In the early twentieth century, the workhouse appeared to have lost its function of employment and acceptable accommodation. Originally the workhouse, as its name suggests, aimed to put the idlers at work. As mentioned before, since the lack of labor caused by the Black Death in the sixteenth century, England has had its custom of anti-idleness, which resulted in the workhouses which Orwell experiences during his investigation. However, contrary to workhouse’s original ideals, the lodgers are simply kept busy but actually doing futile jobs, such as peeling the potatoes or chopping the wood, leaving other time in suffocation of boredom. Orwell criticizes that the work is “a mere formality” to keep the tramps occupied (172). In the Edbury spike, there is even “no work to do” (176). What is worse, malnutrition caused by the bad food provided in the workhouses or provided by the food tickets, the homeless’ mental and physical health is severely destroyed. As Orwell comments on one of his
tramp friends, Paddy, he is not natively despicable, but it is the malnutrition that have
“destroyed his manhood” (176).
By investigating the physical and mental rottenness on the rough sleepers and in the workhouses, Orwell precisely perceives the basic physical needs of the homeless. In the passages describing the discrepancy between the charity’s original intentions and the homeless’
reactions, the readers may find that the physical needs should be taken care of before the needs of faith. However, the governments and the legislators did not take the paupers’ living circumstances and their mindset into consideration when ideas about workhouses and reliefs were come up with, which caused the disagreement between the givers and the receivers to occur. Let’s take a look at Maslow’s theory of needs, which will make the discourse more explicit. Until 1943, Maslow theorized the hierarchy of needs, explaining human beings’
different level of needs. This theory asserts that physiological needs should be satisfied before one can satisfy his/her needs of safety. Once the safety needs are satisfied, one reaches the level to satisfy the needs of belonging and love, then esteem, and finally self-actualization (Saul Mcleod). In this sense, putting the lodgers of workhouses in the condition of malnutrition, the law makers and the officials were in fact destroying the basic need of human beings—the physiological need. The police and law system as a whole further destroyed the need of safety by putting the homeless into prisons for tramping or begging on the roads. No wonder the homeless fail to feel the love that the church aims to address in the case of Down and Out. Not to mention the needs of love/belonging, esteem, and self-actualization that the homeless could never reach under the inhuman system.
Confronting this kind of thanatopolitics in London, Orwell proposes the scheme to “run a small farm” in the workhouses (215). In fact, in the second chapter of the London part—
Chapter XXV, Orwell already embeds his ideals of a home-like place in the descriptions of the lodging-houses. Orwell once stays at a lodging-house in Pennyfields. This lodging house
contains a kitchen “common to all lodgers, with free firing and a supply of cooking-pots, tea-basins and toasting-forks” (161). The fire in the kitchen is always on. The lodgers take turns to tend the fire, sweep the kitchen, and make the beds (161). There is even an “arbiter of disputes and unpaid chucker-out,” called Steve. Orwell claims that he likes the kitchen. The lodgers will gather in the kitchen, waiting for their laundry, playing chess and card games, and singing. The lodgers even share the food with each other for “it [is] taken for granted to feed the men who [are] out of work” (161-62). The observation in the lodging-house of Pennyfields probably is the prototype of a perfect mutual-help community in Orwell’s mind. Further on, when he reflects on the sordid and desolate workhouses, the proposal of community-building is thus conceptualized: By planting in the gardens and cooking in the kitchen of the workhouses, the paupers can work properly for a day and by which the lodgers can be well-fed (215). As Orwell observes that the paupers’ will can be destroyed by malnutrition, to feed the starved becomes the first step to change the desolate situation. Orwell further elaborates that the casual wards ought not to force the paupers to keep moving vainly and he hopes the workhouses will
“develop into partially self-supporting institutions” (216).
Without a doubt, the ultimate aim of Orwell’s ideal is to cease the paupers’ destitution, and the paupers can even “marry and take a respectable place in society” (216). The idea of “a small kitchen” might come from the Western tradition in which the hearth is the heart of a home, and home is the basic support for individuals. This is also why Orwell reversed the chronological order of this work, because feeling at home is almost a common human nature and also the departure of humanity. Orwell admits that “[t]his is only a rough idea,” but from the eye in the twenty-first century, he is actually proposing a scheme similar to community-building that the philosophers, such as Grace Lee Boggs, also promote in order to counterattack the ruins-producing free trade of capitalism (216). In the twenty-first century today, the fight against poverty is still ongoing.
