distinct from the Han by using consumption practices made available by China’s overall modernization.  These Hui, then, are taking charge of creating their own identity.  While this may be the case in today’s China, this is not the image given to foreign students through these CSL texts.  Instead, minorities in CSL texts are noticeably silent.  In explaining Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism, Schein (1997: 72) notes that the “Other” is often “rendered mute.”  Elsewhere, Schein describes speechlessness as “a necessary condition of being the gazed-upon” (2000: 234).  The presentation of minorities in CSL texts seems to be just this—gazed upon by both the authors and foreign students.  

As we can see in the breakdown of minority groups, the demographic realities of China are not congruent with the picture presented in CSL texts.  It could not be expected that a CSL text would be able to accurately represent China’s full demographic situation, considering there are 55 minority groups.  While I feel it important for a language text to strive for a measure of accuracy, as seen in the criticism of Adams above, this is not the main role of a language text and complete accuracy can never be attained (or even defined).  However, I feel that the focus on some groups, like the Dai or Tibetans, and the relative exclusion of populous others, like the Hui or the Zhuang, is significant in that it reflects current Han attitudes. 

In describing state portrayal of minorities in China, Gladney (2004: 54) states that “they sing, they dance; they twirl, they whirl.”  It may not be surprising then that the most common attribute associated with minorities in these texts is their fondness for singing and dancing.  Colin Mackerras (1984: 198) explains that this is quite consistent with the representation of minorities in Reform Era China and is in direct contrast to minorities during the Cultural Revolution.  He says, “The negation of the Cultural Revolution” has meant that minority songs and dance “have returned like a pent-up flood.”  He (ibid: 202) further reports that a common phrase usually reserved for minorities since the Cultural Revolution is nengge shanwu (“good at singing,  and dancing”).  Helen Rees (2000: 177), likewise, speaks of this phrase’s “ubiquitous employment to characterize all minorities in the 1980s and 1990s.”  Three of the CSL texts not only include this phrase, but also incorporate it into their vocabulary list for foreign students to learn.[19]

Minority festivals are another way minority culture is celebrated in these texts.  Blum (2001: 84) has discussed the significance of highlighting minority festivals.  She explains that “while Han also have numerous festivals/holidays…these are rarely focused on in a way to show the primitivity of the Han.”  While these festivals in these texts may paint a picture of minorities as primitive, for example by detailing the wrestling tournaments of Mongolians or the Kazakh “Chase the Maiden” activity[20], another explanation of their inclusion is that they are also meant to be interesting for foreign students by showing something different. 

Eric Hobsbawm (1983) takes the issue of rural peasantry, which is how minorities in CSL texts are depicted, and connects it to an emphasis on “tradition.”  In modern China, the idea of being “cultural” and “traditional” is often connected to minorities.  Gillette describes that “one unanticipated outcome of the CCP’s policies during the Maoist era was to increase the value of tradition” (2000: 232).  A sense of “nostalgia” was created “by attempting to suppress the traditional practices that the party classified as ‘feudal’ and ‘superstitious’” (ibid).  The Reform Era has added another dimension by encouraging consumption and a striving for modernization.  The contradiction arises here with desire to be modern and nostalgia for tradition.  Minority traditions provide the “counterweight to Westernization” (or even a counterweight to the modern Han) and can be thought of as “reservoirs of still-extant authenticity” (Schein, 1994: 150 and 1997: 72).  Schein (1994: 143) explains that the prosperous, urban Han like to look to minority culture to “assuage [a]…sense of bereftness, of the dull grayness of metropolitan life.”  The correlation between minority groups and traditions is seen in CSL textbooks in the frequency of chuantong and fengsu xiguan, which could be characterized as overlexicalisation—an emphasis on a topic made apparent by repetition of a term (or phrase), as an important indicator showing “over-concern with certain aspects” (Liu, 2005: 307).  This corresponds to Blum, who says that “fengsu xiguan carries with it an implication of quaintness; Han are not really said to have fengsu xiguan” (2001: 191, n.15). 

Conclusion

This article has tried to address the dearth of material on the socio-cultural content of CSL texts by looking at how minorities are portrayed to foreign students.  It has found that when present, minorities tend to be portrayed in a stereotypical fashion with certain groups, like the Dai, who are most easily romanticized, being more prevalent than other more populous groups.  Accordingly, the picture of minorities presented to the foreign student through these CSL texts tends to be an oversimplification and not necessarily an accurate representation, presenting a popular view of Chinese minorities which may obfuscate the reality.  Criticism of the position or absence of marginalized groups in other language textbooks has led authors/publishers to be more conscious in how they present these figures.  Relating this criticism to minorities in CSL texts seems to suggest that a more fair treatment would lead to a greater inclusion of minority figures in CSL texts.  Likewise, minority members could be shown in various occupations and with more of a voice.  This would not have to downplay their ethnicity, but could be even a way for them to respectfully highlight their individual identity.

       However, this analysis has not simply tried to criticize the portrayal of minorities in CSL texts, but has also endeavored to understand the reasons for this.  The limits of any language textbook means that topics will be generalized, vocabulary will be limited, and topics will be presented to arouse interest from the foreign students.  Likewise, as recent scholarship suggests, the language textbook does not have to define the language learning or cultural understanding of the student.  Also, central to this paper’s attempt to comprehend and explain why minorities are shown the way they are is the idea of presenting these people or groups in a “politically correct” framework.  While a Western politically correct text may focus on showing equal illustrations for different ethnic groups or have women speak as much as men, a politically correct CSL text, reflecting contemporary China, may not follow such a standard, but instead would celebrate the diversity found in minorities.  This is done in the CSL texts reviewed here by describing the characteristics of each group’s culture which emphasize their difference.

Appendix

List of CSL texts

English titles are listed for those books that provide them while pinyin is used for those without English titles.  Chinese titles are provided for all texts.  Throughout the paper, these textbooks are often cited by using their corresponding number.

1.  Chen Hong and Tao Liming, chief eds. 2003. Zhongguo wenxue yu zhongguo wenhua kemu kaoshi zhinan, 中国文学与中国文化科目考试指南. Beijing: Sinolingua.

2.  Chen Zhuo, chief ed. 2001. Bridge: A Practical Intermediate Chinese Course (vol. I),

桥梁——实用汉语中级教程 (上册). Beijing yuyan daxue chubanshe.

3.  Chen Zhuo, chief ed. 2003. Bridge: A Practical Intermediate Chinese Course (vol. II),

桥梁——实用汉语中级教程(下册). Beijing: Beijing yuyan daxue chubanshe.

4.  Deng Yi, chief ed. 2005. Elementary Chinese Course (Part 3), 汉语初级教程 (第三

册). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe.

5.  Han Jiantang, ed. 2000. China’s Cultural Heritage, 中国文化. Beijing: Beijing yuyan

wenhua daxue chubanshe.

6.  Lin, Helen T. 2002. Speaking Chinese about China (Intermediate Oral Chinese, vol.

II), 话说中国 (中级汉语口语), revised by Du Song. Beijing: Huayu jiaoxue chubanshe.

7.  Liu Songhao, Huang Li, and Zhang Mingbao, eds. 2002. Intermediate Chinese

Reading, 中级汉语阅读. Beijing: Beijing yuyan daxue chubanshe.

8.  Liu Yuanman, Liu Xiaoyu, and Liu Lixin, eds. 2001. Meeting in China (Advanced),

走进中国 (高基本). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe.

9.  Ma Shuda, chief ed. 2003. Xiandai hanyu gaoji jiaocheng (third year text, vol. II), 现

代汉语高级教程 (三年级教材，下). Beijing: Beijing yuyan daxue chubanshe.

