追蹤
越南社會文化學習網
關於部落格
唉!寫了一堆簡歷,發現實在沒什麼用處,還是說說我打算如何經營此部落好了。現在台灣雖然有大量的越南籍女性配偶,也有許多台商到當地投資,但翻遍文獻,就是找不到相關的越南社會文化資料。希望透過這個部落,可以慢慢蒐集一些資料,供有興趣的人參考。
  • 74123

    累積人氣

  • 25

    今日人氣

    1

    追蹤人氣

韓國、台灣的婚姻移民統計意識型態




In this paper, we examined survey data on immigrant spouses
produced in Taiwan and South Korea. This exercise helps to uncover
the underlying assumptions about immigrants implied by these data.
Overall, the construction of immigrants and ethnicity that we document
suggests three ideologies: assimilation, patriarchy and nationalism.

First, despite political discourse on multiculturalism, the desire to
‘erase’ differences and promote assimilation underlies the survey
questionnaires analysed in this paper. It is not diversity that is
surveyed here, but, rather, how to make these female ‘others’ like
‘us’ or how to inscribe ‘Koreanness’ and ‘Taiwaneseness’ in their
bodies and minds (Lan 2008). In both countries, immigrant spouses
are foreigners, but ‘foreigners’ who belong to national families.
Programs and services offered to migrant spouses such as cooking
lessons are aimed at teaching female immigrants how to become like
‘us’, a marker of successful assimilation. One glitch with assimilation
lies with migrants’ children who embody an ambiguous status. They
belong to national families and they have paternal national blood, but
their socialization might be jeopardized due to the inadequacy or
limited capabilities of their biological foreign mothers. The challenge
of integrating the second generation looms large for the future of both
societies. South Korea’s very recent abandonment of the terms ‘pure
blood’ and ‘mixed blood’ persons in official documents indicates a
near past of uneasiness with so-called mixed children, particularly
Amerasian children born in the aftermath of the war. Most of those
living in South Korea are blatantly discriminated against; many have
been given for international adoption while others have managed to
emigrate abroad. The emphasis of Taiwanese population policy on
‘population quality’ alludes to the perils of non-Chinese migrants from
poor and undeveloped nations. That immigrant women are giving
birth to a significant proportion of the nation’s next generation of
children is a reality that has not been fully accepted by many.


Second, patriarchy contributes to limiting the contours of how these
immigrants are constructed by governments. By essentially constructing
these women as wives, daughters-in-law and mothers located in a
patriarchal order, these surveys give little room for migrants’ voices,
agency, resourcefulness, desires and aspirations as new citizens. The
analysis has thus shown how the surveys gender these migrants as
inferior ‘others’. This ideology powerfully shapes the social construction
of immigrant spouses that prevails not only in governments but in
the media and among the public. If immigrant spouses can access legal
citizenship, they are far from having achieved social citizenship as full
members of their host societies. They remain primarily seen as
‘spouses’ and ‘foreign’ rather than immigrants and new citizens. The
lack of national data on employment of foreign immigrant spouses for
instance indicates that their perceived primary sphere of belonging is
the household rather than the labour market. Given these two
countries’ shortages of unskilled labour and their reliance on foreign
temporary workers for this sector of the labour market, the continued
compartmentalisation of migrants as either ‘migrant workers’ or
‘foreign spouses’ in data supports a patriarchal ordering of migrants,
organized along gender lines and migrants’ status at entry.

The third ideology that permeates statistics produced by these
surveys is nationalism. Despite a desire to assimilate immigrant
spouses, they will always be foreigners. Foreign-born co-ethnics are
preferred but remain foreigners. While immigrant spouses from China
form the largest group of immigrant spouses in both countries, they
are systematically singled out in data through the creation of specific
categories and, in the case of Taiwan, by a difficult and long route to
citizenship and limited access to the labour market. In both Taiwan
and South Korea, historical and current political relations with
Mainland China make immigrant spouses from this country worthy
of special interest, not only for the promotion of their integration, but
also as a group to ‘monitor’ to protect the nation’s stability, safety and
competitiveness. Nationalism in Taiwan and South Korea differs, has a
diverse history, and has emerged in different contexts, but this ideology
impacts both governments in constructing statistics on new immigrants.
These complex and contradictory constructed identities of women
and the ideologies that underlie statistical data take us back to Rallu,
Piche´ and Simon’s (2005) typology of approaches to ‘counting’.
Taiwan and South Korea do not fit into one particular category;
instead, they are a mix. First, given the underlying assimilation
ideology of the surveys examined in this paper, the counting, to
some extent, is aimed at controlling immigrant spouses. Although the
aim is to assimilate and measure the degree of assimilation, data
produced through these surveys may instead reinforce exclusion and
stereotypes. Second, despite discourse on multiculturalism, the surveys
do not display multicultural values. Finally, the surveys are evidently
conducted to promote positive action through an assessment of the
need for social services; however, there is little room for immigrants’
voices, since their categories of needs are defined in rather constraining
ways. Given the confines of the current ‘foreign wife’ box, immigrant
women’s resourcefulness, agency and ability to contribute to society as
citizens have yet to be acknowledged through data and knowledge
production.
相簿設定
標籤設定
相簿狀態