Moving Images: Internal Migration in Contemporary Chinese Cinema
Dror Kochan
East Asian Studies Department
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
“Regardless of whether it is the conversation of ordinary urbanities or the opinions
of important government officials that one is listening to, regardless of whether one
is watching a popular film or television program or reading the work of an
authoritative expert, one will be given more or less the same description of rural
people who enter urban areas: that is that they are, in the main, stupid, dirty,
lacking in breeding, and without any sense of shame. You will be told that the
country people pouring into the cities are, if not active, then latent, robbers and
plunderers, prostitutes and pimps, ‘out-of-plan guerrillas’ and carriers and
transmitters of contagious diseases.”
(Yu Depeng, Riding the Train Effect, 1994)1
“There is nothing man fear more then the touch of the unknown”
(Canetti, Elias, Crowds and Power, 1960 [1984:3])
Cinema and social issues have been connected for a long time. Watching a
movie is a cognitive process that demands some level of identification with
characters and ideas. Thus, cinema can play an important part in creating a
Habermasian “Public Sphere” - a place for people to meet and discuss central social
issues in a way mediated from the power of the sate (Habermas 1989). If I were to
rephrase Stephanie Donald, movies work to create a symbolic form of a social and
political imagery that can deviate from the images of idyllic reality the state would
have like to portray (Donald 2000, 142-143). In this way, cinema influences
inter-social power relations and enable us to examine those changes by looking at
their inscription into cultural texts. Locating this public sphere and examining its
influence is the main axis of this paper, as this allow us a new perspective onto the
complexity of current reality.
Internal migration has been a reality in china over the last 25 years. After being
prohibited for the preceding 20 years, movement between different parts of China
has become possible again, rapidly engulfing hundreds of millions of people moving
between China’s villages, towns and cities.2
References to migration are ubiquitous and varied. Still, most share a common
thread which constitutes the dominant discourse of internal migration in China.
The dominant discourse can be found in various media channels and social stratum:
the printed press, TV, cinema, academic research and also in conversions with
officials and urbanities alike. Many see this discourse as relatively conjoint to state
and urban society reflecting the long lasting influence of shared cultural and
ideological assumptions (Davin 1999; Zhang Li 2001b). The picture portrayed is
emphasizing
the
migrants’
economical
contribution
to
China’s
economic
development on the one hand, while also stressing the problems associated with the
migrants flow to the cities.
There are ample examples of articles in newspapers or TV news clips presenting
the migrants as “others”, different from the local urban populace through their look,
wear and spoken dialect. The names given to them in the dominant discourse,
including: Waìdìrén (外地人), Mángliú(盲流), liúdòng rénkoŭ (流动人口), Míngōng (民
工), create a proto-ethnic label that exclude migrants from urban society. In many
articles we trace words like “wave”, “flood” or “tide”, which connotes with
uncontrollable and devastating natural forces. Migration is portrayed as an
unavoidable phenomenon, which although has some benefits must be well guard
against. Water is also used to highlight the “drift” or “float’ of migrants, a socially
and politically problematic notion that is urging the state and society to guard
against.
Crime, population control policies, pollution and the overloaded urban public
services are often mentioned in the same breath with the migrant’s existence in the
cities. To some extent migrants are often represented as a faceless wave of people
flooding Chinese cities with only one aim - to make money. By itself this is not a bad
cause in today’s capitalist China, but since migrants are outsiders, not bonded by
local urban society’s norms, their actions can be a menace to law-abiding urban
populace, a society itself under a heavy pressure from the changes in Chinese
economy.
The dominant discourse also influences internal migration research. The
sources, routes and influence of migration in China have been the center of avid
research both within China and in western scholarship. The existing research
primarily utilizes economical, demographical or political perspectives, and focuses
on issues like: The push and pull factors bringing migrants to the cities; The
migrants’ influence on Chinese economy; The role of the state in the migration
process and the relationship between migrants and city authorities or urban citizens
(Qian 1996; Solinger 1999, Chan and Zhang 1999; Mallee 2000). Additional
attention is given to the large migrant communities in China’s major cities,
examining their relationship with state power (Zhang Li 2002; Ma and Xiang 1998),
as well as to the influence and changes of the hukou system and citizenship issues
(Selden and Cheng 1994; Chan 1996; Chan and Li 1999). The strong presence of
the state and hukou-related issues in many of these studies highlights the
estrangement of the migrants in urban space, geographically and socially, stressing
their inability to integrate into urban society due to legal and social obstacles.
This trend was reflected upon by Frank Pieke, who concluded that the research
on this subject has mainly concentrated around what he termed “migration system”
– focusing on the institutions and structures as they are perceived in the eyes of the
external researchers. His methodological approach was somewhat different, urging
scholars to concentrate on “migration configuration” – a look that focuses on the
actors themselves and the social reality in which they are operating (Pieke 1999,
15).
In recent studies more emphasis is given to migrants’ voice and agency (Zhang
Li 2001a; Zhang Li 2002; Chan 2002; Pieke 1999; Jacka 1998; Ma and Xiang 1998).
They are seen as creating alternative models of citizenship based on economic
power as well as trying to produce a more constructive framework of self
representation.
Utilizing Pieke approach my study follow this path but differs in two main
aspects: the first is that while most of the current work that deals with migrants’
representation examines conceptual changes to migrants’ self image, my work
focuses on the representation of migrants in urban society, the changes it
undergoes, and ultimately the emergence of alternative representation. One of the
questions underlying this approach is: are migrants and urbanities share the same
urban space and realities? If so, they are situated at a different position then that
separating them in the dominant discourse.
The second change lays in my search for this representation in sources not yet
examined in relation to internal migration. Most of the research to date carefully
examines printed sources (mainly Chinese press and academic studies) while I am
concentrating on examining visual sources as well as the discussion about them in
printed and electronic sources.
The result exposes an alternative discourse in urban society and a different
representation of migrants, different not only from the dominant discourse but also
adding an additional layer to western research of this phenomenon.
Recent years have witnessed a growing body of films including feature films,
documentaries and TV series, examining internal migration from different
perspectives.3 The directors of which are part of urban society yet see themselves
as social outsiders. They are well versed in the dominant discourse but are not
adhering to it. The result is a critical look at the dominant discourse and a much
more complex portrayal of internal migration in China.
This new outlook represents an ever-growing interest in internal migration and
is characterized by a more ambivalent and more sympathetic look at migrants.
