The Double Ten National Day celebrations again brought up the question of the display of uniquely Taiwanese elements compared with the “Republic of China [ROC] aesthetic.”
Any discussion on how we are to understand the ROC aesthetic requires clarification on several points. First of all, what exactly is the ROC? Second, from which point in time was the aesthetic linked to the ROC? Third, what were the factors behind constructing the “ROC aesthetic?” Finally, does a refined “ROC aesthetic” exist?
One thing we can state with certainty is that the ROC is a constitutional state apparatus that in itself is neutral on the subject of beauty and bears no responsibility on defining aesthetics, so consequently, the ROC Constitution has nothing to say on the subject.
Second, this state apparatus was founded in 1912, but for a long time after its founding the “orthodox ROC” of which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) likes to talk was a political entity whose influence was limited to the south of China and whose existence relied on local warlords: It did not have influence over the whole of China.
Even after the apparent unification of China with the success of Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) 1928 Northern Expedition (北伐), the government was quickly embroiled in the Central Plains War and then the war of resistance against the Japanese, before the Nationalist army was ultimately defeated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and retreated to Taiwan in 1949.
What we call the “ROC aesthetic” never really existed in China; it gradually formed only after the ROC forces relocated to Taiwan after World War II. As a result, we have to conclude that a “Republican era aesthetic” is not the same as the “ROC aesthetic,” as it was developed only after the relocation to Taiwan.
Three factors contributed to the formation of the ROC aesthetic.
The first of these was the post-war chaos and poverty that necessitated practical solutions over aesthetic aspirations, a dichotomy that was felt in the structural and administrative levels within the public sector.
Second, one could say that post-war Taiwan was immediately plunged into a phase of mobilization, with militarized cultural values instilled into the daily lives of ordinary people, a phenomenon that was most explicitly seen on student campuses around the nation. Modes of dress and hairstyle restrictions were all expressions of the constraints placed upon the public by political authorities. The insistence at the time that “external beauty is not important, it is what is inside that counts” continued to hold back aesthetic development for more than two decades.
That is not to say that the military approach to appearance, such as a uniform, was ignored or disregarded; in the Western world, many fashion trends were derived from military uniforms. Therefore, for the third factor, we need to look at the cultural roots of the military.
The late Qing Dynasty/early Republican period military teaching institutions, such as the Yunnan Military Academy and the Baoding Military Academy (precursor to the Whampoa Military Academy that relocated to Taiwan with the KMT and which continues to exist in Kaohsiung under the name the ROC Military Academy) were recipients of state funding and retained many elements of the Chinese aristocratic classes from previous periods, so naturally these would have certain aesthetic requirements in terms of clothing and uniform.
The Whampoa academy, with its direct connection to the ROC, was born from the conflict of the time in China, with the majority of its students being common people. The earliest graduates would be sent directly to the battlefield, and their successors would have been part of the period of mobilization in Taiwan. One can imagine that the “aesthetics” born of this military culture were essentially equated with “neatness.”
In the beginning, practicality and utility took precedence over aesthetics, and this would subsequently evolve into a casual indifference and later to an indifference to the importance of specifics, so that all one had to do to express a sense of patriotic pride would be to slap on a national flag or national emblem. Aesthetic beauty was beside the point, the focus was the expression of an ideology, and for this reason we should probably not talk about the “ROC aesthetic,” but the “ROC ideological aesthetic.”
Cheng Mu-Chun is the executive director of the Lee Teng-hui Foundation.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS