International sports events and national identity: the opening ceremony of the Taipei Universiade

Abstract

This article analyses the relationship between Taiwanese national identity and the opening ceremony of the 29th Summer Universiade in Taipei City under the shadow of China. This event was an opportunity for Taiwan to host an international sports event and project its national identity on the global stage. Based on Critical Discourse Analysis, this article explores how national identity was a fundamental narrative in the opening ceremony, one which showcased Taiwan as a single territory enriched by a process of historic transformation and modernization, and one with significant aboriginal roots. This article analyses how the discourse of the opening ceremony sought to establish ideas of national cohesion based on a narrow vision of identity. The article concluded that the opening ceremony, significantly influenced by the international context, was designed to showcase a unique and distinct Taiwanese identity.

Keywords:

• International sports events
• nationalism
• national identity
• Taiwan
• China

Sport and national identity: the opening ceremony of the Taipei universiade

One of the most controversial events in East Asia which arose as a result of the Cold War was the determination of China to isolate Taiwan internationally. This can be seen today in the pressure that China exerts on third countries not to recognize Taiwanese nationhood. Ultimately, the purpose of the Chinese government is to force Taiwan to return to the Chinese fold and once again form part of Chinese territory. This pressure can be seen apparent in diverse guises and situations: an example would be international sporting events, such as that held at the University of Taipei in 2017. Referring to the event, Wang (2017, 3), Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China, declared: ‘There is only one China in the world, and Taiwan is part of China.’ This expression reflects how the Taiwan issue is one of the most sensitive areas for the Chinese government. In fact, since the victory of the Chinese Communist Party in 1949, a critical goal of Chinese foreign policy has been the reincorporation of Taiwan (Myers and Zhang 2006) into China. According to the Chinese bureaucratic elite (Dittmer 2005), Taiwan is a rebel province that will one day return to the Chinese fold. Conversely, Taiwanese people feel that they have different roots, history, and identity, and want to enjoy political autonomy and international independence from mainland China (Chu and Lin 2001).

The Taiwan–China affair is multifaceted and has a powerful influence on the agendas of their respective governments. It is also an issue which involves both national pride and essential elements of community identity and has particular relevance in sporting competitions. Sport has long been recognized as a useful tool for forging feelings of national unity (Mangan 1996), as it both celebrates national unity ( Hargreaves 2000) and employs powerful national symbolism. International sporting competitions therefore are immensely influential in the production and legitimization of national identity (Watson 2017). On an individual level, the prospect of representing one’s nation is also a significant factor (Bairner and Hwang 2011) in the development of national pride in those individuals selected to participate.

In contemporary society sport has not only become institutionalized but increasingly competitive, giving the field significant political capital (Arnaud 1998). In an anarchic world where states compete against each other, sport plays a fundamental role in building external prestige and fostering internal cohesion. This is particularly true in terms of sporting competitions featuring both China and Taiwan, where events have been recognized as instruments of diplomatic recognition (Yu 2008).

In the world of sport, international sporting events occupy a special place. They communicate a narrative that projects at international level a favorable image of the states involved while simultaneously enabling countries to pursue their national interests (Grix 2012). Moreover, and even more significantly, is the fact that these events can be employed as part of a campaign of political indoctrination and mass-distraction propaganda, designed to focus the attention of the population away from more troubling issues such as political representation, inflation, unemployment, corruption and environmental degradation (Brady 2009).

The narratives of international sports events shape our ideas about national identity, the nation–state and the structure of the international stage. These events ‘provide the individual with a sense of belonging and illustrates an individual’s understanding of “who they are” … similarly, it illustrates how sports events provide a valued place within their social environment, a means to connect to others, and the opportunity to use valued identities to enhance self-worth and self-esteem.’ (Shipway and Fyall 2012, 4). The opening ceremonies of international sports events are fundamental to understanding the way in which a state builds an image associated with national identity (Lemus-Delgado 2016). Sport can be seen as one way of constructing the ‘inter-state worldview’ (Levermore 2004, 16), and this being the case, there is the potential for disputes to arise related to the China-Taiwan relationship. The Chinese inter-state world view affects international sporting competitions and foregrounds the feelings and passions of the population in a way that strengthens ideas of national identity.

The relationship between international sports events and the construction of national identity is unique however in the case of Taiwan because it represents a profound contradiction. On one hand, Taiwan appeals to a vision of China, one that is denied and surpressed by the power of the Chinese government. This can be observed in the obstacles China places in the way of Taiwanese participation in international sport as well as Chinese opposition to Taiwanese presence, including in the organization of international sports events. On the other hand, the construction of Taiwanese national identity implies an appropriation of the heritage of indigenous people, and this reveals a contradictory identity, one which is observable in the ceremonies of such international events as the Universiade.

The Summer Universiade is an important international university sporting and cultural event which connects many thousands of student athletes, making it one of the most significant multi-sports events in the world. The Summer Universiade competition program includes 15 compulsory disciplines, with the organizers including up to three further optional sports. In 2003, the Daegu Summer Universiade saw a record 174 countries competing against each other, with the Kazan Summer Universiade registering a record 11,759 participants (International University Sport Federation (IUSF) 2017) ten years later.

Although the Universiade is not as popular as other international sporting events such as the Olympics or the FIFA World Cup, the organization of the event was an important step in promoting a favorable image of Taiwan. Moreover, considering the efforts of Chinese foreign policymakers to isolate Taiwan internationally, the 2017 Taipei Universiade was a unique opportunity to showcase the distinct natures of both Chinese and Taiwanese identity. It is notable that since the expulsion of Taiwan from the United Nations in 1971, the participation of the country in international events has declined considerably. For a short period of time the host of an international sporting event puts itself on the map for many sports fans, meaning that during the Taipei Universiade the reality of Taiwan, its political system, and its economic development could be showcased to outsiders. Additionally, the realization of this international sporting event was in itself an outstanding achievement, serving as it did to make significant inroads into Taiwan’s international isolation.

While extensive literature already exists dealing with the relationship between the instrumentalization of indigenous identities and international sporting events such as the Vancouver Winter Olympics (O’Bonsawin 2010), Salt Lake City Winter Olympics (Hogan 2003), Sydney Summer Olympics (Morgan 2003), and the Montreal Summer Olympics (Forsyth 2002), this article explores how international context influences the manipulation of the identity of indigenous people in order to construct a national identity.

In this sense, I suggest that the Taipei Universiade was an opportunity to promote a specific Taiwanese identity. Against the background of a media event taking place under the mantle of an international sporting competition, Taiwan constructed a narrative that emphasized its distinct ethnic roots as well as its heritage of classical Chinese civilization and its optimistic projection of the future, while simultaneously demonstrating the contradictions inherent in the construction of Taiwanese identity. This case objectifies how an intersubjective relationship occurs between national identity and the search for international recognition.

I have employed Critical Discourse Analysis to analyze the link between Taiwanese national identity and the opening ceremony of the 29th Summer Universiade. I make specific reference to the proposals of Norman Fairclough (2003), who suggests that discourse and social structure have a dialectical relationship. The opening ceremony, as a discourse, reinforces one way of understanding the national identity of Taiwan. At the same time, the social context shapes the key elements of this discourse. This last is not neutral; on the contrary, it reflects a unique way of understanding what Taiwanese identity should be and how this conceptualization supports the interests of the Taiwanese government in the international arena by ignoring or marginalizing other possibilities.

This article is organized into five sections. The first discusses the relationship between sport, nationalism, and identity in Taiwan. The second section introduces Critical Discourse Analysis as a tool to analyze the discourse behind the Taipei Universiade. The third section analyses how disputes about the one-China policy generated tensions inside the event. The fourth section discusses the opening ceremony as a discourse promoting a specific national identity, with the final section concluding that the opening ceremony, molded by its international context, in fact revealed a contradictory national character. This had the intention of demonstrating a unique and different Taiwanese style.

Taiwan, national identity and sport

To Benedict Anderson (1991, 6) a nation is ‘an imagined political community - one imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.’ The idea of nationhood is limited due to finite but elastic borders. Nations came to be visualized as sovereign when the concept of self-determination came to the fore during a period in history when nations began to aspire to freedom. Lastly, the nation is an imagined community because, despite the inherent presence of inequality, it is always considered both a profound and horizontal camaraderie (Anderson 1991).