Migrant’s place in society is reexamined and stronger emphasis is given to migrants’
agency and to the individualization of migration. Migrants are been portrayed as
able individuals with strong will and intentions, aware to the harsh reality they face,
while working to create a change and find a better place for themselves within it.
They are depicted as trying to deal with their discrimination and as able to overcome
the hukou barrier. Also examined is the possibility of the migrants to integrate into
urban society (a notion that is almost non-existent in the dominant discourse) while
taking the migrants out of the urban periphery and examining their existence within
the geographical center of the city. State involvement in the migration process and
its effects are also critically reevaluated, thus reducing the centrality of state
involvement and of the formal and legal aspect of the process (like the hukou
system).
Individualization and Agency
The dominant discourse describes migration as an inevitable side-effect of
economic reform. The influx of migrants to the cities in search for economic gains is
leading to presenting them as a homogenous group of people, an amorphous flow of
work power (Zhang Li 2001a, 31). Usually, the migrants are a “work group” or a
“worker from Sichuan” (Wang 2002), rarely given names or face.
The migrants in the alternative discourse, occupies a central place as an
individual. The “waidiren” has values, emotions and intentions. They cease to exist
as a faceless, indistinct mob, and acquire a face and a voice. Their agency is seen as
acts of individuals working to change their surrounding environment, no more
merely a product or a victim of the economic and social order.
In two documentary films – Ning Ying’s Railroad of Hope (希望的铁路) and Du
Haibin’s Along the Railway ( 铁 路 沿线 ) – this individual agency is fascinatingly
represented. In her movie, Ning Ying interviews Sichuanese farmers going to work
in Xinjiang’s cotton fields. The first scene of the movie is shot at the train station in
Sichuan, where the migrants are lining up for two days to board the train, seen as a
herd of people determined to get on the train that will take them to the land of plenty.
But, within what seems like a per-excelance dominant discourse representation, we
begin to recognize the individuals, with different faces and stories, intentions and
dreams. The empowerment of migrants gets stronger as the movie progress,
exposing us to different stories of those migrants.
Du Haibin portrays the daily life of a group of migrants living near the railway
station at Baoji, Shanxi. He underlies the point that migration is not strictly
motivated by economic need, as many migrants leave home for “freedom”,
“adventure” or merely because it is considered “cool” and others have done it before
(See also Pieke 1999, 16; Guldin 2001, 234-237)
In many of the movies the migrants have a name – we meet Guo Liangui in
Beijing Bicycle, Gao Ping in So Close to Paradise and Zhang Shun in Call Me.
This appellation forks them out of the faceless crowd and shifts our attention to
their individual actions and their need to confront migration and urban society on
their own.
One of the most important scenes in Beijing Bicycle occurs when Gui and Jian
are meeting everyday at the street corner to change ownership of the bike. The first
few times seem hostile and alienated, but then a change ensue and at the end of the
scene Jian is calling Gui, asking for his name and raising his hand for a shake. This
process is central to the representation of Gui as an individual, acting within a social
framework that begins to treat him as one.
Some Chinese critics see the migrants as unable to act within urban society as
a result of the irrelevant concepts they bring from the countryside. They do not
understand the workings of the city and are too naïve. One of the critics states that
“Gui does not understand what is a bicycle theft, so he waits where he lost his bikes”
(Fan 2002). Another say that Gui “is obeying or is willing to tolerate the abuses
[from the accountant] because he doesn’t know how to deal with all hardship he
encounters in the cold, alienated and full of prejudice city” (“Guan yingpian shiqi sui
de danche” 2002). Is this really a weakness? Elizabeth Wright is claiming the
director is not characterizing Gui’s naivety as a product of stupidity, rather his
silence is a product of his realization of his difference (Wright 2002). Building on this
point we can claim that Gui’s action are a result of his understanding of the situation.
As soon as he starts working he is penciling down the number of delivery he made,
so as to keep track of his advance. Confronting the accountant he is suggesting
going to the manager, resulting in the accountant agreeing to solve the issue the
next day. When he cannot go to the police, he is going to Jian’s father to get back the
bike. The other movies reflect similar situation. In Rail Road of Hope we see
migration as a very conscious decision, as migrants are taking their fate in their own
hands. The florist in Call Me is laboring to get his job done, while also pursuing his
dream of learning Opera singing.
The alternative discourse is not creating a new ideological construction of
migrants, but showing them as the people they are: striving for goals while aware to
their disadvantage position. Their inability to express themselves arises from their
understanding of their precarious position within the social system, forcing them to
find alternative channels to express them.
Migrants’ Alternative Image and a Critical Look at Urban Society
In many areas around the globe experiencing a wide migration, we witness a
demonization of migrants. The most negative traits of people from within the group
are used to describe and stigmatize the whole group (Solinger 1999, 103). This is
also true of the dominant discourse in China, emphasizing negative factors, going as
far as citing migration as a “criminal wave” (“Di si ci fanzuichao weixie zhongguo
shehui” 2002). Typical quotes in Chinese newspapers include lines like: “Several
robberies were carried out by migrant workers last week in the city and this has
aroused the concern of the city's labor and social-security departments” (Wang
2002). The dominant discourse has been creating a typical image of migrants,
differentiating them from urban dwellers by their clothes, language and manners,
and stereotyping them as many times walking on the wrong side of the law.
In many of the movies migrants’ characters adhere to this image. We meet poor
migrants, petty criminals, garbage collectors, street hawkers and nannies. But
although “crime” is prevalent in the movies, a closer look at these characters and
their “crimes” reveals a much more ambivalent picture. While the general inclination
is to blame the migrants for the rise of crime rates in the cities, the alternative
discourse points out the weakness of this approach. In many encounters between
the migrants and urban people the initiators of the illegal actions are the urban
dwellers, the migrants’ employers or even the police (Solinger 1999; Zhang Li
2002).4 Actions like the managing of the illegal blood donation in Call Me or the
bicycle theft, the accountant swindle, Jian theft of the family money, the physical
violence in Beijing Bicycle – are all done by urban people.
The complex situation is well described by one the commentators relating to
Beijing Bicycle in an internet forum – “The migrant ready to endure this is stupid,
the migrant who resists is a criminal. They all believe that the criminal is the kid who
came from the country…and it doesn’t matter if they sinned or not, they are guilty in
the eyes of urbanities. That is because they are farmers invading the city” (Yuan
2002).
Recently the dominant discourse has been linking migrants’ crimes with the
abuses they suffer in the city. However, the focus is different, stressing the crimes
first and right violation second. “It was reported that several migrant workers broke
into the homes of some Beijing residents to look for money because they had been
underpaid” (Wang 2002). At the same breath, the dominant discourse hints that
these migrants’ disenfranchisement results from their ignorance or inability to adapt
to their new situation (Davin 1999, 153).