Chapter Three:
Tsai Ming-Liang’s Stray Dogs and the studies on the homelessness in Taiwan
Orwell’s words are not only revelatory for the twentieth century’s England but also for other parts of the world under the trend of westernization and globalization. The origin of the homelessness between England and Taiwan is different; the homeless of the former originated from the Black Death and the dismiss of the monasteries, while those of the latter arose from the migrants from Mainland China to Taiwan and the immigrant policies commanded by Qing Dynasty. However, the development of the homeless in Taiwan under Japanese reign during 1895-1945 highly resembles the nationalizing and institutionalizing process in the nineteenth century in England. Both of the two regimes intended to put the poor and the homeless under national control. Supposedly, the governments all want to decrease the number of the poor, but neglecting the interests and needs of the paupers and classifying them as the social scums might make the welfare policies constantly fail. With the industrialization, the homeless seem to proliferate because of the urbanization, and in the execution of urban planning, they are often seen as social villains, penned up and juridically thrown away from the sight of the urbanites.
The governments modularize the homeless as the ruffians in order to rule the cities efficiently, but this process also causes the labelling and stigmatization of the homeless. Unfortunately, this stigmatization, such as dirtiness, laziness, criminality, to name a few, still permeates in the twenty-first century regardless of the fact that the modern world is materially progressive. The material surplus does not flow to the people in need, but ironically reflects the miseries of the destitute, whose lives do not change in comparison with the homeless one hundred years ago.
Between the world of material surplus and that of extreme poverty, apparently there is an abysmal gap. To understand the gap and to complement the discrepancy, it appears imperative to investigate the historical and institutional elements that cause the homeless to appear and
exist in modern context. In this situation, realizing more about the situation of the homeless may help destigmatize them and fill meanings into the gap between materially rich world and the impoverished one.
The homeless in London and those in Taiwan have many traits and causes in common, which makes the transnational and transcultural comparison meaningful. In Down and Out, the homeless, who came to London to find jobs with the industrial development and the phenomenon of urbanization, were persecuted by the pro-capitalistic laws and police system. I deem this as a hinge to connect England and Taiwan, which also underwent the process of westernization during Japanese colonial era and Kuomintang’s reign. The industrial and juridical westernization made Taiwan a shade of England, and so were the homeless. Through literary and historical investigation, the truth of the enigmatic homeless phenomenon in England and Taiwan might be revealed, and in realizing the commonality of the homeless in the world, the localized solution that can be applied globally—the community-building scheme, initiated by Orwell—become possible.
In this Chapter, I will discuss the homelessness in Taiwan through Tsai Ming-liang’s Stray Dogs (2013). Historically, the phenomenon of homelessness in Taiwan can be traced back to Qing Dynasty, and this issue recently has been gained attention again. Chronologically the homeless issue was firstly shown in artistic form with the release of Stray Dogs, featuring Lee Kang-sheng as a homeless father. In this movie, the father as a homeless man leads a slow and simple life, unwillingly. The same as the father’s slow life, the form of the movie also belongs to the category of slow movies, without gorgeous storyline as in other commercial movies.
After the release of this film, Tsai has even cooperated with Zenan Homeless Social Welfare Foundation (Renan shehui fuli cishan shiye jijinhui 人安社會福利慈善事業基金會, established in 2002) to raise money for the homeless since 2014. As if it were a trend, in these years, several publications regarding homeless issues appeared and activities leading people to realize the homeless more and help them were also launched. For example, Life Stories of the Homeless
in Taiwan (Wujiazhe—congwei xiangguo wo you zheme yitian 《無家者——從未想過我有這 麼一天》), recording the homeless’ testimony of their lives, was published in 2016. Another book, If You Don’t Hand Out, How Long Will He Lie at Here? —A Struggle and Tears of a Young Social Worker (Ni bu shenshou, ta hui zai zheli tang duojiu? –yige nianqing shegong de zhengzha yu leishui 《你不伸手，他會在這裡躺多久？：一個年輕社工的掙扎與淚水》), written from the perspective of the social worker, Li jia-ting (李 佳 庭), was published in 2019.
