Cultural Politics and Audiovisual Media within China 6

Conclusion

It is clear that this dissertation, premised on an interdisciplinary theoretical basis, follows a trajectory of examining ethno-cultural status quo within Chinese societies, by focusing on ethnic minorities, cultural politics, audiovisual sectors, as well as related policies, justifications as well as implications. It starts, in Chapter 1, from the international legalisation of cultural diversity and China’s attitude towards this Convention as a nation-state; by locating ‘communal diversity’ proposed by Parekh (2006: 3-4) into the complicated context of China, it, interestingly, generates the issue of ethno-cultural issue within Chinese society. In Chinese context, but, given the different definition of ethnic groups as well as unique strategy of constructing a Chinese nation, it worthwhile to explore how accommodation has been made between the majority Han and other fifty-five ethnic minorities. In Chapter 2, on the contrary to the alleged ‘cultural genocide’, the policy strategies, shifted after the Cultural Revolution, become more tolerant towards the diversity of cultural expressions, thus largely preserving the traditional cultural heritage of ethnic minorities, while those ‘soft areas’, like those groups in southwest, have received little attention, among whom their religions are still being accused as ‘superstition’. Besides, the Chapter 2 also examines the double-role of media, which serves either one expression or technique, and its policy links with preserving ethno-cultural diversity. In Chapter 3, it narrows down in the specific area of mainstream media, tries to summarise the representation strategies premised on reviewing previous research results, and, lastly, identifies the selective identities, shaped as backward , exoticisation and so forth, which, however, constitutes the ‘positive stereotype’ which dominates people’s impressions as well as policy initiatives. The last chapter—Chapter 4 can be seen as a structural approach to mapping ethno-minority linguistic audiovisual media within China, both nationally and regionally, as basic access for information. It then questioned the demise of Western Region Channel at China Central Television, pointed out the conflict between party control and market-driven forces. Last but not least, I agree with Yuan (2001) to call for the arriving of CCTV Multiculturalism Channel, as well as creating more opportunities to increase the possibility of expression in such a party-monopolised state.

Fundamental questions arise: How can the policy system assure a balance of so many factors in a democratised process? How can ethnic minorities, in essence, on the basis of freedom of expression and information, human rights, to realise the genuine expression of heritage? How can ethnic minorities ‘transparent[ly] reflect their pre-existing reality’ (Morley, 1992: 179) as well as get the ‘authentic and fair’ representation (rather than positive stereotypes) in news programmes or TV drama, in their own produced programmes on mainstream media? Obviously, the current cultural and media terrain within Chinese society cannot provide a satisfying answer, given the monopoly party control, commercialisation-fuelled programmes producing and audience-targeting, as well as poor infrastructures, limited expressions and human rights without autonomous right in autonomous region broadcasting systems.

It is prominent to see the revised articles in Law on Ethnic Regional Autonomy (2001), in which Paragraph I of Article 38 was revised as:

The organs of self-government of national autonomous areas shall independently develop literature, art, the press, publishing, radio broadcasting, the film industry, television and other cultural undertakings in forms and with characteristics unique to the nationalities. Investment in cultural undertakings shall be increased, the construction of cultural facilities shall be strengthened, and the development of various cultural undertakings shall be speeded up.

(Law on Ethnic Regional Autonomy, 2001)

Admittedly, this revised article paved the way for the framework of ethno-cultural diversity in a macro-way. Yet, it is easy said than done. So far, it is no significance for us to see the related organ to propose a series positive mandates or alternatives to the current cultural systems. Positive stereotypes, accompanied annual CCTV Spring Festival Happy Gatherings, reinforced people’s impressions of ‘exotic’ and curiosity of learning the rest of ‘Other Chinas’ (Litzinger, 2000). Furthermore, given that China adopts a system of ethnic minority autonomous administrative, can they really obtain the ‘autonomy’ in their cultural and media agenda (Zhao, 1998: 194), with their own stipulations of promoting ethno-cultural diversity?