The dominant discourse is using the migrants to define and organize urban
society by positively contrasting them with the migrants. In this way, migrants are
becoming the “other” of the modern, cosmopolitan image of contemporary China
which is seen against the migrants’ relative backwardness. But the alternative
discourse is using this “other”, not only for “self” building, but also for “self”
criticizing.
The urban people are seen as indifferent folk not caring for each other [Call Me],
quick to misjudge, and turning a blind eye to illegal deeds occurring among them
[Beijing Bicycle]. Combining this with the emphasis on urban criminal activities we
can conclude that the moral advantage is at the migrants’ side. Hence, the criticism
is also made toward the values associated with the modernization process.
The migrants’ moral advantage is also strengthened by the positive portrayal of
their determination and perseverance. They are depicted as hard working people
(Beijing Bicycle, Call Me, So Close to Paradise, Railroad of Hope), trying to correct
wrongs (Call Me) and even win urban people appreciation (Beijing Bicycle).
Their perseverance is empowering them in their contacts with urban society.
They have patience, time, determination and morals, and these are their tools in the
face of their social-economical inferiority. The negotiation scene in Beijing Bicycle is
an excellent example. In this scene Jian and his friends are circling Gui in a
construction site trying to use force to obtain the bike. As Gui is resisting and
clinging to the bike, both side are standing in an impasse. As time goes by, night
falls, and Jian’s friends are trying to find different solutions, still trying to exploit
what they think is Gui naivety. Gui refuses and they are forced into a more
reasonable negotiation, cumulating in the deal to change ownership on the bike
every other day. During this time, Gui is at a numerical and social inferiority, but
using his determination and endurance he is able to hold his ground, and that is his
advantage.
The conflict between the images of urban dwellers and migrants is evident also
in the discussion emerging about the movies within urban society. Adjectives like
“sincere and honest” (púshí 朴实), “kind-hearted” (shànliáng 善良) and “pure”
(dānchún 单 纯 ) are used to describe the migrants characters. While “weak
character” (bóruò 薄弱), “boastful” (zìzūn 自尊), “indulgent” (fàngzòng 放纵) and
“immature” (zhìnèn 稚嫩) are used for the urbanities (Guan yingpian shiqi sui de
danche 2002; Women huijing de qingchun 2002; Fan 2002).
Many of the discussants are emphatic towards Gui’s action trying to keep the
bike as an entrance ticket to urban society while at the same time denouncing Jian’s
actions. Many also condemn the derogatory comments and deeds of city folks and
their treatment of migrants (“Women cengjing de qingchun” 2002; “Kan shiqi sui de
dan che” 2002; “Guan yingpian 'Shiqi sui de danche'” 2002; Yuan 2002; Fan 2002).
The success of these movies in creating a public sphere with a more complex
alternative discussion is best exemplified when looking at one of the less favorable
critics of the movie Beijing Bicycle. The writer criticize Wang Xiaoshuai for his
portrayal of modern Chinese society in Beijing, asking why was it necessary to show
the least favorable sides of Beijing, then saying: “On top of this there is the loath of
foreigners by local Beijing people, or the chillness of the people sitting in the alleys
so indifferent to what is happening around them…it is hard to believe that life are so
sympathy lacking” (“Women de qingchun zhende ruci chenzhong” 2002).
The result of building the migrants’ alternative image is twofold. On the one
hand it is used to criticize urban society and on the other hand it helps to diversify
the stances taken toward migrants and migration. Similar to process taken place
after the Cultural Revolution, migrant, same as peasants before, are portrayed as
more complex compared with their representation in the official or dominant
discourse (Feuerwerker 1998, 234). This is happening at the same time with the
continued adjustment of urban society to the migration phenomenon. The sheer
numbers of migrants, the impact of ever growing interaction, brings about a greater
awareness and willingness to discuss the complexities of the problem, while being
more open towards some of the attitudes arising from the alternative discourse.
Belonging and Difference: Space, Integration and Politics
The alternative discourse challenges migrants’ place in society on two fronts.
The first is their place within the geographical sphere of the city. The second relates
to the sense of their social belonging and their integration into urban society.
The central physical location given to migrants, in both the dominant discourse
and the academic research focuses on migrant “villages” situated at the outskirts of
the cities, like the Zheijiangcun in Beijing. This examination is based on migration
system and channels that are grouping together people from the same (or similar)
geographical origin moving to a certain (and confined) place in the city. There they
live and work with their kin, while still situated in a somewhat similar social system
as in their place of origin. These migrant “ghettoes” are separated socially from the
city (sometimes even physically with fence) and the migrants there operate a
different social system (Solinger 1999, 121-122; Zhang Li 2002).
Concentrating on those “villages” enables the state to address migrant as a
unified mass of people, not having to attend to the multitude problems they are
facing individually. This perspective facilitates the state’s call for attention to the
problematic issues associated with migrants’ urban existence (Zhang Li 2001a).
Although the methodological simplicity of examining these villages is well
evident there are several issues to be addressed. First, the number of migrants
living in these “villages” is still limited, while many more dwell outside them. Second,
the friction between the two groups (migrants and urbanities) does not take place in
these compounds, but at the city itself, in its streets, in the markets and the stations.
Last, relegating the migrants to these areas marginalize the enormous physical
changes happening within the city as a result of migration.
The strength of the alternative discourse lays in its ability to take the migrants
from these enclaves into the city itself. In the movies, the migrants are not living in
villages, but are living and acting in the heart of the city. Gui’s physical anchor in the
city is the small shop owned by his relative, situated at the heart of the city hutongs.
The bicycle enables Gui to reach all part of the cities. They are stolen from him in the
middle of the city and his exchanges with Jian and the other urban youth are all
taking place in the city alleys. The same can be said for many of the other migrant
characters in other movies like Call me.
Portraying the migrants within the city and not in a secluded space points to
their involvement in city life which is not necessarily dependent on formal and
official institutions. They are not situated in the heart of urban society, but are
certainly a part of it.
The migrants are placed in a kind of a social “no man zone” between urban and
rural societies. To the state this is a problematic situation as it is placing the
migrants away from the institutions at their origin places while urban authorities are
incapable or unwilling to annex them under their jurisdiction. The result is the
continued emphasis in the dominant discourse and Western research on the hukou
system as the basis for social order in China. The focus on the hukou overlooks an
important process in urban China today, which is the diminishing relevance of the
hukou in daily life.
In the movies dealing with migrants we rarely hear the word “hukou”. In those
movies where hukou is mentioned, like Chen Kaige’s Together or Wu Wenguang’s
Bumming in Beijing, the characters are searching and finding alternatives. Looking
at Beijing Bicycle many of the Chinese observers sees the bicycle as Gui’s key to
integrate in the city, not the hukou (“Women cengjing de qingchun” 2002; “Kan
‘shiqi sui de danche’” 2002). The bicycle enables him to socially and economically
sustain himself in the city. They give him access to money, status, work and
accessibility. When he losses the bikes he actually loses his urban existence, and so
he is determined to find them again and regain his place in the city.
When Jian and his friends try violently to reclaim the bicycle they endeavor to
repel Gui’s integration attempts and bully him out of the city. The most important
scene in this regard occurs when Jian and his friends encircle Gui trying to re-obtain
the bike. Gui is standing his ground showing his determination. His scream conveys
his undisputable will to stay in the city. Now they must face the fact that he is part
of the intricate urban life fabric, an individual standing with them at the same
geographical and social space. The ensuing negotiation is a result of this
understanding and as they realize Gui is there to stay, a compromise must be found,
in a way that will enable them both to rebuild, using the bicycle, their social
identities in the city.
In conjunction with the emergence of this alternative discourse we witness
some changes in the reference to the hukou system. Many in China and the West
agree on the need to make fundamental changes to the system or even abolish it.5
This treatment of the hukou system undermines the existing social categories.
Viewing migrants as able to integrate in part into urban society, tough not through
formal channels. Still, this does not imply migrants are now about to be fully
integrated into urban society, but allow us to have another perspective on this
process and their integration possibilities.
The dominant discourse highlights the return of migrants to the village.6 On the
one hand it is stressing the image of “home”, the importance of going back home,
the centrality of the family and ideal life in the countryside. At the same time many
stories tell of successful migrants returning home and capitalizing on their success
in the city (Solinger 1999, 189).7
An excellent example can be seen in Zhang Yimou’s movie Not one Less (一个
多不能少). The second half of the movie portrays the voyage of a teenage teacher to
the big city in search of one of her students. Zhang is showing the difficulties both
she and her student are facing, separately, in the city. In the end the young teacher
finds her student and they both return to the village escorted by a TV crew and a
truck full of donation from city folks to the impoverished village school. The last
scene of the movie show to the viewers an idyllic picture where the young students
sit in their class with their teacher, using the new colorful chocks they received from
the city to write Chinese characters (home, village, happiness) on the blackboard.
Everyone laughs, and the movie end in a feeling of a circle closed. The boy return to
his village, the substitute teacher returns to hers, the TV crew returns to the city and
order is resorted. All the difficulties and problems rose from breaking the traditional
order, when the kid and his teacher went to the city. Now return to the village, the
social structure is safe and order prevails.
The reality is more complex. In a survey conducted by Liu Ling in three cities
(Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou) less then 25% responded they want to stay in
the city for a pre-determined time between 1-8 years. Most of the responders said
they would like to stay in the city indefinitely. When asked what they would like to do
in the future, 30% answered they would like to go back to the village, and 20% said
they would like to stay in the city (Liu 2001, 122-124).8
The alternative discourse describes this variety. Some migrants see migration
as forced upon them and would have rather not go or return as quickly as possible
back home [Railway of Hope]. Others keep in touch with the village, whether or not
they would like to go back, to keep the village as a safe house for troubled time [So
Close to Paradise, Call Me]. Finally there are those who would have like to stay in the
city [Call Me, Beijing Bicycle].
This is a major point in understanding the alternative discourse and its
importance. Its power is not in enforcing a totally different situation or solution, but
in exposing the different possibilities and viewpoints.
Post Script
“What we call the beginning is often the end. And to make an end is to make a
beginning. The end is where we start from.” (T.S. Eliot, Four Quarters, 1944:42)
The last scene in the movie Call Me focuses on the main three characters. They
are all migrants, passing each other unseeingly, posting their notes on the same
notice pole in Beijing. After placing their notices they continue walking absorbed by
the passerby in the crowd, slowly vanishing within the city. We are left watching a
familiar urban scene. Have they been integrated? Absorbed? Became part of the
city?
In Beijing Bicycle’s last scene, Gui and Jian are beaten up, until Gui raises up
taking a brick and hitting the guy who continue to trash his wrinkled bike. He picks
up the bike, shoulder them and start walk with them in the city streets. How are we
to interpret this scene? Is there violence looming in the future? Are the migrants
now able to raise and demand their share in China’s future? Are they part of the
urban fabric?
This ambivalent ending is used by the alternative discourse to confront the
relative uniformity of the dominant discourse. Similar to life itself, these endings are
filled with question marks, old and new (Hout 2000, 86).
The movies help to build a public sphere which enables the creation of a
multi-faced debate. So far, as Heine Mallee has demonstrated, the public discussion
on these issues, if and when existed, “…has been dominated by an urban/state
perspective. This highly political labeling game serves to identify migrants as
outsiders, as a problem, to put them in their proper place.” (Mallee 2000, 86)
The alternative discourse places the migrants and the urban dwellers in the
same space, showing them as people sharing a common knowledge as a result of
living in this area, thus making them both parts of the new rebuilt and constantly
changing urban society in China. The migrants are part of the changes the city is
going through, and as such they change themselves while facilitating further urban
change.
The directors of these movies, have an unmediated connection to their subject
matter, not only because of their connection with migrants communities in the cities,
but also because of their own life experience, making them, what Jia Zhangke call
“Cinematic migrants” (Hao 2002). The result is their ability to show migrants in way
boasting them with power that cannot be given to them in the dominant discourse.
One of the innovations in the alternative discourse is the manner in which it
examines the dynamic elements in the migration process. Studying internal
migration force us to examine the connection between several components of the
social system such as the state, peasantry, migrants, and urbanities, and do so in
relation to the geographical system – the city and country. In contrast to the more
static look of the dominant discourse, the alternative discourse look at the
movement, thus raising the question of place in a world of movement and flow.
The movement embedded within internal migration in China is leading to
revaluation of the Chinese society “Self”, urbanities and migrants alike. This
movement is well described by James Clifford as a change from “roots” to “routes”,
from the fix space of “home” to the open space of travel (Clifford 1997, 3). This
process leads to crossing and breaking of many cultural and social boundaries, and
to a change of accepted outlooks regarding social and cultural structures. Thus it
helps to rebuild the social-cultural system.
Although it is impossible to create a direct relation between the alternative
discourse and policy change, we can safely assume that the public discussion
revolving around these issues (a discussion to which the movies contribute a hefty
part) is affecting the dominant discourse and state actions. The Chinese state,
sometime perceived as very rigid, has a better capability to adapt to changing
circumstances then first meet the eye (Baranovich 2001, 393-394). Some of the
latest examples include the treatment of migrants during the SARS epidemic, law
changes (for example after the beating case in Guangzhou) or the importance given
to migration in the latest party gathering and statements (“Beijing to Open its
Schools to Children of Migrant Workers” 2002; “Migrant Schools to Receive Legal
Status” 2002; Sisci and Xiang 2003; Pomfret 2003; “China Boosts Migrant
Protection” 2003).
This trend is connected to the debate created by the movies and the other
components of the alternative discourse. This discourse is well poised to grasp the
different components of the phenomenon, their diverseness and the changes they
induce. It is supplying us with a new and special lens with which to watch one of the
most important and most fascinating phenomenons in contemporary China.
Bibliography
Bakken, Børge. 1998. "Introduction". In Migration in China, edited by Børge Bakken.
Copenhagen: NIAS. (9-16)
Baranovitch, Nimrod. 2001. “Between Alterity and Identity: New Voices of Minority
People in China.” Modern China 27(3): 359-401.
Barmé, Geremie, R. 1999. In the Red: On Contemporary Chinese Culture. New York:
Columbia University Press.
“Beijing Residents Hold First Democratic Election of Community.”2002. People’s
Daily, 18 August.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200208/18/eng20020818_101629.shtml
“Beijing to Increase Watch on Migrant Population.” Xinhua, 7 June 1995.
FBIS-CHI-98-273.
“Beijing to Open Its Schools to Children of Migrant Workers.” 2002. China Daily, 30
January.
Bennett, Brian. 2002. “They are for Real.” Time Asia Special Report: The Next
Cultural Revolution. 11 Nov.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/features/china_cul_rev/directors.html
Berger, John. 1972. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books.
Brown, Nick. 1994. “Introduction.” In New Chinese Cinemas: Forms, Identities,
Politics, edited by Nick Brown et al. pp.1-11. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
“Bu meili de huiyi – shiqi sui de danche 不美麗的回憶──《十七歲的單車》” [Not a
Beautiful Memory – <Beijing Bicycle>].
http://www.dianying.com/cgi-bin/moreinfo.cgi?b5+sqs2000+cmdreviews
Canetti, Elias. 1960 [1984]. Crowds and Power. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Chan, Anita. 2002. “The Culture of Survival: Lives of Migrant Workers through the
Prism of Private Letters.” In Popular China: Unofficial Culture in a Globalizing Society,
edited by Perry Link, Richard P. Madsen and Paul G. Pickowicz. pp. 163-188. Lanham,
MA: Rowman & Littlefield Pub.
Chan, Kam-wing. 1996. “Post-Mao China: A Two-Class Urban Society in the Making.”
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 20(1):134-150.
Chan, Kam Wing and Li Zhang. 1999. “The Hukou System and Ruarl-Urban
Migration in China: Processes and Changes.” The China Quarterly 160: 818-855.
Chant, Sylvia. 1992. Gender and Migration in Developing Countries. London:
Belhaven.
Chaplin, Elizabeth. 1994. Sociology and Visual Representation. London: Routledge.
Chen, Xiaoming. 2000. “The Mysterious Other: Postpolitics in Chinese Film.” In
Postmodernism and China, edited by Arif Dirlik and Xudong Zhang. pp. 222-238.
Durham & London: Duke University Press.
”China Boosts Migrant Protection.” 2003. BBC News World Edition, 23 June.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3012092.stm
Chow, Rey. 1995. Primitive Passions: Visuality, Sexuality, Ethnography, and
Contemporary Chinese Cinema. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chute, David. 1994. “Beyond the Law.” Film Comment 30(1): 60-64.
Codelli, Lorenzo. 2001. “Interview with Xie Fei.”
http://www.spaziocultura.it/gallery/cecudine/fe_2001/ENG/cina_ifei_eng.htm
Cohen, L. Myron. 1994. “Cultural and Political Inventions in Modern China: The Case
of the Chinese ‘Peasant’.” In China in Transformation, edited by Weiming Du.
pp.151-170. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Clarke, B. David. 1997. “Introduction: Previewing the Cinematic City.” In The
Cinematic City, edited by David B. Clarke. pp.1-41. London: Routledge.
Clifford, James. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century.
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Dai, Jinhua. 1997. “Imagined Nostalgia.” Boundary 2. 24(3):143-162.
Davin, Delia. 1999. Internal Migration in Contemporary China. New York: St. Martin
Press.
Davis, S. Deborah. 1995. “Introduction: Urban China.” In Urban Spaces in
Contemporary China: The Potential for Autonomy and Community in Post-Mao
China, edited by Deborah S. Davis et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1-19)
Derrida, Jack. 1972. Positions. Chichago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
“Di si ci fanzuichao weixie zhongguo shehui 第四次犯罪朝威胁中国社会”. 2002. [The
fourth criminal wave threaten Chinese Society].
http://www.ccgov.org.cn/zazhi/2002-38/14.htm
Ding, Jinhong and Norman Stockman. 1999. “The Floating Population and the
Integration of the City Community: A Survey on the Attitudes of Shanghai Residents
to Recent Migrants.” In Internal and International Migration: Chinese Perspectives,
edited by Frank N. Pieke and Hein Mallee. pp. 119-133. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Dissanayake, Wimal. 1996. “Introduction / Agency and Cultural Understanding:
Some Preliminary Remarks.” In Narratives of Agency: Self Making in China, India,
and Japan, edited by Wimal Dissanayake. pp. ix-xxi. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Donald, H. Stephanie. 2000. Public Secrets, Public Spaces: Cinema and Civility in
China. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Dutton, Michael. 1992. Policing and Punishment in China: From Patriarchy to "The
People". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eliot, Thomas Stearns. Four Quarters. London: Faber and Faber.
Elvin, Mark, ed. 1974. The Chinese City Between Two Worlds. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Fan, Aiai
范皑皑. 2002. “Shiqi sui de danche yingping – qingchun, zhizhuo《十七岁
的单车》影评 - 青春·执着” [Beijing Bicycle film review – Youth and Persistence].
www.phil.pku.edu.cn/personal/zhangzq/files/dianyingmeixue/82.doc
“Farmers Migrate for More Benefits.” Xinhua, 6 September 1998. FBIS-CHI-98-249.
