Then they are no longer English teachers, they are business owners.
I think that you are attempting to lump a very diverse group of people into one category for convenience of analysis, but there is not really one group of “English teachers” in Taiwan any more than there is one group of “foreigners”.
No truer words were ever said. Every person is an individual, as practitioners of homeopathy tell us. In fact, every person is so unique and individual that we really should dispense with any attempts to generalize from one person to another. All we should talk about is how every individual’s life is unique. There are anthropologists who ascribe to such values, but I really don’t think that gets us very far.
I have had many criticisms of my work, but this is the first time I ever heard my use of the term ‘foreign English teacher’ is so broad as to be meaningless. Being the only person I’ve ever heard say this, perhaps you could elaborate on why you think so.
Well, just briefly, you have everything from backpackers through long-timers married to the culture or a Taiwanese national. There is a considerable range there. And “class” is frequently defined by how one is perceived. This is particularly true in the case of foreigners where the usual identifying tags of class or status are not available (most foreigners didn’t go to University A or B in Taiwan, etc. etc., and income information is often inaccurate for them; they don’t tend to belong to organizations that would give Taiwanese a clue about where they “belong” in society either.) So IMHO perception plays a heightened role in having Taiwanese society decide where foreigners “belong”.
But I thought we’d gone over this. What you’re talking about may have a name, but it’s not ‘class’. - or at least social class in the sense that I’ve been talking about it. I’d go over this again, but it’s probably best that you have a look at the comment where I talk about this distinction. You can also have a look at the comments from Nanahottie.
It’s interesting to me that the first person to click onto what I was referring to (Nanahottie) is also the same person who has shown such sensitivity to issues of race and ethnicity in other posts.
Yes, we have been over this. But your delusions of grandeur notwithstanding, that it has been discussed before does not mean we’re all kowtowing to your point of view.
Scott is upholding his definition, because the op was referencing his blog post. I don’t think that’s delusions of grandeur - it’s just an opinion. Actually, I disagree with him, but I don’t think he expects others to kowtow to his point of view.
The first question that needs to be answered is whether any given foreigner in Taiwan is necessarily a part of any class in Taiwanese society, or whether the problem lies in the foreigner NOT being part of a class or the society at all. If one is constantly perceived as being outside the society, then naturally it will follow that the person will not have access to services.
At any rate, let’s consider one point you made above: English teachers have fewer children than other foreign workers. Um…what’s the demographic? Are you comparing people all of whom are in their social childbearing years (not simply their biological childbearing years)? What about the social reality that many of those teaching English are by definition doing it because they are not yet ready to “settle down” in their home countries? It’s great to take a statistic and say that it supports one’s conclusion, but there are so many factors operating here that I sincerely doubt it is as cut-and-dried as you think – even if we assume for the moment that all foreigners in Taiwan ARE classed in Taiwanese society.
Beware of overgeneralizations supported at best by highly selective anecdotal evidence frequently taken out of context.
Perhaps I read too much into his tone, but his response to ironlady of “I thought we’ve gone over this already” seemed to indicate an arrogant assertion that if she were to just read what he wrote earlier, she’d see just how wrong she is. But it’s obvious she did read his posts but simply disagrees with him.
[quote=“ironlady”]The first question that needs to be answered is whether any given foreigner in Taiwan is necessarily a part of any class in Taiwanese society, or whether the problem lies in the foreigner NOT being part of a class or the society at all. If one is constantly perceived as being outside the society, then naturally it will follow that the person will not have access to services.
[/quote]
IMO yes foreigners are defined as a class in TW society. It’s defined by our label-waigouren. For the TWese IMO think they have set rules and ways of being and dealing with it. Even if many foreigners have been in the country for many years, they are still apart of this class, that is distinct and separate from the collective group. Partly understandable, and partly legislated. It seems to me a black/white issue that only has gray areas when it comes to how well that foreigner is able to access opportunities for his personal life.
By your argument, “Blacks”, “women” or any other group that can be labelled is automatically a social class, and that is simply not the case.
Social class takes into account a variety of markers and a variety of contributing factors. Income is one possible factor; also educational attainment, race, religion, employment…the list goes on and on. A model that says all “foreigners” are one social class in Taiwanese society is so over-simplistic as to lose all explanatory value. Foreigners as a group may experience commonality in various aspects of their lives, but it doesn’t necessarily make them of one social class.
In fact, it’s not clear to me that Iron Lady has read the original post. This issue of friendliness and ‘classless people’ came up in the comments of the original blog post. A careful and focused reading of the links and comments would almost certainly answer these questions. This may be why Mao Man understands where I am coming from, although he disagrees with my conclusion, since he was a part of this original discussion.
Namahottie is correct in pointing out there are many different and similar categories of human interaction that are often confused with the idea of ‘class’. My whole position is predicated on the meaning of ‘class’ as access to the social and cultural resources of where you are living. Class exists whether you recognize it or not. Perhaps the disagreement is with this definition, but it’s a long stretch from there to the underdeveloped position of social class = friendliness.
The fact that English teaching provides only poor access to these resources is indexed by aspects of family life, such as childlessness. The fact that this characteristic among English teachers is more similar to South Asian labourers than I suspect anyone would have predicted is a significant point about the social positioning of English teachers living here. They are not provided with the access to the social and cultural resources that make these choices possible. As such, transient employment and childlessness among English teachers is a statement about what kind of life is possible for English teachers living in Taiwan. Some stay in it and are able to extract an acceptable standard of living, others are not, but maybe most find this social positioning unacceptable and leave.
