The International Conference on
Education, Imperialism, and Resistance

August 10-11, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan

Organizers:

The International League of Peoples’ Struggle (ILPS) Working Group on Teachers, Researchers, and other Education Personnel;
International Center for Taiwan Social Studies (世新大學台灣社會研究國際中心)
Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies. (台灣社會研究季刊)

Venue:
S1204, She-Wo Building, Shih Hsin University,
No. 1, Lane 17, Sec. 1, Mu-Cha Rd., Taiepi
台北市木柵路一段17巷1號，世新大學舍我樓1204會議室

Imperialism is at the root of untold suffering for billions of people throughout the world. Imperialist banks and corporations reap huge profits from the exploitation of working people even as the world economy is racked by crises, the gap between rich and poor countries widens, hundreds of millions are thrown into unemployment, billions are kept in poverty, and environmental destruction proceeds unabated. The imperialist countries, led by the

United States

, wage wars of aggression to control valuable markets and resources and suppress revolutionary movements. All over the world, imperialism intensifies the oppression of women, exacerbates racial and ethnic conflicts, and incites discrimination against migrants.

In the guise of neoliberal globalization, imperialism is having a devastating impact on education. Drastic cuts in public spending for education have become the norm. Teachers, researchers, and other education personnel suffer deteriorating standards of living as salaries fail to keep up with rising costs. Large numbers are being laid off as governments close down schools and universities deemed inefficient. As education becomes the flashpoint for popular struggles, schools and universities are increasingly subjected to state repression.

Imperialism exercises an ever-tightening grip on education. The WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has placed liberalization of the so-called education market and the privatization of education on the agenda of future negotiations, along with other basic social services. Teaching and research are to an unprecedented extent driven and defined by corporate interests.

Imperialist control of education is a key element in imperialist domination of culture as a whole.

U.S.

imperialism, in particular, makes full use of the means at its disposal—chiefly its huge monopolies in mass media—to shape world public opinion according to its interests. Monopolies have increasing influence over curricula, education programs, institutional organization, and research agendas.

Struggle over knowledge and research is a key aspect of struggles against imperialism. On the one hand, imperialist domination of education and research is used to undermine people’s struggles. On the other, a critique of imperialist ideology can be an important tool in the struggle for radical structural change. Throughout the world today, education workers respond to imperialist globalization through solidarity and struggle to defend their rights and welfare, the people’s right to education, and advance the struggle for a more just and humane future for all.

The conference aims to bring together academics and social activists to put forward a progressive critique of imperialism and education. Participants to the conference will present critiques of aspects of imperialism and education including access to education, education sector reforms on neoliberal lines, right to education and livelihood, the political economy of education, the politics and theories of knowledge production and research, the impact of privatization and liberalization on educators and students and the impacts of education sector reforms on societies.

Day One August 10, Monday
Time	Activity	Panelists
8:30 – 9:00am	Registration
9:00 – 10:00am	Opening Program		Moderator: Antonio Tinio ACT-Philippines
	09:00—09:10 Welcome Remarks		Member of the the Working Group Secretariat and TEA-KOR rep on the ICC (alternate).
	09:10—09:20 Introduction of Local Context		Hsiao-Chuan Hsia Director, International Center for Taiwan Social Studies President, Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies
	09:20—09:50 Keynote Speech 1:		Professor Jose Maria Sison Chairperson, International League of Peoples Struggles
	09:50—10:00 Introduction of Conference Participants Messages
10:00 – 10:20am	Coffee Break
10:20—12:20pm	Panel 1: Education and Imperialism in Historical Context		Moderator: Barbara Waldern Pusan University of Foreign Studies
	“Managing Democracy”: Cold War American Universities in the Philippines From the Thomasites to the Monroe Survey: Historical Roots of Neoliberal Education in the Philippines Educational Politics at Carlisle: Re-reading and Re-writing American Imperialism from an Indian Perspective		Colleen Woods University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Francis A. Gealogo, Ateneo de Manila University Kiara M. Vigil University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
12:20 – 01:30pm	Lunch Break
01:30 – 03:30pm	Panel 2: Education and Markets		Moderator: Francis Gealogo Ateneo de Manila University
	Privatization of the University of the Philippines: Circumstance, Forms, Resistance The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism and the University of the Philippines UP-Ayala Techno-Hub: Big Business in Philippine Academe		Judy M. Taguiwalo, University of the Philippines R. Kwan Laurel, University of the Philippines Rolando B. Tolentino, University of the Philippines
Day Two August 11, Tuesday
Time	Activity		Panelists
09:30 – 10:00am	Keynote Speech 2:		GN Saibaba Professor, University of Delhi Vice Chair, ILPS
10:00 – 12:00 pm	Panel 3 : Ideology, Critical Pedagogies and Resistance		Moderator: Hsiao-Chuan Hsia Shi-Hsin University
	Triple Capacity Building as Critical Pedagogy: Teaching Students Doing Rural Social Work in China Unpacking Racial Ideologies in Taiwan Institutional Ethnography as Critical Pedagogy for Social Workers		Hok Bun Ku and Angelina, W. K. Yuen-Tsang The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Yih Yeh (Donna) Pan Akita International University Frank Tsen-Yung Wang National Yang-Ming University
12:00pm– 01:30pm	Lunch Break
1:30—03:30pm	Panel 4: Imperialism, Language and Culture		Moderator: Rolando B. Tolentino, University of the Philippines
	The Struggle for Philippine Studies: De-colonization of Filipino Bodies & Drained Brain English as a Foreign Language: Tool and Industry of Imperialism, and Strategies and Response by Communities, Hints for Progressive Educators Historical Insights into the Struggle for Linguistic Self-Determination in the Philippines		Nenita Pambid Domingo, University of California, Los Angeles Barbara Waldern, Pusan University of Foreign Studies Maria Teresa Tinio Ateneo de Manila University
03:30--03:50	Coffee Break
03:50—04:30	Closing program
06:00pm	Solidarity Dinner

Francis A. Gealogo
Associate Professor
Department of History
Ateneo de Manila University
Loyola Heights, Quezon City

Philippines

fgealogo@ateneo.edu

robklaurel@gmail.com

YihYeh (Donna) Pan

“Managing Democracy”: Cold War American Universities in the Philippines

In June of 1952 the University of Michigan opened the Institute of Public Administration at the University of the Philippines, one of the first foreign academic programs established in a recently decolonized nation. Under contract with the Mutual Security Agency, a newly formed governmental division whose director served on the National Security Council of the United States, the University of Michigan’s Institute of Public Administration was indeed only one of the many American academic programs created overseas following the Second World War. In fact, by 1953 thirty-two institutions of higher education in the United States had established international programs in governance and public policy located in recently independent or decolonizing nations in the global south.

Tracing the histories of the creation, policies, and practices of United States universities in newly independent nations highlights one of the complex ways that United States hegemony spread in the early Cold War period. In the era of crumbling European empires, the United States could not exert its influence solely through its own political, military, or economic institutions. In diverse locations around the globe, dominance required attaining at least a veneer of consent from foreign governments and populations. In this paper I focus on the pervasive discourses of “technical assistance” and “mutual cooperation” that underwrote the educational programs of American universities to show one of the ways that American hegemony in the Philippines was re-constructed after

Philippine decolonization. In looking at the University of Michigan’s efforts to educate Filipino citizens in ideas about public administration, I show precise ways in which the United States was able to export cultural values regarding governance in the post-independence, “post-colonial” world.