Farquhar, Mary. 2002. "Zhang Yimou." Senses of Cinema: Great Directors – A
Critical Database.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/zhang.html
Ferguson, Russell. “Introduction: Invisibile Center.” In Out There: Marginalization
and Contemporary Culture, edited by R. Ferguson et al. pp. 9-14. New York: The
New Museum of Contemporary Art.
Feuerwerker, Yi-tsi Mei. 1998. Ideology, Power, Text: Self-Representation and the
Peasant “Other” in Modern Chinese Literature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Finnane, Antonia. 1993. “The Origins of Prejudice: The Malintegration of Subei in
Late Imperial China.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 35(2): 211-238.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings
1972-77, edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon.
Goldstein, Sidney. 1987. “Forms of Mobility and their Policy Implications: Thailand
and China Compared.” Social Forces 65(4): 915-942.
Goldstone, Jack. 1995. "The Coming Chinese Collapse." Foreign Policy 99: 35-52.
Goodman, Bryna. 1995. Native Place, City, and Nation: Regional Networks and
Identities in Shanghai, 1853-1937. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
“Guan yingpian shiqi sui de danche 观影片《十七岁的单车》” [Watching Beijing Bicycle].
2002. http://hndvd.1999net.com/movie/m02041501.htm
Guldin, Gregory Eliyu. 2001. What’s a Peasant to Do? Village Becoming Town in
Southern China. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.
Translated by Thomas Burger. Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying
Practices. London: Sage.
————. 1996a. “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power.” In Modernity: An
Introduction to Modern Societies, edited by Stuart Hall et al. pp. 184-228. Malden,
Mass: Blackwell Press.
————. 1996b. “Introduction: Who Needs Identity.” In Questions of Cultural
Identity, edited by Stuart Hall and Paul DeGuy. pp. 1-17. London: Sage.
Hao, Jian 郝建. 2002. “’Di liu dai’: mingming shi zhong de siwang yu jiafeng zhong
de huayu shengming ’第六代’: 命名式中的死亡与夹缝中的话语生命” [The Sixth
Generation: ].
Cheng Yan Yishu
成言艺术 6.
http://www.be-word-art.com.cn/no6/document11.htm
Hao, Xiaoming. 2000. “The Chinese Cinema in the Reform Era.” Journal of Popular
Film and Television.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0412/1_28/63566579/print.jhtml
Haraszti, Miklos. 1987. The Velvet Prison: Artists Under State Socialism. Translated
by Katalin and Stephen Landesmann. New York: Basic Books.
Harrell, Stevan. 2001. “The Anthropology of Reform and the Reform of
Anthropology: Anthropological Narratives of Recovery and Progress in China.”
Annual Review of Anthropology 30:139-161.
Henny, Leonard. 1986. “Trend Report: Theory and Practice of Visual Sociology.”
Current Sociology 34(3):1-76.
Honig, Emily. 1992. “Migrant Culture in Shanghai: In Search of a Subei Identity.” In
Shanghai Sojourners, edited by Frederic E. Wakeman and Wen-hsin Yeh. pp.
239-265. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hooks, Bell. 1990. “Marginality as Site of Resistance.” In Out There: Marginalization
and Contemporary Cultures, edited by R. Ferguson et al. New York: The New
Museum of Contemporary Art. (341-343)
Huot, Marie Claire. 2000. China’s New Cultural Scene: A Handbook of Changes.
Durham and London: Duke University Press.
“Interview with Wang Xiaoshuai.” 2000.
http://www.magiclanternpr.com/films/beijing_bicycle.htm#interview
Jacka, Tamara. 1998. “Working Sisters Answer Back: The Representation and
Self-Representation of Women in China’s Floating Population.” China Information
13(1):43-75.
Jenks, Chris. 1995. “The Centrality of the Eye in Western Culture: An Introduction.”
In Visual Culture, edited by Jenks Chris. pp. 1-25. London: Routledge.
“Jia Zhangke: Pickpocket Director.” 1999. Beijing Scene 5(23).
http://www.beijingscene.com/V05I023/feature/feature.htm
Jie Lu. 2001. “Cultural Invention and Cultural Intervention: Reading Chinese Urban
Fiction of the Nineties.” Modern Chinese Literature and Culture 13(1):107-139.
"Kan shiqi sui de danche 看 《十七岁的单车》” [Watching Beijing Bicycle]. 2002.
http://www.sanbon.com.cn/myyouth2001/words/17bike.html
Kang, Chao. 1986. Man and Land in Chinese History: An Economic Analysis.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kipnis, B. Andrew. 1995. “Within and Against Peasantness: Backwardness and
Filiality in Rural China.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 37(1): 110-135.
Kolker, Robert. 1999. Film, Form, and Culture. Boston: McGraw-Hill College.
Kochan, Dror. 2003. "Wang Xiaoshuai." Senses of Cinema: Great Directors – A
Critical Database.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/wang.html
Kuhn, Philip. 1984. "Chinese Views of Social Classification." In Class and Social
Stratification in Post-Revolution China, edited by James L. Watson, pp. 16-28.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Kevin. 2003. "Jia Zhangke." Senses of Cinema: Great Directors – A Critical
Database. http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/jia.html
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1970. The Raw and the Cooked. London: Cape.
Link, Perry, Richard Madsen and Paul G. Pickowicz. 1989. “Introduction.” In
Unofficial China: Popular Culture and Thought in the People’s Republic, edited by
Perry Link, Richard Madsen and Paul G. Pickowicz, pp. 1-13. Boulder, Co: Westview
Press.
Liu Ling 刘玲. 2001. “Chengshi li de cunmin: Zhongguo da chengshi nongcun wai
lai renkou de zhuangkuang he ziwo ganshou 城市里的村民：中国大城市农村外来人口的
状况和自我感受” [Villagers in the City – Presentation and Self Perception of Rural
Migrants in Chinese Metropolises].
In Dushi li de cunmin: Zhongguo da chengshi
de liudong renkou, 都市里的村民- 中国大城市的流动人口 [Villagers in the City: Rural
Migrants in Chinese Metropolises], edited by Bettina Gransow and Hanlin Li, pp.
95-129. Beijing: Zhongyang bianze chubanshe.
Low, M. Setha. 1996. “The Anthropology of Cities: Imagining and Theorizing the
City.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 383-409.
Ma, J.C. Laurence and Biao Xiang. 1998. “Native Place, Migration and the
Emergence of Peasant Enclaves in Beijing.” The China Quarterly 155: 546-581.
