| Enshi Prefecture in west Hubei, China, is described as an “ethnic” (minzu) area, but local people have widely shown their ignorance of and indifference to their “ethnic” identities. In response to this situation, scholars have long depended on ambiguous theories, such as “sinicization” (becoming Han), “powerful outsiders' manipulation,” or “cultural exchange among ethnic groups,” to give explanations. In this anthropological study, applying symbolic and ecological perspectives I examine the local food symbolism to investigate the pattern of Enshiese identity-awareness in their ordinary lives. In the several “most typical Tujia, Miao, Dong, and Han” villages that local cadres recommended to me, I find no ethnic boundary from local agroecosystem construction, selection of a set of basic foods, cooking strategy, flavouring pattern, meal pattern, meal structure, food rules, and local knowledge of food plants. According to anthropologists, however, these customs are the key areas where people set up collective-identity markers. In fact, all villagers, regardless of their “ethnic” titles, share a highly unified food system, in which hezha, a soybean dish, has come to the fore and become a symbol. Local villagers do have significant differences in their festival foodways for the lunar New Year, but no ethnic boundary can be found in this respect either as these differentiated customs are strictly guided by each lineage's tradition. Therefore, I argue that Enshiese in their ordinary lives focus only on “regional and lineage identity.” Their regional identity/culture is commonly shared and open to changes, while their lineage identity (including the lineage-group identity) is relatively exclusive and considerably resistant to change. Any of the officially maintained “ethnic groups” not only crosses regions (Chinese culture has obvious regional difference) but also covers people from many unrelated lineages. Ever since the 1950s, scholars have used the Enshiese regional (commonly shared) and lineage (privately owned) identity markers indiscriminatingly to study the “ethnic” cultures, which results in great confusions and contradictions. The related policy-benefits may attract applicants for an ethnic identity, but for certain common people the application for some special or unheard-of “ethnonyms” is a new way to stress their peculiar lineage identity. |