The imperial policy underscoring the spread of American universities was the idea of “managing a democracy” which was deeply based in modernization theories that promoted the idea that Filipinos simply did not know how to rule themselves and therefore needed to be guided and ‘technocratically trained’ in the proper ways to participate in a democratic system. Indeed, this was not a new line of argument and in fact, Filipino independence from the American colonial state was continually denied on these exact terms. Yet, the postwar conditions and the language of modernization ideology allowed for a different linguistic and cognitive framing of this old colonial claim. Modernization theory cast American democratic government as the most advanced and therefore the best form of governance. The idea that practices of “management in a democracy” could be transferred through educational programs established in newly independent nations explicitly highlights one of the ways that American imperialism expanded in the postwar era. I argue that examining the University of Michigan’s Institute of Public Administration at the University of the Philippines highlights that a diverse range of individuals, including both Filipino and American citizens, consented and contested American imperial projects and in the process reshaped the form of post-independence hegemony.

From the Thomasites to the Monroe Survey: Historical Roots of Neoliberal Education in the Philippines

Francis A. Gealogo
Ateneo de Manila University

The implementation of educational programs and policies has been regarded as the centerpiece of the American colonial establishment in the Philippines. The paper will trace the historical origins of such colonial policy via the assessment of specific programs implemented during the American occupation. Specifically, issues concerning the use of English as medium of instruction, the content of basic education curriculum, the recruitment of education personnel, as well as the general thrusts of the educational program as part of the attempts to 'pacify' the Philippine resistance against colonial domination -will all form part of the discussions. While the paper deals exclusively with the historical roots of the colonial orientation of Philippine education, it will also attempt to reflect on current issues and concerns as these conditions developed out of the century-long experience of direct and indirect colonial domination in the Philippines.

"Educational Politics at Carlisle: Re-reading and Re-writing American Imperialism from an Indian Perspective"

Zitkala Sa, Luther Standing Bear, and Charles Eastman are some of the more prominent Native American graduates and employees of the Carlisle Industrial School. As an experiment that fused together the tools of state-funded education with the ideology of imperialism, Carlisle aimed to shape the identities of its Indian students in order to transform them into proper United States citizens. Founded by Richard Henry Pratt in 1879, a large component of understanding Carlisle's mission and impact is to examine the politics of Pratt, who infamously stated that civilizing indigenous people meant you had to "Kill the Indian, but save the man." To these ends, Pratt required each student to attend mass regularly. Fittingly, he came to be known as the "Red Man's Moses." Carlisle functioned as an agent of empire on the domestic front, and produced its own newspapers and photographic evidence to dominate debates about the role of education in the U.S. regarding Indian peoples up until its closing in 1918. The history of Carlisle is very much a history of U.S. nationalism, a process which relied on discourses that sought to define Indians in opposition to Americans, by defining the former in terms of "savagery" and the latter in terms of civilization. Carlisle's mission, therefore, required the removal of Indian children from their indigenous communities in order to erase any traces of their "un-civilized" native culture so that they might be more easily educated and assimilated into American culture and society. All three of these Indian figures were involved with the Carlisle "experiment" and went on to write and publish texts that provide us with their insights into Carlisle as an institution as well as the broader issues of the late nineteenth and early twentieth-century period concerning the "Indian Question" in American cultural and political history. They also offer us critical perspectives from which to evaluate the role of the U.S. as an empire through specific institutional sites, like schools. This paper will analyze the writings of Sa, Standing Bear, and Eastman to offer a critical re-reading and re-writing of Carlisle in order to illuminate broader concerns regarding the roles of Indians in American cultural and political history. More specifically, I will argue that the very tools of empire, such as using educational training to assimilate "Indians into Americans" were the same tools that enabled each of these figures to turn writing and reading into weapons of resistance to critique U.S. imperialism and nationalism.

Privatization of the University of the Philippines: Circumstance, Forms, Resistance

Privatization of government run educational institutions is a component of imperialist globalization. My paper will deal with the ongoing privatization of the University of the Philippines, formerly known as the premier state university of the country, now officially known as the national university with the passage of its second charter replacing its 1908 founding charter. I will describe the circumstance and forms of the privatization of the university and relate this with educational policies dictated by multi lateral globalization institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The paper will also highlight the resistance that organized faculty, staff and students have made.