Mallee, Hein. 2000. “Migration, Hukou and Resistance in Reform China.” In Chinese
Society: Change, Conflict and Resistance, edited by Elisabeth J. Perry and Mark
Selden, pp. 83-101. London: Routledge.
————. 1995. “In Defence of Migration: Recent Chinese Studies on Rural
Population Mobility.” China Information 10(3-4):108-140.
Mao, Zedong. 1954.
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.1. London: Lawrence &
Wishart.
Meisner, Maurice. 1970. Li Ta-chao and the Origins of Chinese Marxism. New York:
Atheneum.
“Migrant Schools to Receive Legal Status.” 2002. China Daily, 15 August 2002.
Mote, W. Frederick. 1977. ” The Transformation of Nanking, 1350-1400.” In The City
in Late Imperial China, edited by William G. Skinner, pp.101-154. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Mumford, Lewis. 1938. The Culture of Cities. New York: Harcourt.
Murphey, Rhoads. 1980. The Fading of the Maoist Vision: City and Country in
China’s Development. New York: Methuen.
Murphy, Rachel. 2002. How Migrant Labor is Changing Rural China. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 2002
Olesen, Alexa. 1999. “Wang Xiaoshuai’s Beautifully Bleak Vision of China.” Virtual
China. http://www.virtualchina.com/archive/leisure/film/wangxiaoshuai-alo.html
Perdue, Peter. 1987. Exhausting the Earth: State and Peasant in Hunan, 1500-1850.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pickowicz, G. Paul. 1995. “Velvet Prisons and the Political Economy of Chinese
Filmmaking.” In Urban Spaces in Contemporary China: The Potential for Autonomy
and Community in Post-Mao China, edited by Deborah S. Davis et al., pp. 193-220.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
————. 1989. “Popular Cinema and Political Thought in Post-Mao China:
Reflections on Official Pronouncement, Film and the Film Audience.” In Unofficial
China: Popular Culture and Thought in the People’s Republic, edited by Perry Link,
Richard Madsen and Paul G. Pickowicz, pp. 37-53. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Pieke, N. Frank. 1999. “Introduction: Chinese Migrations Compared.” In Internal
and International Migration: Chinese Perspectives, edited by Frank N. Pieke and
Hein Mallee, pp. 1-26. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Pomfret, John. 2003. “China Voids Rule on Jailing Vagrants: Policy Blamed for
Hundreds of Deaths.” Washington Post, 19 June, A22.
Potter, Sulamith Heins and Potter, M. Jack. 1990. China’s Peasants: The
Anthropology of a Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pun, Ngai. 1999. “Becoming Dagongmei (Working Girls): The Politics of Identity and
Difference in Reform China.” China Journal 42: 1-18.
Qian, Wenbao. 1996. Rural-Urban Migration and its impact on Economic
Development in China. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Reynaud, Berenice. 2003. "Dancing With Myself, Drifting with My Camera: The
Emotional Vagabonds of China's New Documentary." Senses of Cinema, Issue 28.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/28/chinas_new_documentary.html
Roberts, D. Kenneth. 1997. “China’s ‘Tidal Wave’ of Migrant Labor: What can we
Learn from Mexican Undocumented Migration to the United States?” International
Migration Review 31(2):249-293.
Rowe, T. William. 1989. Hankow: Conflict and Community in a Chinese City,
1796-1895 (Part II). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
————. 1984. Hankow: Conflict and Community in a Chinese City, 1796-1895
(Part I). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
"Rural Surplus Laborers Benefit from Labor Services." 1998. China Daily, 15 May.
Said, S. F. 2002. “In the realm of the censors.” The Daily Telegraph, 28 June.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2002%2F06%2F2
8%2Fbfsfs28.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=186840
Scharping, Thomas. 1993. “Rural-Urban Migration in China.” In Urban Problems and
Urban Development in China, edited by Wolfgang Taubmann, pp. 77-93. Hamburg:
Instituts Für Asienkunde.
Selden, Mark and Cheng Tiejun. 1994. “The Origins and Social Consequences of
China’s Hukou System.” The China Quarterly 139: 644-668.
“Shanghai Civil Servants Face Challenge of Speaking Mandarin.” Xinhua, 19 June
2002. http://www.china.org.cn/english/Life/35109.htm
Shanin, Teodor. 1979. “Defining Peasants: Conceptualizations and
De-Conceptualizations Old and New in a Marxist Debate.” Peasant Studies 8(4):
38-60.
Shaviro, Steven. 1993. The Cinematic Body. University of Minnesota Press.
Shiel, Mark. 2001. “Cinema and the City in History and Theory.” In Cinema and the
City: Film and Urban Society in a Global Context, edited by M. Shiel and T.
Fitzmaurice, pp. 1-21. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Skeldon, Ronald. 1990. Population Mobility in Developing Countries: A
Reinterpretation. London: Belhaven.
Skeldon Ronald and Hugo Graeme. 1999. “Conclusion: Of Exceptionalisms and
Generalities.” In Internal and International Migration: Chinese Perspectives, edited
by Frank N Pieke and Hein Mallee, pp. 333-345. Richmond: Curzon Press.
Skinner, G. William. 1977. “Introduction: Urban Development in Imperial China.” In
The City in Late Imperial China, edited by William G. Skinner, pp. 3-31. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
————. 1971. “Chinese Peasants and the Closed Community: An Open and Shut
Case.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 13(3): 270-281.
Silbergeld, Jerome. 1999. China Into Film. London: Reaktion Books.
Sisci, Francesco and Lu Xiang. 2003. “China's Achilles' Heel: The 'Floating
Population'.” Asia Times Online, May 17.
http://atimes.com/atimes/China/EE17Ad01.html
Siu, F. Helen. 1990. “Introduction: Social Responsibilities and Self-expression.” In
Furrows: Peasants, Intellectuals, and the State: Stories and Histories from Modern
China, edited by Helen F. Siu, pp. 1-26. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Solinger, Dorothy. 1999. Contesting Citizenship in Urban China: Peasant Migrants,
the State and the Logic of the Market. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
————. 1995. “The Floating Population in the Cities: Chances for Assimilation.” In
Urban Spaces in Contemporary China: The Potential for Autonomy and Community
in Post-Mao China, edited by Deborah S. Davis et al., pp. 113-139. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sturken, Marita and Lisa, Cartwright. 2001. Practices of Looking: An Introduction to
Visual Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Su Xiaokang and Wang Luxiang. 1991. Deathsong of the River: A Reader’s Guide to
the Chinese TV Series He Shang. Translated by R. Bodman and P.P. Wan. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
"Surplus Rural Labor Transfer Slows Down". 1997. China Daily, 21 June.
