![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In 2006, the Museum of Ethnology organized a special exhibit on everyday life in Hanoi during the “subsidy period”, the term increasingly used to describe the decade of high socialism that began in 1975 with the reunification of a divided Vietnam and ended in 1986 with the official introduction of market reforms known as Đổi mới (Renovation). The representational strategies, which linked the collectivism of the past with the individualism of the present, prompted a nationwide discussion regarding the significance of a moment that previously had no clear name or place in official accounts due to the severe hardships it produced. The details presented demonstrate how the rehabilitation of this decade has expanded the political boundaries of what state institutions can present as having historical and ethnographic value in Vietnam as well as opened new avenues for comparative studies with (former) socialist states elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
Research on the special exhibit was primarily carried out in Hanoi during July–August of 2006, but draws upon prior fieldwork conducted in Vietnam during 2000–2002, 2004, and 2005. Generous funding from the Fulbright‐Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Award and the Wenner‐Gren Foundation made the initial fieldwork possible. I would like to thank the many Vietnamese who shared their experiences during the “subsidy period” with me over the years. I am also grateful for the feedback I received from Hy Văn Lương, his colleagues at the National University in Hồ Chí Minh City, Nguyễn Văn Huy, Ly Hoang, Wendy Erd, Janet Hoskins, Erik Harms, Michael DiGregorio, Frank Proschan, Diane Fox, Christina Schwenkel, Ann Marie Leshkowich, Nora Taylor, and Melissa Pashigian. Their suggestions greatly improved an earlier version of the essay presented in 2007 at an international conference entitled “Modernities and Dynamics of Tradition in Vietnam: Anthropological Approaches.” The mistakes and short‐comings that remain are entirely my own, however. All electronic citations are current as of August 2008.
Notes
[1] There continues to be some disagreement on the precise temporal boundaries of this period, as efforts to create a centrally planned economy started several decades earlier in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (1954–1975) and major changes to the system did not begin until the cessation of aid from the Soviet Union in 1991 (MacLean Citation2005: 333–336; Vuong Trí Nhàn 2006: 3).
[2] Rations in urban areas were determined by several factors: occupation and rank (if a state employee) in addition to the number and age of the dependents within the household. Typically, 70 percent of the pay packet consisted of ration stamps, while the other 30 percent was salary. Many noted this hierarchical system maintained class distinctions with the socialist state. One visitor to the exhibit wryly explained the distinctions as follows: “First comes the king and his mandarins (vua quan), followed by their sycophants (trung gian nịnh thần), black market traders (thương nhân thị trường chui), and only then the people’s heroes (nhân dân anh h[ugrave]ng)”.
[3] I am grateful to Frank Proschan for sharing this anecdote (personal communication, 16 December 2007).
[4] While neither the “Communist Party” nor the “state” should be viewed as a unified and coherent entities that think and act like people, I use the combined term here to indicate instances where both seek to strategically present themselves to others as such (MacLean Citation2005: xvi–xx).
[5] To help maintain these boundaries, the government issued Decree No. 56 (2006), which enables it to impose substantial fines (up to 30 million Vietnamese đồng) on individuals who deny the revolutionary achievements of the Communist Party or defame the nation and its heroes in any way.
[6] Of course, not everyone agrees. For critiques, see the fourteen pages of commentary that follows an interview conducted with Lưu H[ugrave]ng, the Assistant Director of the VME, on the special exhibit (BBC 2006).
[7] See, for example, reports posted on “Các Vấn Đề Quan Tâm”, available at http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/vd_quantam/ (accessed 31 May 2008).
[8] Bộ Ngoại Giao Việt Nam, “Overseas Vietnamese”, http://www.mofa.gov.vn/en/vd_quantam/nvnonn/ (accessed 1 June 2008).
[9] Most Vietnamese speakers refer to this conflict as the “War of Resistance against the United States to Save the Nation” (cức nườc to cứu nước). This name, however, elides the important role played by more than a dozen different countries in this Cold War era conflict as well as its regional nature.
[10] For an insightful perspective on how everyday practices in rural areas affected national policies, see Kerkvliet (Citation2005).
[11] References to “postwar reconstruction and rehabilitation” can still be found on faded captions in some of the country’s museums and official texts published prior to this point. This framed the immediate postwar years not as a distinct period, but as a continuation of the conflict through more peaceful means as a consequence of the international trade embargo the United States imposed on Vietnam (1975–1994). I am grateful to Christina Schwenkel, who reminded me of these earlier representations (personal communication, 18 December 2007).
[12] Professor Nguyễn Văn Huy, the Director of the VME, oversaw the exhibit, which was put together by Dr Mai Thanh Sơn, a researcher also employed by the VME. Major funding was provided by the United Nations Development Programme Vietnam, the Embassy of Sweden, the National Center for the Social Sciences and Humanities, and the Ford Foundation.
[13] The films relied on the participants rather than the researchers to determine the content, a process that marks a sharp break from the documentary practices customarily used in Vietnam. Wendy Erd (interview, 22 August 2006).
[14] “Có cả một chủ nghĩa anh h[ugrave]ng của nhân dân, của những con người biết vượt lên cái khó, nảy nở nhiều sang kiến, và đó cũng chính là những nhân tố để tiến tới đổi mới”. Quoted in Hà Nội Mới (2006).
[15] After many years of decline, government funding began to rise in 2003 and 2004. However, the funds allocated to this sector still represent less than 2 percent of the national budget (Visiting Arts Citation2008).
[16] As one indication of this, many of the contributors to the VME special exhibit as well as older visitors noted in conversation with me that the “generation gap” makes it difficult for younger Vietnamese to comprehend what everyday life was like only thirty years ago, much less the sacrifices they made during different armed conflicts.
[17] The most extreme example of this is, of course, the Hồ Chí Minh Mausoleum.
[18] Dr Nguyễn Văn Huy (interview 7 July 2006).
[19] Email communication with author (6 May 2008). For related discussion, see Albano (Citation2007).
[20] Ibid. For related discussion, see Blum (Citation2000) and Berdahl (Citation1999).
[21] Field notes (July 2006).
[22] Dr Michael DiGregorio (interview, Hanoi, 23 July 2006).
[23] Three to five cents would purchase a bowl of noodle soup without meat (phở không người lái) or a plate of “smelly” rice (gạo hôi) topped with a small handful of water spinach that had become black from being cooked in a cast‐iron pot. Both meals, as it turns out, also required lengthy waits in not one but two lines: the first to obtain the food, the second to find a place to eat (B[ugrave]i Xuân Dũng Citation2006).
[24] Many bitterly recalled that these encounters ran directly counter to the slogans painted on the wall above them. The two most common were: “We give our customers satisfaction” (Vui lòng khách đến, vừa lòng khách đi) and “With all our heart, with all our strength, we serve the people!” (Hết lòng, hết sức phục vụ nhân dân!).
[25] Interview (27 July 2006).
[26] Interview (31 July 2006).
[27] While many people remembered the joy they felt when their rice did not have a terrible musty smell, one former state employee explained that this was actually a bad sign since fresh paddy indicated stockpiles were exhausted and localized famines imminent. Interview (12 August 2006).
[28] For an account of the challenges of preparing a meal during this period, see Đỗ Hoàng Chinh (Citation2006).
[29] At the time, these collective housing blocks, largely built during the 1970s with foreign assistance from the Soviet Bloc, were considered the height of socialist modernity. Large apartments (28 square metres) included a kitchen area and a toilet, while small apartments (24 square metres) had shared spaces on each floor. For a comparative perspective, see Crowley and Reid (Citation2002).
[30] For a humorous account of a man who smuggled a 60 kg pig into town by camouflaging it as a sick person in urgent need of medical treatment, see B[ugrave]i Sỹ Căn (May Citation2007).
[31] The Communist Party asserts the socialist‐oriented market economy will enable the country to make the transition to socialism and not capitalism at an unspecified moment in the future.
[32] “Dẫu biết thời bao cấp thiếu rất nhiều, những có l[etilde] không thể quên được giá trị nhân vân của con người”.
[33] “Tôi nhớ lại thời gian khổ mà bình đẳng của xã hội”.
[34] “Chứng kiên thời k[ygrave] ẩy, chẳng thể nào quên được. Và nay, mọi chuyện đã qua đi, nhưng người Việt Nam chúng tôi luôn hy vọng về một ngày mai tươi sang”.
[35] For a recent survey on other ethnographic gaps, see Hy Van Luong (Citation2006).
[36] This is not unique to Vietnam. Socialist states elsewhere divided the study of the “self” in similar ways (Kaneff Citation2004).
[37] As has long been the case with “whiteness” in the United States (Hill Citation1997).