The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism and the University of the Philippines

The University of the Philippines is currently under the sway of the cultural logic of late capitalism. The Revised General Education Program (RGEP) has changed the core curriculum of the University from one of requiring students to taking certain classes, like Philippine history, to opening up the range of choices, following the market logic that the consumer has the right to take what appeals to his or her taste. Thus from the modernist vision of producing the universal man who will serve society, the vision is now of producing people who will serve multinational capital. This paper, “The Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism and the University of the Philippines,” seeks to understand the ideological coordinates (the beginnings and consequences) of those who pushed the RGEP, and how the then University administration, headed by Francisco Nemenzo, purportedly Marxist and nationalist in orientation, could allow not only the neoliberal ideology to become policy, but to actually open the doors of the University to the entry of multinational companies to set up business process outsourcing offices on campus.

UP-Ayala Techno-Hub: Big Business in Philippine Academe

Rolando B. Tolentino
University of the Philippines Diliman

The paper investigates the centerpiece project of commercialization of the University of the Philippines, the premier state university in the country. The UP-Ayala Techno-Hub purports to be an exemplary collaboration between the private sector and academe. Composed of a series of sleek low-rise buildings in the Commonwealth area of the Diliman campus, the Techno-Hub also marks the largest business involvement in Philippine academe. The paper analyzes the impact of such collaboration that paves the way for the intensification of future engagements of business and academe on the one hand, and newer forms of resistance on the other hand.

Triple Capacity Building as Critical Pedagogy: Teaching Students Doing Rural Social Work in China

This paper contains our reflections about our experiences in employing a triple capacity building model for training students to conduct community development work in rural China. The triple capacity building approach subscribes to critical pedagogy, which calls for a reinvention of self by challenging tradition and culture and by transforming instituted selves to become a reflexive subjectivity with critical curiosity about society, power, inequality, and social change. By advocating equality of participation in community development practices and by using the approach of dialogical education, participants can gradually transform themselves into and embody this critical subjectivity.

This study critically examines Han-Taiwanese teacher education students’ racial ideologies in both national and global contexts. The current Asian American racial studies only look at Asian immigrants’ racial views in the U.S. context, and do not take a further step to study their racial views in their home countries. This study adds a further layer to our understanding of race relations and racial ideologies by looking at Asians living in an Asian country.

The participants in this study are students in teacher education programs at different universities and currently serve their teaching internship in elementary school. This study utilized qualitative research based on individual interviews, journal writing and focus groups. The analytical framework in this study employed critical race methodology that assists in providing an understanding of how colorblind racial ideologies influence these preservice teachers’ attitudes toward other racial groups in both national and global contexts.

The findings reveal that these preservice teachers’ comfort to white hegemonic discourse and perpetuate racism in both national and global contexts. The internalization of whiteness and influences of colorblind ideologies make them become racial unawareness of their privilege to minority groups. In addition, although racial discussions are not encouraged in Taiwanese society, colorblind racism does occur through social policies, interracial marriages, housing integration and schooling.

Findings in this study suggest that anti-racist curriculum should be employed in teacher education programs in order to assist student in developing critical thinking and awareness of racism and racial issues. The anti-racist curriculum also helps to accentuate the needs of more racially based research done in Taiwan to undress colorblindness of Han Taiwanese in both Taiwan and the global white-dominant racial system.

In traditional Marxist analysis, social work tends to be seen as a means of social control to pacify class conflicts and therefore social workers become barriers rather than catalyst for consciousness-raising among disadvantaged peoples. Such critique points out the problem but fails to provide the solution. Discrediting social workers as the accomplice of social control for capitalism is not sufficient enough to develop critical consciousness among social workers. That is, a critical pedagogy for social workers is necessary. This paper reflects upon the authors' experiences of teaching and learning institutional ethnography, which is developed by the Canadian sociologist, Dorothy Smith, as a way of critical pedagogy for social workers. The strengths of institutional ethnography lie in its ability to capture the exercises of micro power relations and link to the macro power relations. The emphasis on text as medium for ruling relations fills

in the gap of current conceptualization of power in the field of social work practices. Examples will be drawn to illustrate the critical moments of consciousness transformation among social work students. Implications for pedagogical practices among helping professions will be discussed as conclusion

The Struggle for Philippine Studies: De-colonization of Filipino Bodies & Drained Brain

The Philippines and the United States have a long standing relationship since the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, when the Philippines was bought by the United States for US$20 Million which ended more than 350 years of Spanish colonization of the islands and the advent of US imperialism. The first Americans to be transplanted to Philippine soil were the army and the Thomasites or American teachers to help in the task of pacification and “civilizing the natives” who had fought and liberated their homeland from Spanish colonial yoke. Filipinos have been cloned and drained brain of their native thought and tastes successfully through the public educational system utilizing English as medium of instruction, and western paradigms and school of thought. As a result of this, some Filipinos have a low regard for their indigenous languages, patterns of thought, and culture.

According to US Census (2000), Filipinos comprise the second largest Asian population. Filipino/Tagalog language ranks 4^th among the most commonly spoken languages at home, nation wide after English and Spanish. However, majority of second generation Filipinos born and raised in the United States no longer speak the language of their parents flooding the language classes, but remaining in the margins, silenced due to budgetary cuts, and less priority for a non-major, non-minor, less commonly-taught language, in Western scholarship, global business, politics, and economics. Some scholars utilize material culture such as shards of pottery and other artifacts to study the effects and consequences of colonialism, imperialism, and globalization. In the U.S. this author and her students, and the more than one million Filipino residents are the living proof or artifacts of Spanish and American colonialism. In this context, the presentation will focus on the struggle and attendant challenges of second generation Filipinos to reclaim their identity, and to make their voices be heard through the campaign to establish Filipino language classes and Philippine Studies as a valid field of intellectual discipline and investigation in the United States.

English as a Foreign Language: Tool and Industry of Imperialism, and Strategies and Response by Communities, Hints for Progressive Educators

This paper asks how far EFL is hegemonic and what should be done about it. While structures and processes of monopoly capitalism result in certain measures of cultural and linguistic displacement and domination generally and in certain contexts, communities generally respond by resisting or transforming the imposed or intersecting languages and cultures. Mintz (1977), for one, called this sort of transformation “creolization.”

Since the latter half of the 20th century, many important social theorists have explored the processes of domination accomplished by cultural production and reproduction, many examining language and education in particular. Taking a critical theory approach, Macedo, Dendrinos and Gounari (2003) worry about the hegemony of English and education in the United States. This paper, for its part, discusses English language education worldwide and favours the political economy approach of Roseberry (1989).

Some scholarly data (Graddol 2007) is presented to inform readers of the actual status of English language use and education globally. Some indicators of Canada’s involvement in international English language education are given, followed by some descriptive details of English language education in the Republic of Korea.

Some problems of English language education in South Korea are exposed and discussed (Park 2008 and this author’s practical experience). The analysis proposes that specific realities of acculturation processes and human agency such as resistance and other phenomena that impede foreign language acquisition, should not be underestimated.

English is one of many of the languages of imperialism today. Therefore, the problems of democracy, cultural displacement and national autonomy remain.. Foreign language teaching can be taught in ways that improve democracy in education and strengthen national autonomy and cultural identity. This paper discusses philosophical and theoretical debates with that aim in mind (e..g., Biesta 2006; Macedo et al 2003; Kivisto 2005).

Historical Insights into the Struggle for Linguistic Self-Determination in the Philippines

Recent proposed legislation in the Philippine Congress provides for a return to the exclusive use of English as the medium of instruction in all schools. A good number of linguists have criticized the proposal for its disregard of the many studies that have shown that learning is best done in the child’s vernacular. Social critics have also criticized the proposal for its narrow vision of development—a development that is based on the idea that an English speaking citizenry will be a boon to attracting foreign investments, will ensure the Philippines’ dominance in the call-center industry, and will give the millions of nurses, seamen, and domestic and entertainment workers a competitive advantage.