A country’s cultural practices generate ideas of nationalism and inspire members of the community to locate their identity within a particular nation. While it is true that sport cannot obtain new territories or destroy an opposing ideology, it can support the construction of national identity which has only been previously imagined (Cronin and Myall 1998). Sport has enormous symbolic power as the ‘mirror in which nations, communities, and men and women now see themselves’ (Mangan 2006, 1)

National identity is not innate, but it is a political and social reality constructed in a particular historical and social context. National identity needs to be built in different ways, with national narratives being influential and essential tools in shaping it. To be a nation, it is necessary to have a national narrative (Vasu, Chin, and Law 2013, 12).

In the historical context of the transformation of Taiwan from its colonial past under the rule of Japan to a nation-state without international sovereignty, sport played a crucial role in the nation-building process. Different governments have used sport to grow national identity (Chiang and Chen 2015), and Taiwan has used it to develop both national identity and consciousness as a result of its colonial past and current ambiguous international status (Tseng 2016). Sporting events are the perfect opportunity to strengthen Taiwanese national identity and communicate to the world that this differs from Chinese identity.

Taiwanese national identity is the product of a particular historical narrative. In other words, it is an interpretation of the past. According to Gold (2008), Taiwanese identity has been overshadowed by China in three specific ways. First, concerning the geographical context; Taiwan has played a key role in offering shelter for thousands of Chinese migrants. Second, there was the arrival of the defeated Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) regime. This new political elite established an educational system inspired by the traditional Chinese model. The KMT was also instrumental in controlling the media and cultural productions, using both to maintain strong links with mainland Chinese traditions. Mandarin was also adopted as the official language, to the detriment of Taiwanese dialects. Official discourse spread the idea that Taiwan was the site of the legitimate government of China, and that this government was just waiting for the right moment to reconquer mainland China, with Taiwan conserving the traditional values ​​of Chinese civilization. Third is the persistence of the communist government itself, which is becoming a serious threat to the island. There is extreme pressure to reincorporate Taiwan into China and use any means necessary to prevent independence. In the conceptualization of Chinese nationalism, the word ‘China’ is a term that represents a culture, a nation, and a state, and being Chinese implies not only belonging to a particular ethnic and cultural group, but also refers to the political identity of the Chinese State. From the perspective of the Chinese Communist Party Taiwan is a historical aberration; it is absolutely impossible to imagine it as an independent state. Taiwan’s citizens are therefore viewed as being Chinese, and the island of Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. From this perspective, the reunification of Taiwan with the Chinese mainland is natural and inevitable (Wang 2000).

The historical evolution of Taiwanese identity has five critical periods, beginning with the Japanese colonization of the island and ending with the democratization of Taiwan. Since 1895, when China signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki and renounced Taiwan, the latter nation has undergone a massive transformation, along with a cultural rupture with and alienation from China. From the period of the Japanese occupation to the time the KMT took over government, people living in Taiwan felt that they had been abandoned. However, by the end of the 1940s, most of the nationalists who migrated from mainland China to Taiwan remained psychologically attached to the continent, regarding Taiwan as part of a more organic entity that they referred to as China. In this period, identification with the Chinese mainland became the spiritual and moral source of the Taiwanese anti-colonial movement, as well as cultural resistance to the pre-1940s Japanese government. Although Taiwan has been geographically and politically separated from mainland China since 1895, Chinese mainlanders and Taiwanese nationalists identify Taiwan with China (Wei George 2012).

From 1945 to 1990 the KMT regime considered Taiwan, like any other province, to be part of China, and maintained that Chinese national identity was identical both in mainland China and in Taiwan. It was understood that the islanders, though not exclusively ethnic Han, shared a broad cultural legacy capable of erasing ethnic differences and making them first Chinese and second Taiwanese (Damm 2011). However, resentment began to grow among the native population as those who were not mainland Chinese gradually became increasingly sidelined in government structures (Wachman 1994).