First and foremost, it is largely subject to the demand of democratisation of both society and media system. In her framework towards a ‘Democratic Media System’ in China, Dr. Zhao Yuezhi (1998: 186-194) contends that, based on McQuail’s (1991) three fundamental principles of public communication (namely, freedom, equality and order/cohesion), besides expanding ‘media freedom’, it is, too, of great importance to improve media services and access for social groups especially for ethnic minorities who are ‘scattering mainly on the border regions of China’ (Ramsey, 1987). Inequality for access for ethnic minorities is quite prevalent, which cannot be only solved by a so-called ‘film-projection’ team who project translated films for the people as in the case of Tibet mentioned before. Without the availability of infrastructure and access, how could we imagine the freedom of expression? Hence, Zhao (1998) also calls for the ‘local expressions’ needs more discussions of ‘community issues’ as well as ‘the promotion of local and folk culture’, in the highly-problematic media system of ‘party control and market forces’.

Further, a commercial factor should be considered but it might be another story within China. As in the case of Canada, Beale (2002: 86) provides Canadian strategy of ‘diversity’ in realisation of ‘government-private alliance’, through which private leaders of ‘films, broadcasting and cable industries’ develop specific mandates for the market strategies targeted at previously ill-served minority market. It, however, would be another story for China, by comparison, that almost media are state-owned[1] and the poor market in ill-infrastructure border regions can never arouse the interests of practical investors, while such historically mysterious places as Shangri-La might be exceptions. It, thus, should not be confined only to tourism in the ways of promoting the traditional cultures. But, with respect to mainstream media, those images or representations are mainly portrayed by the Han people according to the taste of majority Han people, with ignorance of those, say, ethnic minorities living in the poor economic conditions.

It might be useful with reference to Canadian Northern Broadcasting Policy (1983), which was initially designed for indigenous broadcasting system and gave the birth of first Canadian indigenous TVNC network (Baltruschat, 2004: 50). At the policy level, ‘regular consultations’ are made to ensure the interactions between indigenous representatives and the officials. Secondly, the right of determining of ‘character, quantity and priority’ in programmes broadcasted in their communities and of producing contents in programmes regarding their issues, are empowered to the indigenous people and their own broadcasters, which entails assuring the freedom of expression. Lastly, on the basis of improved infrastructures, freedom of information, either to maintain their own traditional culture or to get ‘informed or entertained’, are ensured by the ‘greater accesses’. Also, a certain period of hours (although maybe on unpopular time) is ensured for broadcasting indigenous people’s programmes on the national mainstream media.

Although there is an organ named ‘Ethnic Minorities Television Committee’ in China Television Artists Association, it might be a pity to see no concrete proposal of promoting ethno-cultural diversity has been produced so far. Compared to indigenous people in Canada who own their own broadcasting network as well as actively involved with producing programmes, the case of China is still largely subject to other factors like anti-splitting, religiously sensitivity, and even lack of self-produced programmes[2]. Surprisingly, Tibetan TV station, for instance, even repeated one translated programme for more than 30 times in one week, largely due to insufficient Tibetan programmes, skilled producers and funds. In this way, how can they achieve their expressions of cultural heritages? It become worse if taken into human rights issues and freedom of expression into account, as basis of cultural expression defined in 2005 Convention (UNESCO, 2005). It is reported by South China Morning Post (1 August 2006), for instance, a Tibetan female writer Woeser was dismissed from her job as a editor because her travelogue Notes on Tibet was banned by the Propaganda Department as it provides a different perspective from the official story of Tibetan history and culture.

‘Give them voice, and let them represent their own interests.’ Mogul-origin, Cambridge-educated Sociologist Bulag (1999: 24) calls for it. But, it can be hardly imaged a democratisation process of China’s political system and subsequently its media system, as Zhao (1998) predicts. Can those ethnic minorities really obtain their autonomy in cultural domain, in accordance with so-called ‘autonomous’ in administrative system? How can the party/state organs find a balance, among anti-splitting, religious sensitivity, as well as freedom of expression? Taking these factors, it is no surprise to find no existence of such a legal act within China as Canadian Northern Broadcasting Policy (1983), which provides a platform for ethnic minorities to realise expressions of their own cultural heritages. For depicting ethno-cultural diversity in China, it’s still a long, long way to go.

---

[1] It should be noted that films and cinema-managing can be operated as joint-venture, but 30% of shares should be given the state-owned film cooperation, according to the Regulation on Film and Cinema.

[2] After the Tibetan Satellite TV was launched, the broadcasting areas can cover up almost 83% of the autonomous areas. Ironically, the TV stations suffers from the problem of no enough Tibetan programmes, which indirectly leads to the SAFRT call for producers nationwide to denote TV dramas and translated them into Tibetan edition. In this case, in addition to lack of producing team, it can be a hard thing for them to express themselves in the confined spaces.