Furthermore, the serial movements called “The Poor’s Taipei” (Pinqiongren de Taibei 貧窮人 的台北) were launched in 2017 by NGOs such as Learning from the Poor (Xiang pinqiongzhe xuexi xingdong lianmeng 向貧窮者學習行動聯盟), Dream City Building (Taiwan mengxiang chengxiang yingzao xiehui 台灣夢想城鄉營造協會), Do You a Flavor (Rensheng baiwei 人生 百味), etc. To further elaborate the phenomenon of homelessness and its latent meaning, this chapter will first investigate the historical contexts of the homeless in Taiwan, followed by the revelation of political and economic metaphors hidden in the film, and finally focus on examining the concept of nature, boredom, and emptiness the film intends to convey.
The historical record of the homeless in Taiwan can be traced back to Qing Dynasty, when the proper noun “Lohankha” (羅漢腳) appeared, meaning a man without a family, a house, and even a job. In history, during the reign of Yongzheng (Yung-cheng) Emperor, to control the price of rice is one of the reasons that the Qing government limited immigration to Taiwan (Chuan 293-301). The rice price in Taiwan during the reigns of Kangxi Emperor and Yongzheng Emperor was lower than that in provinces Zhejiang, Fujian, or Guangdong. In the years of harvest, foods in prefectures Zhangzhou and Quanzhou could serve for only six months. For the other six months, people in the two prefectures needed to depend on the foods imported from Taiwan (Chuan 24). Owing to the insufficiency of foods, people in the coastal provinces chose to emigrate to Taiwan, which led to the increase of population and the inflation of rice price in Taiwan. In addition to the economic reason of the rice price, the emigrants often communicated with Chinese emigrants in Luzon and Kelaba (i.e. Jakarta), who were often
thought of as the traitors of China (Chuan 28). There was no surprise that Yongzheng Emperor did not believe in Taiwanese people. For the economic and political factors, Yongzheng Emperor limited Chinese people to emigrating to Taiwan. Nevertheless, this restriction failed to restrain the residents in Fujian and Guangdong from illegally emigrating to Taiwan, especially the poor, who did not have homes or decent jobs in their hometown. In this situation, they were more likely to take the risk of crossing the strait to Taiwan.
After coming to Taiwan, the Lohankhas usually took part in fights among different ethnic backgrounds in Taiwan. They were also apt to be swindled by the local ruffians to commit crimes. In Tan-hsin Archives, a Cantonese homeless named Wen Long-bo was tempted by a local ruffian, Lin Hwan, to occupy the manor (Ai 隘) to rob the local people of the rent (No.
17302-8, No. 17302-18). In Life Stories of the Homeless in Taiwan, one of the homeless also claimed, “without robbing, stealing, or begging, the homeless are destined to die” (126). In this book, another homeless man was lured to sell his newly donated clothes worth NT 2000 dollars for NT 200 dollars (209-10). With the examples from Qing Dynasty to modern Taiwan, even though the homeless’ nature is not evil, they are easily used or manipulated by people with malicious intentions under the circumstance with narrow choices. The number of Lohankhas was slightly relieved after the homeless were sent back to Mainland China during Japanese reign in Taiwan (Tai).
Despite the decrease of Lohankhas, while the agrarian society moved towards the industrial one, the number of the homeless was inevitably on the increase. Originally sheltered in the countryside villages whether the human relationships were tight, the laborers were forced to flood into the metropoles where the job opportunities were more and the pays were better.