Tam, Kwok-kan and Wimal Dissanayake. 1998. New Chinese Cinema. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tan, Ye. 1999. "From the Fifth to the Sixth Generation: An Interview With Zhang
Yimou." Film Quarterly.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1070/2_53/59210750/print.jhtml
Tang, Jean. 2002. “Interview: Paradise Lost; Wang Xiaoshuai’s Nostalgic ‘Beijing
Bicycle’.” IndieWire.
http://www.indiewire.com/people/int_wang_xiao_020125.html
Tang, Xiaobing. 1994. “Configuring the Modern Space: Cinematic Representation of
Beijing and Its Politics.” East-West Film Journal 8(2): 47-69.
Von Glahn, Richard. 1991. “Municipal Reform and Urban Social Conflict in Late Ming
Jiangnan.” The Journal of Asian Studies 50(2): 280-307.
Wang, Yang. 2002. “Migrant Workers to Get Help.” China Daily, 25 January.
Welland, S.S. 2002. “Traveling Artists, Traveling Art, Ethnographic Luggage.” Yi Shu
1(2): 4-12.
“Women de qingchun zhende ruci chenzhong? Shiqi sui de danche guan huo gan 我
们的青春真的如此沉重？《十七岁的单车》观后感.” 2002. [Is our Youth so Serious Like this?
My Feeling after Watching “Beijing Bicycle”].
http://www.jddsy.com/nubb/non/Forum8/HTML/004138.html
"Women cengjing de qingchun – 'Shiqi sui de danche 我们曾经的青春--《十七岁的单
车》" [Our gone by youth – Beijing Bicycle]. 2002.
http://www.yesky.com/20020507/1609886.shtml
Wright, Elizabeth. 2002. “Riding Towards the Future: Wang Xiaoshuai’s Beijing
Bicycle.” Senses of Cinema 18.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/18/beijing_bicycle.html
Yang, Mayfair Mei-Hui. 1994. “Film Discussion Groups in China: State Discourse or
a Plebeian Public Sphere?” Visual Anthropology Review 10(1): 112-125.
Yuan Lei 袁蕾. 2002. “Minjian guanying: Shiqi sui de danche, nongmin buxu jin
cheng 民间观影：十七岁的单车， 农民不许进城
“ http://cul.sina.com.cn/l/b/2002-03-29/11300.html
Zhang, Li. 2002. “Urban Experiences and Social Belonging among Chinese Rural
Migrants.” In Popular China: Unofficial Culture in a Globalizing Society, edited by
Perry Link, Richard P. Madsen and Paul G. Pickowicz, pp.275-299. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Pub.
————. 2001a. Strangers in the City: Reconfigurations of Space, Power, and Social
Networks Within China’s Floating Population. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
————. 2001b. “Contesting Crime, Order and Migrant Spaces in Beijing.” In Urban
China: Ethnographies of Contemporary Culture, edited by Nancy N. Chen et al, pp.
201-222. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
————. 2001c. “Migration and Privatization of Space and Power in Late Socialist
China.” American Ethnologist 28(1): 179-205.
Zhang Xudong. 1997. Chinese Modernism in the Era of Reform: Cultural Fever,
Avant-Garde Fiction, and the New Chinese Cinema. Durham and London: Duke
University Press.
Zhang Yingjin. 2002. Screening China. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Chinese Studies,
University of Michigan.
————. 1996. The City in Modern Chinese Literature and Film: Configurations of
Space, Time and Gender. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
List of movies
Beijing Bicycle [十七岁的单车] (2000), Dir. Wang Xiaoshuai
Bumming in Beijing – The Last Dreamers [流浪北京-最后的梦想着] (1990), Dir.
Wu Wenguang
Call Me [呼我] (1999), Dir. Ah Nian
China In The Red (2003), Dir. Sue Williams
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/red/
Keep Cool [有话好好说] (1997), Dir. Zhang Yimou
Little Shan Goes Home [小山回家] (1995), Dir. Jia Zhangke
Not One Less [一个都不能少] (1998), Dir. Zhang Yimou
On The Beat [民警故事] (1995), Dir. Ning Ying
Railroad Of Hope [希望的铁路] (2002), Dir. Ning Ying
So Close To Paradise [扁担姑娘] (1998), Dir. Wang Xiaoshuai
The Story of Qiu Ju [秋菊打官司] (1992), Dir. Zhang Yimou
The Village of Ten Acres [十亩地] (2001), Dir. Chen Boshan
Together [和你在一起] (2003), Dir. Chen Kaige
1 Translation taken from Jacka (1998, 45).
2 On the difficulty of estimating the numbers of migrants see for example: Solinger 1999, 17-23 and
Mallee 1995, 113-114.
3 These movies can be seen as part of a wider cinematic trend, beginning in the mid 1990s,
characterized by a new look at urban space. These movies present us with a realistic, almost
documentary, look of China’s urban society. Made through relatively small productions, often outside of
official channels, rally to the front people, stories and problems that hitherto were ousted from public
debate.
4 Guldin describes an incident he had witnessed while traveling on a bus in Guangdong province, at
which a gang of swindlers is apparently tricking a migrant on the bus in order to cheat the other
passengers. The people who are being fooled, as well as the rest of the passengers accept this as a usual
incident (Guldin 2001, 223-224).
5 The change can be demonstrated for example by the view represented by Zhang Li in her research.
She demonstrates that the migrants’ belonging to the urban society is no longer determined solely by
their hukou status but they are also creating alternative models based on economic power, which she
calls “consumer citizenship” (Zhang Li 2001a 44-45, Zhang Li 2002). Using this emerging power the
migrants are trying to reshape social categories and social belonging, outside of the formal delaminated
urban citizenship.
6 Western research also points to few more important factors that ultimately push the migrants back to
their villages like the hukou system, the family plot, their need to marry and the higher status they
receive locally upon returning (Solinger 1999, 185; Solinger 1995, 119-125).
7 "Li Zhengxing…began his migration career in the early 1980s, doing all kinds of jobs at construction
sites in other provinces… In 1985, he went back to his home county, and set up a construction company
of his own." (“Rural Surplus Laborers Benefit from Labor Services” 1998)
8 Guldin illustrates how many migrants talk about their place of origin as “unchangeable”, pointing to the
geographical and mental distance from their present location (Guldin 2001, 251).