Peng Ming-Min is a key part of my research because he was one of the earliest advocates of Taiwan Independence and he went back to Taiwan to run for president in 1996. The period I am looking at is the formation of FAPA, between 1977 and 1981. The key event was the official recognition of China by the United States in 1979. This caused a problem for Taiwan because the immgration quota from China to the US, which previously covered only Taiwan, was now shared by Taiwan and China, thus severely limiting the quota for Taiwanese immigrants. TIM activists wanted to get a separate quota for Taiwan, and so they went to the state department and managed to get this change. Also in 1979 the US passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which held that, despite the diplomatic recognition of the PRC, relations with Taiwan would remain. Rep. Jim Leach was a newly elected Republican Congressman from Iowa, and he inserted an amendment to the TRA advocating democracy on Taiwan. Once the TIM succeeded in changing the immigration quota, they search for congressional representatives who would be good allies for their cause. Rep. Leach was an obvious ally. However, he would only work with them to promote democracy on Taiwan, not to promote independence, which he knew would provoke war between the PRC and Taiwan, and would likely involve the U.S. So, a key element of my research here is how the TIM was able to frame its cause as a pro-democracy issue involving human rights while simultaneously maintaining a strong connection with independence activists like Peng Ming-min.
I have begun to look for insider accounts of academic life. One of the great things about the Internet is that, in addition to having free access to journal papers and dissertations as a graduate student, I also can look at public blogs (or weblogs, as I prefer to call them), and I can find them easily through links provided by a friend of mine, Arbitrista, who operates The Third Estate (www.third-estate.blogspot.com). Through his links I found Dr. Crazy, a tenured Assistant Professor at some university. I discovered this post, in which he contemplates a second book, and it disturbed me a great deal. I found two great objections. First, the reasons for writing a book were reduced to (a) getting Full Professor and (b) the inherent interest of the topic. The first is an instrumentalist perspective, the second is an intrinsic value perspective. What was missing is the perspective I prefer: What do people need to know (what does society need to make progress) and what book would meet that need? The instrumentalist perspective, aimed at making more money, cheapens the value of the book. The instrinsic value perspective makes the book self-serving, not serving a higher cause. I want the higher cause, the noble purpose, to orient my writing. What strikes me with horror is that I will likely be surrounded by other academics who lack any notion of higher purpose, and in order to get promoted the department will, as Dr. Crazy describes in his post, consider only my productivity within a set time limit (how many journal articles or books I publish over a set number of years). My criterion for promotion is the impact of the work on the field, and also on society, and you cannot measure that with productivity assessments. So, I am thinking that perhaps I should focus on getting a university job that is oriented toward non-profits while still teaching. I really do not want a tenure clock ticking in my life, or any clock for that matter. I can, of course, produce lots of material very quickly, but I don't want to be in an environment where everyone ignores what I care about the most: The application of important ideas for the purpose of helping people and improving the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment