The Chinese Peranakan identity in Post-colonial Singapore 1950s - 2000s
Most scholarship look at the period from the 1890s to the 1930s for answers to the origins of the Chinese Peranakan identity, overlooking the interregnum between the 1950s and the 2000s. While some studies studied the construction of the Peranakan identity in the museum and theatre performances...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Final Year Project |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Nanyang Technological University
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/147286 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
Summary: | Most scholarship look at the period from the 1890s to the 1930s for answers to the
origins of the Chinese Peranakan identity, overlooking the interregnum between
the 1950s and the 2000s. While some studies studied the construction of the
Peranakan identity in the museum and theatre performances in this period, how the
Peranakans negotiated with the discourses on their identity was not explored. This
thesis traces the societal changes experienced by the Chinese Peranakans from the
1950s to the 2000s and explores the reconstruction of the Chinese Peranakan
identity between the 1980s and the 2000s. Between the 1950s and the 1970s, the
end of Japanese Occupation did not bring about a total eradication of the pre-world
war two social conventions among the Straits Chinese families. Nevertheless, the
visible societal changes prompted some Peranakans to promote their culture and
heritage, bringing about the ‘Peranakan cultural revival’ from the 1980s to the
2000s. Yet, the popular publications, newspaper articles, and the oral interviews
with the Peranakans living in this period demonstrated competing and contrasting
beliefs and perspectives on the Peranakan identity that did not necessarily fit the
narratives propagated by the revival. Therefore, this thesis argues that the Chinese
Peranakan identity carried a set of heterogenous meanings even within a particular
historical context because the bearers of this identity negotiated with their lived
experience and produced different responses to being a ‘Peranakan’. |
---|