This is a statement about social class.
Hmmm…and the fact that any South Asian laborer who becomes pregnant is immediately deported has nothing to do with the high rate of childlessness among them (and most of them have children back in the Philippines, BTW)…and the fact that many of the less-long-term English teachers might be more interested in drinking and casual sex than in having children, because they’re in a different demographic group than expat managers and would likely not be having children in their home countries yet either has nothing to do with the fact that they have fewer children, and nor does the fact that expat wives are more likely to be “living off their husbands” while in Taiwan and would conceivably (pun intended) have more time to deal with kids…nope, it’s all determined by social class. They have no pension, therefore they don’t have kids. Very neat and very unsupported.
Class is generally defined in terms of status or hierarchy, not as “access to social resources”. The latter may be a result of the former, but it is not the former.
You might also get a slightly better response from people if you took as much trouble to use the correct names of those who disagree with you as to use them for those who subscribe to your points. Kind of a major lapse for someone supposedly commenting so keenly on social phenomena, wouldn’t you say?
This is really getting monotonous for me. It would be better if you reread my original post and the comments I posted here. I have directly discussed all of the points from your last comment. The question of definition, I have specifically addressed 3 times here and in the original post. You’re going to have to tell me a lot more about why ‘status’ and ‘hierarchy’ are not just synonyms for access to social and cultural resources. It’s interesting how you are now demonstrating expertise on the prevalence of sexual and drinking behaviour among English teachers. To what do you owe this knowledge other than rumour? Presumably a reference other than posts on forumosa.
Regardless, I don’t see a big disagreement with my discussion of this. I don’t think I’m going to responding comments much more on this topic outside of my blog.
Is “culture industry” really a commonly used word when describing English teaching? If someone introduced themselves as working in the “culture industry” I wouldn’t have a clue what they were talking about.
In fact, there is no academic writing on foreign teachers. You could read the entire academic literature written on English teaching in Asia and be completely unaware that there are huge numbers of foreign teachers working in the industry. 'Culture industry, is a widely used term in sociology and anthropology to describe workers in places such as ethnic restaurants and entertainment. My point is that there is no reason not to label English teaching as a culture industry. I have written extensively about this here
scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweb … acher.html
and here
scottsommers.blogs.com/taiwanweb … index.html
On a topic related to my last remark, there is also a large research literature in education policy that discusses cram schools primarily in Japan. While the prominent place of English test training is discussed, there is no mention at all of conversation schools or the large number of foreign teachers employed in the industry.
[quote=“ScottSommers”]This is really getting monotonous for me. It would be better if you reread my original post and the comments I posted here. I have directly discussed all of the points from your last comment. The question of definition, I have specifically addressed 3 times here and in the original post. You’re going to have to tell me a lot more about why ‘status’ and ‘hierarchy’ are not just synonyms for access to social and cultural resources. It’s interesting how you are now demonstrating expertise on the prevalence of sexual and drinking behaviour among English teachers. To what do you owe this knowledge other than rumour? Presumably a reference other than posts on forumosa.
Regardless, I don’t see a big disagreement with my discussion of this. I don’t think I’m going to responding comments much more on this topic outside of my blog.[/quote]
No, Scott, I think it is you who are going to have to convince US that class IS tantamount to access to resources. And based on your reliance on sources like “Dave’s ESL Cafe” posts, I guess f.com posts are just as academically rigorous to prove one’s point.
The point is that you are drawing conclusions which are just as easily caused by other causes. You can’t say that English cram school teachers don’t have children and expats DO have children BECAUSE of the class they are in in Taiwan (unless of course it’s the actual “class” they’re teaching – some of the kids might be enough to put one off one’s procreational bent for quite some time! 
) There are, as has been stated, many other factors operating, and coming to this conclusion is IMHO a serious oversimplification and the reason why your post originated on a blog instead of in a refereed academic journal. Not that everyone has to publish to make a serious point, but there is usually more guarantee that a “second pair of eyes” has really taken a hard look at the arguments in a journal.
Yeah and funnily enough I know of ten English teaching couples who have young children born here where both parents are from abroad. And I also know many married foreigner couples who are teaching and saving their $$$ so that when they go home they have a good start ahead for mortgages and starting a family.
Some couples just don’t want to have children at all as well.
Just because you are an not an English teaching expat one should not assume that all other expats are Managers as the majority of the expats I deal with are not in management positions.
The variety of occupational classifications amongst expats is a varied as there are occupations.
Not all require tertiary qualifications. Some are business owners and some are employed by foreign firms and some by local firms.
The ones with the worst benefits are those teaching at colleges and universities. ( excluding English Teachers at cram schools )
IL if she moved back here would no doubt run her own business.
There are plenty of opportunities in Taiwan.
This is no doubt true. Every life is an individual life based on individual choices. However, I analyzed statistics provided by the ROC Ministry of Interior to reach this conclusion. Once again, I suggest that you have a look at the original link for more details.
[quote="ironlady]
No, Scott, I think it is you who are going to have to convince US that class IS tantamount to access to resources.[/quote]:loco:
IL, you live in the States, if I’m correct. When’s the last time you saw a welfare receipant at your doctor’s office?
Class is tantamount to access to resources.