When delving into the world of Taiwan, one quickly learns of
its complicated history and thus the issues on identity that go along with it. Stéphane
Corcuff presents a quick overarching summary of the geopolitical relationship
between Taiwan and China in his article “The Liminality of Taiwan: A Case-Studying Geopolitics”. In his article, Corcuff introduces the idea of liminality when
trying to describe Taiwan's position in geopolitical world. However, he twists
the anthropological meaning of the word, turning it into a broader and less
direct meaning in order to apply it to Taiwan as a whole today.
Corcuff strongly puts forth the notion of Taiwans
inbetweennes, however by showing it through the lens of liminality may not do it
justice. He states that “translating liminality in geopolitics is not about describing
a transitional phase, but rather about describing a space of connexion developed
over a long period of time” (2012: 43). Corcuff is trying to put forth a
slightly different version of liminailty, and through doing this, one questions
on whether it can still be liminal or not.
Traditionally the term is anthropological in nature; Victor
Turner presents it as the idea of transitioning between states through sacred
rights and rituals. Through this description, the two points in time are
concrete states, and the transition is what is liminal. This transition from
one point to another is also less vague as it is shown through symbols and
rituals. For example, transitioning from adolescence into adulthood through a cultural specific rite or ritual. While dealing with the issue of Taiwan as a whole, Corcuff is showing
it as a cultural inbetweenness; a geopolitical analysis focusing on “spatial
inter-connectivity within a timeframe” (2012: 53). In this description, the question of using the
term liminal is even more pronounced.
Corcuff shows the use of liminality while discussing the
geopolitical discourse by Taiwan by Wang Hung-Luen, another Taiwanese scholar.
He suggests that “Taiwan is presently in a state of liminality, being neither a
state nor a non-state” (2012: 53). Here,
it is shown that Taiwan shows some characteristics of liminality, the
inbetweenness of not being a state or a non-state, however, this is not a transition
of states. Taiwan may be in a position of flux between being dependent,
independent or perhaps a mix of both, but this is outside the realm of
liminality.
The article itself does Taiwan justice by describing its
crisis of identity through giving a clear timeline of its geopolitical
discourse with China. However, there is still the question of whether or not
Corcuff’s use of the liminality in this instance is correct or not.
References
Corcuff, Stéphane. 2012. “The Liminality of Taiwan: A
Case-Study in Geopolitics.” Taiwan in Comparative Perspective 4: 34-64