10. Mei Lichong, Wei Hualuan, and Yang Junxuan. 1999. The Ins and Outs of Chinese

Culture, 中国文化面面观. Beijing: Huayu jiaoxue chubanshe.

11. Wu Shuping, chief ed. 2003. Speak Chinese, 说汉语. Beijing: Beijing daxue

chubanshe.

12. Wu Shuping, chief ed. 2001. China Panorama (Intermediate Chinese, book II), 中国

全景（中级汉语，第二册). Beijing: Yuwen chubanshe.

13. Zhao Xin, chief ed. 2004. An Intensive Reading Course of Intermediate Chinese (vol.

I), 中级汉语精读教程 (I). Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe.

Bibliography

Adams, T. W. (1996) The Changing Social Content of ESL Textbooks in the USA. EDRS

Document ED391387.

Amnesty International (1999) People's Republic of China: gross violations of human rights in the

Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engasa170181999 [accessed 9 February 2008].

Blum, S. (2001) Portraits of “Primitives’: Ordering Human Kinds in the Chinese Nation.

Lanham, CO: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

_____ (1998) Pearls on the String of the Chinese Nation: Pronouns, Plurals, and Prototypes in

Talk about Identities. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 13, 207-37.

_____ (1992) Ethnic Diversity in Southwest China: Perceptions of Self and Other. Ethnic

Groups 9, 267-79.

Chinese Reader, vol. II (1972) Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan.

Chou, C., J. Chiang, and Eager, J. (1999) A New China: Intermediate Reader of Modern

Chinese. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chou, C., Link, P. and Wang X. (1997) Oh, China!: Elementary Reader of Modern Chinese for

Advanced Beginners. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Clarke, J. and Clarke, M. (1990) Stereotyping in TESOL Materials. In B. Harrison (ed.) Culture

and the Language Classroom. Hong Kong: Modern English Publications.

DeFrancis, J. (1967) Intermediate Chinese Reader, part II. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dreyer, J. (1968) China’s Minority Nationalities in the Cultural Revolution. The China Quarterly

35, 96-109.

Du H. (1993) Guanyu waiguo liuxuesheng keji hanyu jiaoxue tizhi he jiaocai wenti. In Y. Sheng

and L. Sha (eds.) Duiwai hanyu jiaoxue lunwen xuanping, diyiji 1949-1990. Beijing: Beijing yuyan xueyuan chubanshe.

“Duiwai hanyu yanjiu zhongxin gaikuang.” n.d. http://www.blcu.edu.cn/kych/J.htm. [accessed

March 1, 2006].

Fan K. (2001) Maritime Muslims and Hui Identity: A South Fujian Case. Journal of Muslim

Minority Affairs 21 (2), 309-32.

Fei X. (ed) (1989) Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti geju. Beijing: Zhongyang minzu xueyuan

chubanshe.

Freudenstein, R. (ed) (1978) The Role of Women in Foreign Language Textbooks. Brussells:

Fédération Internationale des Professeurs de Langues Vivantes.

Gillette, M. B. (2000) Between Mecca and Beijing: Modernization and Consumption Among

Urban Chinese Muslims. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Gladney, D. (2004) Dislocating China: Muslims, Minorities, and Other Subaltern Subjects.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hannum, E. (2002) Educational Stratification by Ethnicity in China: Enrollment and Attainment

in the Early Reform Years. Demography 39 (1), 95-117.

Harrell, S. (2001) Ways of Being Ethnic in Southwest China. Seattle and London: University of

Washington Press.

_____ (1993) Linguistics and Hegemony in China International Journal of Sociology and

Language 103, 97-114.

Hartman, J. and Judd, E. L. (1978) Sexism and TESOL Materials. TESOL Quarterly 12, 383-

393. 

Hellinger, M. (1980) ‘For Men must Work, and Women must Weep’: Sexism in English

Language Textbooks Used in German Schools. Women’s Studies International Quarterly 3, 267-75.

Hobsbawm, E. (1983) Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.)

The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“Jiaoyubu guanyu yinfa ‘dierci quanguo duiwai hanyu jiaoxue gongzuo huiyi jiyao’ de tongzhi.”

(2000) http://www.hanyuwang.com/htm_library/w_02.htm [accessed March 1, 2006].

Johnson, T. (2005) “Want to Study Chinese? Join the Crowd,” Knight Ridder Newspapers,

Oct.26.  http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13003022.htm [accessed February 4, 2006]

Jones M., Kitetu, C. and Sunderland, J. (1997) Discourse Roles, Gender and Language Textbook

Dialogues: Who Learns What from John and Sally. Gender and Education 9 (4), 469-90.

Kaup, K. P. (2000) Creating the Zhuang: Ethnic Politics in China. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner

Publishers.

Kramsch, C. and von Hoene, L. (1998) The Dialogic Emergence of Difference: Feminist

Explorations in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. In D. Stanton and A.      Stewart (eds.) Feminisms in the Academy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of     Michigan Press.

Liddicoat, A.J. (2007) Internationalizing Japan: Nihonjinron and the Intercultural in Japanese

Language-in-education Policy. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 2 (1), 32-46.

Liu X., Zhou J., and Gao Y. (2000) Woxiao dui waiguo liuxuesheng jinxing wenhua beijing

jiaoxue zhi tansuo. Xinshiji wenhua jiaoliu yu hanyu jiaoxue guoji xuexian   yantaohui lunwenji: 98-102.

Liu Y. (2005) The Construction of Pro-Science and Technology Discourse in Chinese Language

Textbooks. Language and Education 19 (4), 304-21.

Mackerras, C. (1984) Folksongs and Dances of China’s Minority Nationalities: Policy, Tradition,

and Professionalization. Modern China 10 (2), 187-226.

O’Donnell, R. (1973) Sex Bias in Primary Social Studies Textbooks. Educational Leadership 31

(2), 137-41.

Paulston, C. (1992) Linguistic and Communicative Competence: Topics in ESL. Philadelphia:

Multilingual Matters.

Porreca, K. (1984) Sexism in Current ESL Textbooks. TESOL Quarterly 18 (4), 705-724.

Rees, H. (2000) Echoes of History: Naxi Music in Modern China. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Saario, T., Jacklin, C. N. and Tittle, C. K. (1973) Sex Role Stereotyping in the Public Schools.

Harvard Educational Review 43 (3), 386-416.

Schein, L. (2000) Minority Rules: The Miao and the Feminine in China’s Cultural Politics.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

_____ (1997) Gender and Internal Orientalism in China. Modern China 23 (1), 69-98.

_____ (1994) The Consumption of Color and the Politics of White Skin in Post-Mao China.

Social Text 41, 141-64.

Schmitz, B. (1975) Sexism in French Language Textbooks. In R. Lafayette (ed.) The Cultural

Revolution in Foreign Language Teaching. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.

Shardakova, M. and Pavlenko, A. (2004) Identity Options in Russian Textbooks. Journal of

Language, Identity, and Education 3 (1), 25-46.

Sleeter, C. and Grant, C. (1991) Race, Class, Gender, and Disability in Current Textbooks. In M.

Apple and L. Christian-Smith (eds.) The Politics of the Textbook. New York: Routledge.

Starkey, H. and Osler, A. (2001) Language Learning and Anti-racism: Some Pedagogical

Challenges. The Curriculum Journal 12 (3), 313-29.

Stanley, K. (ed.) (2001) Sexist Language in ESL/EFL Textbooks and Materials. Teaching

English as a Second Language—Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ) 5 (1).

Sunderland, J., Abdul Rahim, F., Leontzakou, C. and Shattuck, J. (2000) From Bias ‘In the Text’

to ‘Teacher Talk around the Text:’ An Exploration of Teacher Discourse and Gendered Foreign Language Textbook Texts. Linguistics and      Education 11 (3), 251-286.

Suhr, Stephanie and Sally Johnson. (2003) Re-visiting ‘PC’: Introduction to Special Issue on

‘Political Correctness’. Discourse and Society 14 (1), 5-16.

Thomson, C. K. and Otsuji, E. (2003) Evaluation of Business Japanese Textbooks: Issues of

Gender. Japanese Studies 23 (2) 185-203.

U’Ren, M. (1971) The Image of Woman in Textbooks. In V. Gornick and B. Moran (eds.)

Woman in Sexist Society. New York and London: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers.

Zhao X. (1993) Jianguo yilai duiwai hanyu jiaocai yanjiu baogao. In Sheng Y. and Sha L. (eds.)

Duiwai hanyu jiaoxue lunwen xuanping, diyiji 1949-1990. Beijing: Beijing yuyan xueyuan chubanshe.

Zhou M. (2001) The Politics of Bilingual Education and Educational Levels in Ethnic Minority

Communities in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4 (2), 125-49.

Chris White is currently a PhD student in History at Xiamen University. He is also “Program Faculty” for the China Studies Program, a semester abroad program for American university students, in which he teaches Chinese History and helps in managing the program.  He graduated with an MA in East Asian Studies from the University of Pittsburgh in 2006. Email address: cwhite_80@yahoo.com

NOTES:

1 The author would like to thank Dr. Shi-xu and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

[2] The CSL appellation is derived from ESL or EFL (English as a second/foreign language).  Since the Chinese texts focused on in this paper were produced within China and are mostly used there, I have chosen to refer to them as CSL texts.  Potentially, if these texts were employed in language classes outside of China, they could be referred to as CFL texts, but for matters of simplicity, this paper will rely on terming them CSL.

[3] The issue of how to translate the Chinese term minzu or shaoshu minzu is contentious and debated by Western anthropologists (for example, see Gladney 2004: 35-7).  The intricacies of this debate are outside the scope of this paper.  Throughout this paper, I use “ethnicity” or “ethnic group” to refer to minzu and “minority,” “minorities,”  “minority nationalities,” or “ethnic minority” to represent shaoshu minzu.

[4] As seen on the hanban website: http://english.hanban.edu.cn/market/HanBanE/412336.htm.  [accessed 3/12/2007]

[5] http://english.hanban.edu.cn/market/HanBanE/412360.htm.  [accessed 3/12/2007]

[6] I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for comments on the “accuracy vs. fairness” debate.

[7] The only text that does not do this, number 7, is not divided into chapters in the conventional sense.  This text mentions minorities in three different sections of the book.  Text number 10 also briefly talks about minority wedding customs and jewelry in two other chapters, but the major discussion on minorities is found in one chapter.

[8] Texts numbered 3, 8, and 9.

[9] Texts numbered 1 and 4.

[10] Texts numbered 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10.

[11] Texts numbered 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

[12] Texts numbered 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

[13] Lei Feng was a model PLA soldier who died young and was then memorialized by Chairman Mao in a poem for his selfless actions and desire to serve society.  His image is often used to represent a paragon for how a good citizen should act.

[14] There are still some Chinese citizens who are in “ethnic limbo”—the state has not yet decided which group they fit in with (or if they should be a new group).  However, percentage wise, this population is small.

[15] Chapter 13.2 says “In the past, China was made up of five ethnic groups.”  However, just a few lines below, in 13.6, DeFrancis mentions that most of China’s ethnic Koreans live in the northeast.  What is important here is to show that this text does not feel the need to follow China’s state classificatory scheme.

[16] Texts numbered 2 and 3.

[17] Hannum (2002) and Zhou (2001) list Manchu (and Koreans) as having higher levels of education, on average, than the Han.

[18] The Han are focused on in text number 7.

[19] Texts numbered 5, 6, and 10.

[20] This is a race in which males and females, on horseback, chase each other—if the male catches the female, he can kiss her, but if the female catches the male, she beats him with her whip.