The Labour Movement in Taiwan (original) (raw)

The spectlUular industriJJlisatian ofTaiwan has created a large working class. Yet, while there have been anumberofinspiring struggles and attempts to organise, apowerful labour movement has not emerged there. Many obseroers of East Asian industrialisatiDn luwe attributed this failure to the influence ofCanfucian culture. This arlU:le disagrees and suggests that the reasans far the weakness of the Taiwanese labour movement are not to be found in cultural stereotypes of ConfuciDn docility or group loyalty. Rather, an analysis of the Cold War origins of the Taiwanese regime, the preponderance ofsmall-scale, rural industry and the great ethnic divides which have been manipulated by political and business leaders on the island since 1949 provide far more convincing explanations for the weakness ofTaiwanese labour. Taiwan has experienced one of the most spectacular economic 'miracles' of the postwar period. l In the course of this massive transfonnation, the working class has become clearly the largest social force.' The potential for a powerful independent labour movement, as appeared in South Korea, would seem to have been created. J The fact that such a movement has not appeared appears to support the position of many theorists ofEast Asian industrialisation who claim that Taiwan's cultural heritage of Confucianism has both encouraged capitalist entrepreneurship and discouraged labour movement activism. For these writers Confucianism has been the crucial ingredient in the various East Asian 'miracles'-the missing x of Ronald Do:re. 4 Amongst the major components of this success are what Dore calls 'a generalized syndrome of dutifulness' and 'acceptance of hierarchy'.5 He, along with MacFarquhar, Kahn, Pye, O'Malley, Vogel and many others, has suggested thatlhis Confucian subordination to authority that has been crucial for East Asian regimes, including Taiwan, during industrialisation.'" Obedience and respect for the benevolent ruler supposedly is translated into obedience to management. Group identity-initially focussed on the family-is said to mean that East Asians are prepared to sacrifice their individual needs for the good of the country or the firm.' A reduced willingness to join labour unions is one consequence. Undoubtedly cultural backgrounds do influence both the possibilities of industrialisation and the potential strength of labour movements in complex ways. But the argument that Confucian or neo-Confucian values have played a major role in lessening the potential of Taiwanese labour is not tenable. In the first place, the key elements offered by the neo-Confucianist position as explanatory factors are far from exceptional in pre-industrial societies. Many, perhaps most, pre-capitalist, agrarian societies have a strong ethical! religious, cultural emphasis on the family, a limited degree of individualism and a concentration on the group-whether it be the village or the wider family. Indeed the family-usually the extended one-is the basic unit of production in such societies. Catholicism's obsession with the family is one example; that it has survived best in peasant societies where the extended family remains crucial is no surprise. So what is peculiar about Confucianism in this regard?