In the late 1980s, Taiwan began a rapid process of democratization. As a part of this process, the revival of a Taiwanese (as opposed to Chinese) identity became an increasingly fundamental element. The issue of identity began to emerge as the focus of dispute between different political actors, with the ultimate democratization of Taiwan breaking the link of political legitimacy which had been based on the assumption that Taiwan was under the protection of China (Deans 2005). The democratic transitional process began the debate about a new Taiwanese identity, one which emphasized the amalgamation of the original peoples with the Han culture as well as the need to recover the cultural legacy of Japan (Brown 2004).

Today, the idea that Taiwan is a democratic country, as opposed to the political system which exists in mainland China, molds Taiwanese national identity (Stevens 2016). Throughout its history, the Taiwanese search for a national identity has played a fundamental part in shaping both domestic and international politics (Kang, Kim, and Wang 2015). The opening ceremony of the Taipei Universiade emphasized the national identity of Taiwan.

Critical discourse analysis and the opening ceremonies of international sports events

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a theoretical perspective of discourse. It distinguishes the constitutive potential of speech in social practices without restricting social practices to a discursive aspect. From the standpoint of CDA, this concept contributes to understanding how the use of language tends to organize societies. However, social structure and social practices also modify discourses. According to Fairclough (2003), CDA is fundamentally critical social research aimed at better understanding how societies work and produce both beneficial and detrimental effects. At the same time, CDA is a theoretical and analytic frame for understanding the relationship between language, power, and ideology (Fairclough 2003). In this sense, if the opening ceremonies of international sports events are discourses, the narratives that these discourses build have both positive and negative effects on some sectors of Taiwanese society, while also affecting the international perception of the island. The opening ceremony of Taipei Universiade therefore can be viewed as a vehicle used by the political power – the State – to communicate a way of being or not being Taiwanese. The messages sent out at the opening ceremony reference a conventional social practice subtly influencing how the Taiwanese consider themselves to be different from, or similar to, the Chinese.

In order to analyze specifically the opening ceremony of the Taipei Universiade, I return to the three central tenets of CDA put forward by Fairclough and Wodak (1997). First, power relations are constituted as discursive elements. Therefore, it is possible to explain through this analysis how these relationships are exerted, negotiated and transformed both inside and outside discourse. Second, discourse constitutes both society and culture, but is simultaneously constituted by those elements: it is a dialectical process. In this way, the relationship between discourse and society is bi-faceted: on one hand, society influences discourses, but on the other hand, speech molds society. Therefore, discourse contributes to the construction of situations, knowledge-objects and national identity. In this sense, each instance of language can reproduce or transform the status quo. Third, discourse plays an ideological role: it engenders ideologies. To understand this idea it is insufficient to simply analyze texts: it is also necessary to focus on discursive practices, or the way in which the discourse creates social effects and how it is interpreted and received. Ideology therefore is not understood as a simple representation of reality, but rather as a ‘process that articulates particular representations of reality and particular constructions of identity’ (Fairclough and Wodak 1997, 258): this occurs principally in groups and communities. Finally, it should be stated that these ideological representations build specific identities with a particular agenda.

Methodologically, Fairclough (1992) presents a three-dimensional concept of discourse in discourse analysis: text, discursive practice, and social practice. Discourse as text comprises linguistic features and the organization of concrete instances of discourse. It involves choices and patterns in vocabulary, grammar, cohesion and text structure. Discourse as discursive practice includes its conceptualization as something which is produced, circulated, and consumed in society. Finally, discourse as a social practice refers to the ideological effects and hegemonic processes in which discourse operates. In this model, CDA enables description, interpretation, and explanation. Finally, according to Fairclough’s method, each text is embedded in its context at different levels: the immediate situation involving participants in a particular setting; the large institution or organization, and the societal level (Cervera, Postigo, and Dolón-Herrero 2006). In the following section, I will analyze the context of the opening ceremony of Taipei Universiade.

In the case of Taipei Universiade, it is possible to affirm that the opening ceremony was more than a product of entertainment, a leisure opportunity, a performance or an aesthetic manifestation. In the first instance, it supported social meanings and expanded a national ideology. Evidently, this discourse does not happen in a vacuum: it is embedded in both national and international context. The creation and diffusion of this discourse benefits a particular interpretation of the relationship between China and Taiwan. In the national context, it resulted from the dispute between the two principal political parties: the Kuomintang (pro-China) and the Democratic Progressive Party (Pro-independent). In the international context, the ceremony was the consequence of the tension between Taiwanese aspirations of national sovereignty and Chinese desire for Taiwan to remain part of one China. In the following section, I examine the international political context of the Universiade.

The context: the vicissitudes of international politics

The political discord between China and Taiwan spilled over into the international sporting arena when the question arose of who could best represent the ‘‘legitimate’’ China (Yu 2008). The international community was witness to the internal struggle within international sport about whether China or Taiwan should represent the Chinese people within sporting organizations: an example of this was NGO representation within the International Olympic Committee (IOC). For thirty years after the 1949 formation of the PRC both Taipei and Beijing used sport as an important vehicle for proclaiming their international political legitimacy. Both governments insisted on representing China, doing everything possible to block the other from membership of the Olympic movement (Xu 2008). Sport has always been an important political tool in the relationship between Communist China and Taiwan (Hong and Xiaozheng 2002), and in 1959, under continuing pressure from IOC members in the Communist bloc, the organization decided that the Taiwanese committee could not continue to use the name of China in the name of their representative teams. This decision was the first and most significant victory in the struggle for recognition that the Communist government won (Hill 1999). In 1979, the basic problem of the participation of both States in the Olympic Games was resolved by the IOC Nagoya Resolution, which stipulated that the Taiwanese government was allowed to enter sports teams in the competition under the name of Chinese Taipei and use an anthem, flag, and emblem which made no reference to China (Brownell 2009). These were the conditions governing Taiwanese participation in the 1984 Olympics (Yu 2008). The formula used by the Olympic Committee to allow the coexistence of China and Taiwan in the same sports competitions has also been employed by other international organizations such as FIFA and the International University Sports Federation (IUSF).

As the Chinese communist government began to gain international support and recognition, many doors within international organizations began to close to the Taiwanese, and the resulting impact on sport in the country was profound. The first step was the return of China to the Asian Game Federation and its participation in the 7th Asian Games in Tehran; this provided a potential model for the IOC to address the ‘Two Chinas’ issue at the Olympics (Hong and Zhouxiang 2012).

The Taiwanese search for international recognition has led to enormous pressure by the Chinese on other nations to prevent Taiwan being seen as an independent entity. This pressure varies in intensity depending on whether the political party that governs Taiwan is more or less pro-independence. For this reason, the very fact that the Taipei Universiade could even be organized was a triumph in itself, being regarded as the most important sporting event ever hosted by Taiwan. According to Wen-Je Ko (2017, 6), Taipei City Mayor, ‘The Taipei 2017 Summer Universiade set for Taipei will be the biggest and most prominent international sports event ever held in Chinese Taipei.’

According to the IUSF, the Taipei Universiade took place over the course of 12 days, with over 7000 athletes from over 140 countries taking part. The event had 14 compulsory sports and up to three optional sports, among them Wushu, a martial art of Chinese origin. In addition, over 100 TV channels broadcast the competition (IUSF 2017).

The Universiade opening ceremony was broadcast live on the Web, and so technically it could be seen anywhere in the world that had an internet connection. In this sense, it was an authentically global performance, although it is not possible to know exact audience numbers. However, while the impact of an event such as the Universiade is much smaller impact than the Olympic Games or the Soccer World Cup, it is estimated that over 10,00 tourists visited Taipei and received a direct and personal look at Taiwan, in addition to sharing their experiences with friends, family, and even strangers via social media (Horton 2017). Although this number may seem insignificant, the organization of the event was very important for Taiwan as it has become more isolated by constant Chinese pressure on other nations in recent years.