The battle for securing a place for the local languages and a national language in the face of a persistent colonial campaign to establish English has a one-hundred year history. Though current Philippine linguistic histories barely mention these campaigns, there is a rich abundance of archival evidence that indicate that the struggle for linguistic self-determination was valiantly fought and had minor gains but also major losses. This paper presents an overview of the relentless American campaign to ensure the permanent place of English in Philippine society and the equally relentless campaign by local writers, activists, and legislators to secure, early on, a central space for the local vernaculars and to create a national language. It aims bring to light a silenced part of Philippine linguistic history in the hope of illustrating that this recent legislation will bring back the turn-of-the-century, colonial discourses on language and will erase the small gains earned toward linguistic self-determination.

About the ILPS

What the ILPS stands for:

The International League of Peoples' Struggle (ILPS) is an anti-imperialist and democratic formation. It promotes, supports and develops the anti-imperialist and democratic struggles of the people of the world against imperialism and all reaction.

It has a broad mass character and not subordinate to any political party, government or religion and affords equality to all participating organizations.

It strives to realize the unity, cooperation and coordination of anti-imperialist and democratic struggles throughout the world.

The League fights for the following:

5. Independent trade union and workers' and toilers' rights and reduction of working hours at full pay against mass unemployment and decreasing wage levels;

9. Children's rights against child labour, sexual abuse and other forms of exploitation;

10. Rights of indigenous peoples, oppressed nations and nationalities against chauvinism and racism;

13. Science and technology for the people and development, and environmental protection;

15. Justice and indemnification for the victims of illegal arrest and detention;

16. Rights and welfare of displaced homeless persons, refugees and migrant workers;

Our aims and activities:

1. To stimulate, facilitate and coordinate common lines of action and undertake definite actions on the aforesaid concerns and issues,

2. To cooperate with all possible organizations, institutions and personages in the attainment of the aims and purposes of the League,

3. The activities of the League include:
advocacy, research, publications, conferences, seminars and social and political action.

Who Can Join the League?

1. Any organization that agrees with the charter of the League may apply or may be invited to become a participating organization of the League.

2. The application shall be evaluated and acted upon by the International Coordinating Committee within one year from such application or invitation.

3. All participating organizations shall assume responsibilities in accordance with the resolutions and decisions of the International Assembly.

5. A participating organization may cease to be such by resignation, self-dissolution or by expulsion for serious violation of this charter, resolutions or decisions of the International Assembly.

6. All participating organizations shall maintain their independence and initiative and shall accordingly have equal basic rights and duties.

Founding of the League :

The International League of Peoples' Struggle (ILPS) was founded on 25 May 2001 in Zutphen, the Netherlands in its First International Assembly (FIA).

The FIA was attended by 339 delegates and guests, representing 218 mass organizations from 40 countries: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, England, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Scotland, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and USA.

From 25 to 27 May 2001, the delegates deliberated on and ratified the charter of the ILPS, passed resolutions the concerns of the League and elected the members of the International Coordinating Committee (ICC).

Fifteen workshops were held addressing the issues of most of the 18 concerns. Resource speakers made very informative presentations, draft resolutions were deliberated on, and country experiences were shared. The resolutions formulated by the different workshop groups were submitted and approved in the plenary session. Resolutions on specific issues and country situations were also submitted for signing by individual members.

It was a historic moment for all progressive forces throughout the world who are fighting for national independence, democracy and social liberation against imperialism and reaction.

Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies is an international refereed journal in the Chinese language. Publishing four times a year since 1988, the journal has released 74 issues by June 2009.

Based in Taipei, the Journal positions itself in the intersection of Taiwan, Greater China, the (East) Asia region and the global arena.

