The Construction of the “Cultural Frontier” from “ Grassroots Globalization”

Qiao Gang

Abstract：“Boundaries” exists in the place where different cultures meet. Therefore， the presence of people gives the concept of boundary its significance and research value. In former studies about “boundaries”， a variety of understandings were assigned to “boundary” and different words were used to refer to “boundary”， such as “border”， “frontier”， or “borderline”. However， with globalization， increased cross border practices dispelled the traditional concept of the geographical frontier， and more and more people began to pay attention to “cultural frontiers”.  Arjun Appadurai s reflection on the paradigm of regional research points out that “region” is not a permanent combination of various elements. In his anthropological research of frontiers， Hastings Donnan also mentions that “land”， “society” and “culture”， as important elements of the frontier， no longer represent a permanent union in the era of globalization. This is because they too are fluid.  In order to re examine the concept of “boundary”， it is necessary to identify different research perspectives which explore and discover the value of frontier research in this new period.

In order to have a better understanding of our situation within the “mobility” of globalization， Appadurai put forward the research perspective of “grassroots globalization”， a concept which is based upon the production and practice of ethnography. It is based on the ethnographic studies of Anthropology， and responds to grand narratives from a micro perspective. The phenomenon of cross border learning of students from Myanmar is just such a case of “grassroots globalization”. This phenomenon is a spontaneous flow， because the locals are also practicing their globalization strategies. In the past， within the perspective of economic globalization， people tended to regard globalization as a grand narrative while ignoring the initiative of the people involved. In order to avoid the “shadow” brought by the top down “national perspective” mentioned by James Scott， it is necessary to start from the writings of ethnography and form a bottom up observational perspective in order to think about how people participate in the mobility of globalization， and how the concept of the traditional frontier has changed to the “cultural frontier”. From the perspective of globalization， and from the bottom up perspective，  we should change our understanding of the frontier at the epistemological level.

The so called“cultural frontier” is a new concept influenced by globalization and modernity. Hastings Donnan pointed out that places of cultural  encounter are the cultural “frontier”. From the perspective of “the third space”， Homi Bhabha puts forward other characteristics of the cultural frontier， such as “threshold”， “hybrid”， and “consultative”.  These are ways that people within this space can retain different identities， yet， maintain an effective operation of spatial order. In the current construction of the “One Belt and One Road” initiative， we not only put forward the imagining of spacial practice， but also advance the Chinese style of globalization， thereby presenting a Chinese philosophical orientation. Before the emergence of the nation state， there was no concept of so called “border lines”. With the emergence of the concept of the modern state， the “border” divided ethnic groups belonging to the same culture into different countries. However， these borders do not obstruct their connection. The border is not always an “isolated zone”. In the process of border trade exchange and personal exchanges， it presents the image of a “zone”， not only an “economic zone”， but also an important “cultural zone”. The “cultural frontier” is highlighted as the “middle zone” of multicultural convergence.

Withinthe activity of cross border learning of foreign students， it is a movement reflecting the spontaneous choice of the people and a grassroots globalization. It differs from the concept of cross border education in other parts of the world， and， instead， embodies  the mode of cultural interaction. Only by observing local society and using ethnographic research methods， can we understand the differences within the local social context. Different from economic rationality in economic globalization， local cross border learning is a phenomenon of cultural interaction. For example， local people believe that the purpose of foreign students studying in China is to make money. This is because China is richer than neighboring countries and learning Chinese language and culture can give them an advantage in border trade， which is also conducive to the employment of the foreigners. This is an expression of economic rationality， and the local people understand and think about it from the perspective of economic globalization.

Many people even equate this phenomenon of cross border education with that of international cross border learning. Many scholars do not understand why China selflessly helps these Burmese students. From the perspective of globalization， many foreign scholars do not understand the motivation of local schools to provide educational resources. They have speculated a lot  about this. In fact， cross border ethnic groups are distributed in different countries on both sides of the border line. They have both a kinship and geographic relationship. Therefore， when one party has learning needs， their relatives in another country want to help them. So， their globalized  movement is not only driven by economic interests， but also because they have a common culture. The “One Belt and One Road” initiative puts forward “imagined space practice”. From the perspective of “grassroots globalization”， people choose cross border mobility in order to achieve their goals. Local education departments will actively provide resources in order to maintain the stable development of local society. This is not a “top down” globalization movement， but a “bottom up” perspective.

Since 2000，Ruili city has held the annual “Ruili China Myanmar Paukphaw Carnival”. The “paukphaw” is a transliterated word from Burmese， which originally means “compatriots”. It expresses the friendly feelings between the people of the two countries， and is an important form of cultural interaction. In the “One Belt and One Road” initiative， we can see the important significance and practical basis of the “common aspirations of the people”. In fact， as early as before the founding of the People s Republic of China， the villagers on both sides of the border had kinship and geographical relationships. Although the people along the border belong to different countries， they still share the same language， culture and living customs. In the past few decades， the people of the two countries living near the border of Ruili City have had close interactions in their folk contacts. According to ruilishi zhi （Ruili City Chronicle）， in December 1965， more than 2，000 people from Myanmar came to China to take refuge. “52 people from 18 families came to live in China， 50% of Ruili s salt was supplied to the border people of Myanmar， and about 70% of the grain from Ruili Grain Exchange was upplied to people living along the Myanmar side of the border.”  “Some people living along the border said， ‘Denghexiang （China）and Denghehan （Myanmar）are brothers ， the people of China and Myanmar are family”. By combining the phenomenon of “cross border residence” and “cross border learning”， we realize that this cultural interaction is not a “profit seeking” behavior brought about by globalization， but a long standing natural and cultural model. Just like the overseas Chinese culture in Heshun Qiluo and the unique culture of Tea horse road in Yunnan， it is also witnessed in history and culture.

In cross border practices， people in border areas have constructed a new type of social space. People are not only the subject of  spatial construction， but also “ are shaped” within space. The “cultural frontier” is more similar to the concept of “the third space”， which is an open space with an inclusive structure. It is the “middle zone” where cultures meet. People from different countries and ethnic groups can maintain cultural diversity within this social space. As in the construction of the “One Belt and One Road”， we emphasize equal respect and interaction between people in the border area， and highlight cultural diversity. Different cultures are mixed in this space. People can have different identities， but can also carry out communication activities. From a realistic point of view， the people in this space also provide an important basis for the stable development of border areas. The “frontier” is， thus， not only a geospatial concept， but also a social space.  In the process of personal cross border communication and cultural contact， foreign students become both the subjects and participants of spatial practice. As the expression of social space， the “cultural frontier” is where foreign students practice their strategies. At the same time， they actively interact with other people in the space， negotiate with each other， and intermingle with each other s cultures， thereby illustrating the characteristics of the frontier such as “threshold”. The “cultural frontier” presents an open and inclusive structure， and becomes the “middle zone” of cultural convergence. The main bodies in the space are interrelated and mutually restricted， thus ensuring the stability of the internal order of the space， and thus promoting the harmony and stability of the frontier society.

The“cultural frontier” is not an extension of the concept of “territory frontier”， but the exploration of imagined space. The “fluidity” of globalization is happening in the border areas. Anthropologists try to depict the changing landscape of frontier areas in the form of ethnography. The cross border learning phenomenon of foreign students in Ruili presents a case of “grassroots globalization”. It shows the diversity of globalization through a bottom up perspective. Within the context of cross border practice， the border area shows  its spatial and social nature. Foreign students， as the main part of spatial practice， also participate in the construction of a “cultural frontier” while practicing their own strategies. They are also “shaped” by the social culture of the border areas. Within the context of globalization， the frontier is no longer the “edge” of geography; the border areas involved in cross border practices are becoming the intersection of multiculturalism. The “cultural frontier” has become the “middle zone” of culture.

Key Words：grassroots globalization ; cultural  frontier; foreign students; cross border study

References：

Arjun Appadurai.Modernity at Large： Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis： University of Minnesota Press， 1996.

Arjun Appadurai. Globalization and the research imagination.In International Social Science Journal， 2000， 12（160）：229–238.

