The Trap of the Minzu Category: Viewing the Everyday Ethnicity of Mongolian-minzu Elites in Beijing

There are two presumed images of today’s China widely spread all over the world: The first one highlights China’s centralized politics, integrated socioeconomic development and ideological control. It portrays that the entire Chinese population speaks the same Chinese language, has a uniform way of life, and celebrates Chinese nationalism. The second, on the contrary, is mosaic-like and delineates China’s distinct divisions, multiculturalism, and growing sub-nationalism. Such stark contrasts between these two images raise questions about the relationship between China’s nation-building in the sense of ensuring a civic identity or universal Chineseness and its management of internal diversity. Moreover, it triggers interests in the broader sociology of ethnicity, nationalism, and dynamics of cultural heterogeneity. This research examines the formation of minzu categories in China and the daily activities and interactions among the “Mongolian-minzu elites”, a specific social cohort in Beijing. This cohort includes individuals born from 1984 to 1995 who have both education-based mobility and state-certificated membership of the Mongolian-minzu, one of the officially recognized ethnic nationalities in the composition of the Chinese collective citizenry. They are initially from China’s ethnic autonomous areas, have grown up with significant social changes, and share the experience of being empowered by China’s most elite-oriented universities during the reconstruction of the national educational system. Usually, they are assumed to have assimilated into mainstream society and attained Chinese literacy, professional skills, civic awareness, and necessary resources for civil engagements. Similar elite-level migrants are even considered flexible in presenting and negotiating their identities; however, these Mongolian-minzu elites are seemingly “trapped” as they constantly feel like defending certain ethnic boundaries in their daily and discursive interactions. The significance of this research roots in the contrasts between two widely presumed images of today’s China: The first one highlights China’s centralized politics, integrated socio-economic development and ideological control. It portrays that the entire Chinese population speaks the same Chinese language, has a uniform way of life, and celebrates Chinese nationalism. The second, on the contrary, is mosaic-like and delineates China’s distinct divisions, multiculturalism, and growing sub-nationalism. Such stark contrasts have raised questions about the relationship between China’s nation-building in the sense of ensuring a civic identity or universal Chineseness and its management of internal diversity, and triggered interests in the broader sociology of ethnicity, nationalism, and dynamics of cultural heterogeneity. This research is conceived as an attempt to provide ethnographic accounts to inform such contrasts, as well as to initiate answers and discussions. Moreover, this research determines to combine sociological perspectives newly developed by American and European theorists with expertise in China studies. It begins with a critical literature review of contemporary communist policies and the historical settings of the Mongolian-minzu, and it then turns to Rogers Brubaker’s theoretical framework on institutionalized politics, his proposed “everyday ethnicity” approach and the “wait-and-listen” method. Through careful field observations and in-depth interviews, this thesis sketches how targeted participants’ occupational choices, schooling, networking and wider social engagements have been influenced by officially designated positionalities and by the “minzu category” itself. It argues that economics, regional politics, and even the existence of schools and individuals’ understanding of the importance of education are integrated by the state’s attempts to transform its ideological realm. The downsides of social capital are also aggregated both inside Mongolian members and among interactions between their Han counterparts. However, the findings further suggest that such aggregation or institutionalization may not necessarily manifest in conflicts or rebellions but foster collaborations for ethnic minorities with the state, especially regarding state-guaranteed development for ethnic economy and culture.