In such process of industrialization and urbanization, those who fail to find a residence to settle down become the homeless. In fact, as George Orwell describes in Down and Out in Paris and London, with regard to the prevalence of the homeless, the situation of England bears a
resemblance to that of Taiwan1. The publication year of George Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London is about the same time when Taiwan was under Japanese rule. During the period of Japanese reign, the government executed the systematic urban projects. From the perspective of urbanization, it is predictable that the homeless did not disappear even though the Japanese government repatriated some of them to Mainland China. The cities attract new settlers. When the new comers fail to settle down, they will become the homeless. However, it is hard to find numeral evidences in historical records, which partly proves that the homeless are always on the periphery of a society. Even though in the population censuses carried out by the Japanese colonial government, the occupations, including the unemployed, were investigated2, the numbers still cannot show the reality of the homeless. It is obvious that the homeless are not necessarily unemployed and the unemployed are not necessarily homeless. In addition, to understand the status quo of the homeless is not one of the purposes of the population investigation. Lin Pei-hsin categorized seven reasons of the censuses: to understand the ethnic groups in Taiwan, the genealogy of family relationships, the languages and dialects, the educational levels, the bodily and mentally challenged, the opium smokers, and the occupations. As shown above, none of the reasons is exactly related to the situation of poverty and homelessness. Knowing the occupations helps realize social and economic structure, which benefits the colonial governing (Lin 102-6). The homelessness was not taken into consideration of the census probably because the homeless were not so numerous to the extent that attracted the governments’ attention. The Japanese colonists set up the welfare institutes, such as Jinsaiin (仁濟院) in Taipei, Jikeiin (慈惠院) in Hsinchu, Taichung, Tainan, Chiayi, and Kaohsiung, and Fusaiin (普濟院) in Penghu almost for the purpose of taking care of the orphans, elders, physically-challenged instead of the able-bodied homeless (Chen 233-37). Without the census
1 This has been discussed in Chapter Two.
2 Take the investigation in 1898 for example. In Taipei, there were 5,947 males and 3,614 females unemployed (Taiwan Database for Empirical Legal Studies, National Taiwan University). In the population census in 1915, there were 2693 males and 1891 females unemployed or occupation-unavailable in Taipei (Historical
Demography, Research Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica).
about homelessness at hand, private social welfare institutions might serve as an alternative to understand the phenomenon of the homeless. Take Aiai Ryou (愛愛寮) in Monga, Taipei, for example. The Taiwanese young administrator, Shih Ch’ien, as an official, saw the miserable beggars on roads when investigating the situation of the poor in Monga area, and thus “founded Aiai Ryou all by his own” in 1923 (Aiai Ryou official website). The founding of Aiai Ryou proves that there were still the homeless and the impoverished in Taiwan’s society during Japanese reign even though a portion of the Lohankhas had been repatriated to Mainland China.
Reviewing historical data, Liou Yaw-hwa observes that the Japanese government implemented seventy-two urban plans in Taiwan. Taipei is chronologically second to Taichung as the target of urban renewal started both in 1900. Taipei and Taichung are also the cities where the scenes of Stray Dogs are located. Monga, where Aiai Ryou was set, was also a district in Taipei and now is called Wanhua. Taipei was planned to contain six hundred thousand citizens. The population in Taipei also skyrocketed from 69,672 in 1900 to 313,152 in 1940 (Liou). Apparently, the city Taipei was undergoing urbanization under Japanese reign.
The emergence of Aiai Ryou and the urban plan prove that the homeless was a serious social problem as the Japanese government was aware of it. According to Shen De-wen, he argues that it was during the Japanese reign that the homeless were put into regulation by the state apparatus. In 1906, the Rule of Controlling the Vagabonds in Taiwan (Taiwan hurousha torishimari kisoku 台灣浮浪者取締規則) was enacted (88). The homeless were imprisoned either at Karuruan or on the Island of Fire, which were remote from their hometown, or the cities. The traffic of the camps for the homeless was not convenient at that era; therefore, the effect of separating the homeless from the so-called “normal people” was achieved. Shen De-wen, in the article “The Lament on the Taiwanese Fu-Lang-Zhe [Vagrants] on the edge of the
The emergence of Aiai Ryou and the urban plan prove that the homeless was a serious social problem as the Japanese government was aware of it. According to Shen De-wen, he argues that it was during the Japanese reign that the homeless were put into regulation by the state apparatus. In 1906, the Rule of Controlling the Vagabonds in Taiwan (Taiwan hurousha torishimari kisoku 台灣浮浪者取締規則) was enacted (88). The homeless were imprisoned either at Karuruan or on the Island of Fire, which were remote from their hometown, or the cities. The traffic of the camps for the homeless was not convenient at that era; therefore, the effect of separating the homeless from the so-called “normal people” was achieved. Shen De-wen, in the article “The Lament on the Taiwanese Fu-Lang-Zhe [Vagrants] on the edge of the