Duan Jinsheng.zhongguo jindai bianjiang minzu yanjiu de fangfa yu lilun （Methods and Theories of the Studies of Frontier Ethnic People in Modern China）. Kunming：Yunnan renmin chubanshe， 2016.

Fan Hongwei. miandian huawen jiaoyu de xianzhuang yu qianjing（Present Situation and Prospect of Chinese Education in Myanmar）. In Southeast Asian Studies， 2006， （6）：71.

Fan Ke. heyi “bian” wei： bate “zuqun bianjiang” lilun de qidi （Barth s Ethnic Boundary and the Understanding of Frontier in Chinese Context）. In Academic Monthly， 2017（7）.

Henri Lefebvre. kongjian yu zhengzhi （Space and Politics）.Li Chun，transl.Shanghai：shanghai renmin chubanshe， 2008：6.

He Ming. bianjiang guannian de zhuanbian yu duoyuan bianjiang de goujian （Changes in the Concept of Borderland and Construction of Multi borderland）. In Journal of Yunnan Normal University， 2013（5）.

He Yue， Gao Hong. lun Yunnan kuajing jiaoyu he kuajing minzu jiaoyu（On the Cross Border Education and the Cross border Ethnic Education in Yunnan）. In Journal of Yunnan Minzu University ， 2011（2）.

He Yue，Gao Hong. wenhua anquan shijiaoxia de Yunnan kuajing minzu jiaoyu wenti （The Education Issues of Yunnan Cross border Ethnic Groups in the Perspective of Cultural Safety）.In Journal of Yunnan Normal University（Humanities and Social Sciences），2010（4）.

Homi Bhabha. The Location of Culture. London and New York： Routledge.1994.p1.

James C. Scott. Seeing Like a State： How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press， 1998.

Jin Xiaozhe， Lin Tao，Wang Maojun. Bianjiang de kongjian hanyi jiqi renwen dili yanjiu kuangjia （Frontiers  Spatial Meaning and Their Research Framework in Human Geography）. In Human Geography， 2008（2）.

Sun Jiuxia，Su Jing.lvyou yingxiangxia chuantong shequ kongjian bianqian de lilun tantao—jiyu kongjian shengschan lilun de fangsi（Discussion on the Spacial Change of Traditional Community under the Influence of Tourism — Reflection Based on the Theory of Space Production）.In Tourism Tribune， 2014（5）：80.

Wang Wenguan.ershiwu shi zhong de haiwai minzu shizhi yu zhongguo de wenhua bianjiang，zhengzhi bianjiang（Overseas Ethnography and Chinas Cultural and Political Frontiers in Historical Records ）.In Chinas Borderland History and Geography Studies， 2014（4）：141.

Xu Lili，yang Chaohui.lun wenhua shubian（Safeguard the Borderland with Culture）.In Xinjiang Social Scieneces， 2013（3）：116.

Yan Xu.wenhua bianjiang： quanqiuhua shidai guojia anquan weihu de fazhanxing quxiang （Cultural Frontier： the Developing Direction of National Safety Maintenance in the Period of Globalization）. In Journal of Xinyang Normal University（Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition）.2007（5）.

Yu Xiaofeng，Xu Lili，Li Zhengyuan，et al.bianjiang anquanxue yinlun （An Introduction to the Study of Border Security）. Beijing：zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe，2013.

Zheng Xinzhe et al.zhongguo shaoshu minzu xianzhuang yu fazhan diaocha yanjiu congshu， ruilishi daize juan （Series of Investigations and Studies on the Status and Development of Chinas Ethnic Minorities·Volume of Dai in Ruili）.Beijing：minzu chubanshe，2006.

Zhou Jianxin.heping kuaju lun—zhongguo nanfang yu dalu dongnanya kuaguo minzu “hepiong kuaju”moshi yanjiu（On“Peaceful Cross residence”： A Study on the Mode of “Peaceful Cross residence” of Transnational Ethnic Groups in South China and Southeast Asia）.Beijing：minzu chubanshe，2008.