The mission of the Journal has been to publish quality interdisciplinary scholarly work in Humanities and Social Sciences. Over the past 20 years, The Journal has firmly established its reputation as one of the most influential intellectual journals in the East Asia region, and is the only widely read and circulated quarterly academic journal throughout the Chinese speaking world.

Formed by a group of young scholars in 1988, the Journal was the first independent journal prepared before and published right after the lifting of martial law. Unlike most of the academic journals in Taiwan, which were meant to serve the interest of academic institutional sponsors and the circulation and readership of which are extremely limited, the Journal has been self-funded and positioned itself as a platform to foster critical intellectual work. The Journal’s independent status distinguishes it from most other local journals and has allowed the Journal to be a pioneer in Taiwan’s humanities and social sciences community in advancing socially relevant scholarship, as well as in promoting the blind reviewing process.

From its inception, the Journal has seen itself as a part of the larger intellectual movement to advance democratic causes in Taiwan. To do so, besides publishing, we have organized regular public forums to address issues directly connecting social realities and contradictions.

The Journal aimed to be an interdisciplinary publication from day one. The editorial board members have always come from varying fields of humanities and social sciences, such as economics, sociology, social work, political science, anthropology, history, urban studies, philosophy, literature, gender and sexuality studies, and cultural studies. Many have also been actively involved in intellectual activities and social movements. The Journal naturally commits to theorizing for and reflecting upon diverse forms and practices of the movements.

Because of its commitment to the social causes, the Journal has regularly organized public forums to discuss emerging social and political issues (see http://web.bp.ntu.edu.tw/WebUsers/taishe/), and the analyses are reflected in the content of the journal, in both the refereed essays and the section on issues and problems. The Journal group believes that this is the best way that we can participate in social transformations.

In the past 20 years, the Journal has delivered its promise to generate a “tradition” of independent intellectual thought. The Journal has survived without institutional sponsorship; this means that its persistent credibility has won the trust and support of a wide readership. The Journal has become the most valuable resource for local and international scholarship. For instance, among the MA theses and PhD dissertations, the Journal has been the most often cited reference. Beyond Taiwan, in the larger milieu of the Chinese speaking and writing world, the Journal has won its reputation as a rigorous and open forum to include scholarship produced in the international arena. Globally, the Journal is widely accepted as an authoritative source for the study of Taiwan, and the representative space of critical intellectual work done in Taiwan.

Although Taiwan based, Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies has always believed in locating the local concerns in the larger regional and global contexts. We have, from the very beginning, actively published materials beyond the concerns of Taiwan. Especially since the democratic transition in the mid 1990s, we have enlarged our concerns to connect with mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and other parts of East Asia, especially Korea and Japan. Since 2000, in response to conditions of globalization, regionalization and the escalating cross-strait interactions, the Journal has gradually internationalized itself by establishing an international advisory board and actively inviting established scholars outside Taiwan to join the editorial board.

Because of the quality of the publication, has also been recognized by academic communities across East Asia as a credible journal. Many essays published in the journal have been subsequently translated into English, Korean, Japanese, Italian, and German, among other languages.

International Center for Taiwan Social Studies was established on August 1, 2007, as a joint project by Shih Hsin University and Taiwan: A Radical Quarterly in Social Studies. The Center aims at creating a platform to advance interaction and collaboration among progressive scholars, educators and activists. Shih Hsin University has established its reputation as being part of Taiwan’s democratic movement. With his unalloyed ethical principles, Mr. Cheng She-Wo, the founder of Shih Hsin University , has devoted his lifetime to education, journalism, and politics often in defiance of the powerful and the wealthy. During the martial-law decades, Shih Hsin appointed to its faculty numerous dissent intellectuals who were persecuted and prevented from employment elsewhere. As a safe haven for freedom of ideas and expression, the university thus became a natural choice for dissidents, who, regardless of their vastly diverse political views, could share the podium and enjoy the freedom afforded by Shih Hsin. The university is proud of its heritage as an active participant in the history of Taiwan 's democratic movement.