From Historical Memory to Cultural Identity: The Construction of Archetypal Symbols for the Statues and Images of Mazu

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although I appreciate the author's desire to invoke images of Mazu as a binding cultural force for Chinese people the world over, the assumption and presented conclusion that there is a "national" identity arising from "archetypal" images of Mazu is problematic. The implied shift from cultural to national identity for believers is troubling, as is the under-explained choice of "archetype" to describe the vehicle or process whereby this "national" identity is constructed.

Indeed, a fundamental problem with the article is its use of the term archetypal. The author seems to have chosen this term to mean an underlying shared reference to a basic cultural trope as well as to some original model from which later images are created. Yet much of the article indicates local differences and varying presentation of images of the goddess--precisely because there was no original image that was standardized, promoted, or mandated. The article suffers as a result of this choice of archetype as organizing structure. The author references Frye and Jung (misspelled here as Junger) in defining the term but then never details what, precisely, the "Mazu" archetype is.

What might be more compelling (and accurate) might be to posit that despite changes in appearance, origin myth, believers' location, or syncretic amalgamation, "Mazu" retains a distinctive identity as an important Chinese cultural icon as a sea or riverine goddess, even as she incorporates syncretic iconographic features or aspects native to different locales. I suggest this because a significant portion of the article focuses on the syncretic imagery and understanding of Mazu beyond China. For example, the author suggests that even with the syncretic melding of Mazu and the Virgin Mary in the Philippines, the image of Mazu creates not only a heritage association with Chinese culture in Guangdong and Fujian in the local populace who worship the goddess but also reinforces a sense of Chinese "national" identity. This is a flawed conclusion. Shared heritage or overlapping cultural practices do not necessarily equate to shared national identity.

At one point, the author implies that Mazu is archetypal due to her presentation of maternal qualities, but this is problematic as well. Although families with the surname Lin or Lim often claim kinship with the goddess, Mazu did not marry, had no children, and remains a child to her parents--sometimes living together in the temple, thus literally under the same roof. The strongest "maternal" association comes from a syncretic understanding of Mazu as a manifestation or avatar of the bodhisattva Guanyin, one of whose attributes is as a giver of sons. (Songzi Guanyin) The author does not mention this.

At times, the author mentions some incident or aspect of Mazu's life or cult that is opaque to the reader. For example, a "military background" is mentioned on p. 3. To what does this refer? Page 5 has a reference to members of the Lin family fleeing to Japan and taking Mazu images with them, but the reader cannot appreciate the significance of this because Mazu's connection with the Lin/Lim family is not explained until p. 6.

Indeed, although the author begins with "historical memory," the basic facts of the life and legend of Mazu are provided only sporadically throughout the article, leaving the reader to try to read back and forth to assemble the pieces.

Specific points to consider (note that there are grammatical and other errors of expression that are not listed here):

Page 3 

Who is doing the "construction" of Mazu's archetypal symbols? Was this a deliberate move to take diffuse practices and create from them a "national cultural identity"? If so, say who was responsible and to what end.

Reference can be made to the pre-modern era without characterizing ancient technology as "backward."

Page 4

Rather than speaking of "combined deities," the author can refer to syncretic images. In fact, some discussion, however brief, of religious syncretism as characteristic of Chinese folk religion could be useful. This could also clarify discussion on page 6 of the conflation (not "confusion") of Mazu with Funadama.

Note: I very much appreciate the author's wide-ranging presentation of Mazu veneration across time and geography; it provides a real sense of the enduring power of the goddess and her efficacy.

Page 6

The Virgin Mary/the Madonna should not be described as a goddess. There are scholarly discussions of the functional similarities exhibited between Mary and goddesses in other cultures, but from the emic perspective of Christianity, there are no goddesses at all. The same can be said for the bodhisattva Guanyin: from the Buddhist perspective, she is not a goddess, despite functional similarities.

Page 7

Note of interest: one of the possible reasons for the syncretism possible between Mazu and the Virgin Mary is that one of the Virgin's titles is Stella Maris, or Star of the Sea.

Page 9

I would recommend deleting the sentence referring to the Fujianese people as "prone to creating mother-like and selfless goddesses out of strong people around them." Were the Fujianese really that different from any other people in this way at that time? The characterization suggests that they are/were childlike. It's an unnecessary description. 

Page 10

Archetypes are not "primitive," although they may be primal. There's a difference.

Need to explain "cloud shoulder" at first mention; it's not intelligible to the reader.

Page 11

Need to cite the source for the folk legend about Mazu's bun.

The discussion of Mazu's footwear could benefit from reference to more than Frazer in terms of the visual and material culture of religious images/icons.

Page 12

Continuing discussion of footwear seems overly long and digressive.

In the Conclusions, what is meant by "directional meanings"?

Suzanne K. Langer is cited incorrectly. Her surname is Langer; her personal name is Suzanne.

I note that the author does refer to the work of ethnographer LIN Meirong from Academia Sinica in Taiwan, but the vast scope of her career's work is left uncited and would prove useful.

The final sentences of the article shift away from the thesis of Mazu as a nexus for shared Chinese cultural identity to advance a more controversial geopolitical agenda. This move, signaled by mention of President Xi, was foreshadowed in the introduction through the acknowledgement that the perspective adopted is that of national identity, even though that perspective is softened throughout the article by references to culture, local culture, cultural heritage, etc. In the conclusion, however, by expressly referring to Chinese across the Taiwan Strait in the context of a "national cultural" identity that will "strengthen the cultural self-awareness of the people, strengthen national cultural self-confidence, realism national cultural self-improvement, and increase the sense of identity and belonging..." the author expresses a vision of a unitary and unified "national cultural" identity for these disparate Chinese populations. I hope that the author will consider the global audience of the journal, not all of whom can embrace the notion of a shared national Chinese identity of any sort, even as they might acknowledge a shared Chinese cultural heritage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting paper with detailed description and analysis.

I am of the view that the term "archetypal", like other terms such as authenticity, tradition, is full of contestation. This is because primordiality refers to, or is commonly viewed as, any practices or products (human-made or socially constructed) that are (re)made/(re)created in response to the existing structure or environment or the changing needs of the society. In other words, there is no single or only one primordial form, and the form is not static, but rather keeps changing, over time.  As such, this paper aims at telling us how different images of Mazu are made or created (or justified and legitimized) in different regions and countries by different parties in different historical and political contexts. I suggest the author to make this point clearly at the beginning of the article. 

Since all information or data of article comes from the text, it would be better to reveal some local people's views or interpretations on the images of their Mazu. Through this, the article can tell us more about how Mazu's image(s) in different regions or countries (e.g. Japan, Taiwan, Macau, Philippine) is(are) possible and legitimized in particular contexts.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see comments on revised manuscript. Although the paper was edited -- and I had seen the original certificate so there was no need for the author to append it again -- it still has some problems of expression. With one or two exceptions, these do not detract from the overall meaning of the article.

The addition of the initial historical overview, the shift from national to cultural, and a few other changes that were suggested have been made, and this reviewer appreciates the author's care in doing so.

There is much that's new and interesting, so the article should be well-received. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx