이주와 디아스포라― 중국영화에 재현된 뉴욕의 중국인

Abstract

This paper focuses on the representation in Chinese films of the Chinese immigrants in New York as a part of the Chinese ‘global migration.’ The global-scale migration of Chinese has first concentrated in Southeast Asia during the pre-modern era and then in North America in the modern and contemporary periods. Whereas immigrants to Southeast Asia departed directly from their hometown, the immigrants to North America arrived in New York via San Francisco, passing through cities of ‘regional migration’ such as Shanghai and Hong Kong. Sometimes, they also passed through Taipei. Thus, we can draw an itinerary line of modern Chinese global migration from their hometown, via Shanghai, Hong Kong and Taipei, and finally to New York. This itinerary falls into two stages: the journey from their hometown to Taipei falls into the regional migration stage and the one from China to North America belongs to the global migration stage. In retrospect, most Chinese immigrants to New York have in fact departed from Shanghai and Hong Kong. Indeed, Shanghai and Hong Kong, once well-known cities for domestic immigrants, functioned as gateways for international migration. This means that the Chinese who migrated to New York had two migration experiences: first from their hometown to Shanghai or Hong Kong and then the second to New York. As a representative city of global migration, New York has been a destination for European immigrants from England, Ireland, Germany, France and Italy, followed by African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Although all of them flocked into New York in search of the ‘American Dream,’ settling down in New York was a story of continuous hardship. Especially, the hostility and conflict among different immigrant communities in their attempts to overthrow the existing ‘hierarchial structure of power’ were interspersed with feud and violence. Diaspora is related to the nostalgic behavior of those who do not forget their hometown and preserve their native customs (or practices considered to be customs), notwithstanding their physical existence away from home. Though it has generally been regarded that the diaspora began with the migration of Jews, there has long been a global migration of Chinese and Indians, followed by contemporary global migration of Koreans. Wang Gungwu points out that the ‘Chinese nationalist identity’ that was formed among overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia after 1911 developed as the ‘local national identity’ after 1950. However, ‘Chineseness’ is still problematic. This is because Chinese immigrants did not think of themselves as deserting their homeland, but believed that they would someday return home in glory. Even though they acquired a new citizenship, they still thought that they were only staying there temporarily, rather than settling down permanently. Here we need to take a look at Stuart Hall’s notion of ‘migrant-hood.’ According to him, each and every immigrant faces two questions: “Why are you here?” and “When are you going back?” The immigrant cannot realize the fact that he or she is not going back until being asked the second question. Migration is a one-way trip. We should pay attention to the dual consciousness: still dreaming for coming back in glory while knowing that he or she is not going back. The Chinese immigrants in New York, as a representative type of modern Chinese migration, embody this dual consciousness. As for the first generation, they have the experience of moving first to Shanghai or Hong Kong from their hometowns (‘regional migration’) and then again ultimately to New York (‘global migration’). Because of this dual experience, they possess a different diasporic identity from the one shared by overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. Since they immigrated directly from their hometowns, the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia have maintained a strong group identity based on dialect. However, Chinese immigrants in New York feel a firm connectedness to China as a nation-state, rather than a feeling of hometown nostalgia. Their experience of passing through Shanghai and Hong Kong must have diluted to some degree their hometown nostalgia. In addition, their migration to the distant place must have strengthened their ‘we-ness’ and awakened their identity as Chinese. They have both a nostalgia for their hometown and a pride in their motherland. They do not easily abandon their Chineseness. However, the second and third generations are slightly different. In general, they are more inclined to feel the ‘local national identity’ than ‘Chinese nationalist identity.’ But their Chineseness has been repossessed and reconstructed through their incessant negotiations with the earlier generations.