Three main elements were particularly problematic for the China/Taiwan relationship in terms of organization of the event, and these did cause some tension. The first issue concerned terms of reference for both Taiwan and its athletes. The second was the opening ceremony, with President Tsai Ing-wen being barred from making the opening speech. The third issue was the Chinese boycott of the games. With regard to the terms of reference which should be employed, Taiwan had been using the name Chinese Taipei since the 1984 Olympics (Carrad 2011), and although in later years Taiwanese officials had frequently expressed a desire to use only ‘Taiwan’, continued pressure from the Chinese government meant that this was not possible. As a result, a Taiwanese athlete who won the gold medal in the women’s 53 kg weightlifting competition at the Rio summer Olympics, Hsu Shu-ching, watched a flag raised and listened to an anthem that most people would not normally recognize as Taiwanese (International Olympic Committee 2016). The Chinese government continues to affirm that Taiwan is the name of a Chinese province, one which will eventually be part of one indivisible China. As a result, the name used to represent Taiwan in the media guide and at official events during the Universiade was Chinese Taipei, giving rise to a broad debate between Taiwanese netizens, politicians, and athletes (Teng 2017).

At the opening ceremony of the Universiade Tsai was introduced as the president of ‘the Republic of China,’ this being the official name of Taiwan although not one recognized by China. Tsai greeted the public briefly although she did not give a speech, leaving Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je to deliver a welcome message. He said: ‘Sport allows us to transcend ethnic and geographical distance and enjoy the blessing of peace and friendship’ (Opening Ceremony Taipei Universiade, 2017). With the intention of contrasting the democratic identity of Taiwan with the communist identity of China, President Tsai wrote a brief message on the Universiade Facebook page: ‘Democratic Taiwan always has lots of opinions, but during the Universiade, there is only one sound, and that is Go Taiwan!’ (Strong 2017). However, while hundreds of athletes from around the world walked with their team uniforms or traditional dress showing the name of their countries and their national flags, no Chinese athletes paraded in the opening ceremony. According to local media, this was as a result of Tsai being referred to as president: Ko Wen-je however had previously stated to Chinese athletes intending to appear at the opening ceremony that he would only be referred to as ‘leader’, not ‘president’ (Star Times 2017).

The case of the boycott is particularly noteworthy, because it highlights that sport has become a strategic element in the diplomatic arsenal employed by China to isolate and pressurize Taiwan (Jackson 2013). It should be noted however that international sporting events have frequently been used as vehicles for political action, mainly through boycotts and bans. A nation can successfully carry out an ideological protest by boycotting these kinds of events (Rosner and Low 2009). As Zeiler (2014, 433) has pointed out: ‘The record of intervention, ideological trumpeting, nationalism, diplomatic intrigue and pressures, and the self-promotion of individual leaders for national/international political gain bears out the intimate ties of sport to diplomacy and world politics.’ In this sense, the refusal of governments to play a part in international sporting events in order to achieve political, economic, and social goals is actually a relatively common practice. A common theme of debate among Western politicians is whether or not their governments should boycott the Olympic Games and other sporting events held in countries generally acknowledged to be ruled by repressive regimes.

The China question at the Taipei Universiade however played out slightly differently. In actuality, the Chinese government never mentioned a boycott, although it was the first time in four decades that the games did not have teams from the Chinese mainland competing in the event (Ellis and Sung 2017). Beijing informed the IUSF that it would not be sending athletes to participate in any team events in Taipei, although individual athletes did take part. In other words, Chinese athletes participated as individuals, rather than as a delegation. They did not take part in nine team events including baseball, basketball, soccer, and volleyball (Jennings 2017), and did not appear at the opening ceremony as had been expected, although athletes from Hong Kong, which is a Special Administrative Region of China, were present (Ihara 2017). As a consequence of lackluster participation, China was placed ninth in the medal table with 17 medals: nine golds, six silvers and two bronzes. In contrast, Taiwan was placed third behind Japan and South Korea, with 26 gold, 34 silver and 30 bronze medals. It can therefore be concluded that the Chinese government placed little importance on the games (IUSF 2017).

A partial boycott of the games by China in fact did not come as a surprise, as the event coincided with a new offensive by Beijing aimed at exploiting any available opportunity to block Taiwanese participation on the international stage. It could be argued that the organization in Taiwan of an international sporting event was only possible in the first place due to President Ma Ying-jeou being a member of the KMT. President Ma was also known to favor the eventual reunification of the two territories, and Taiwan was chosen to host the Universiade during his mandate. However, since the triumph of the Democratic Progressive Party in the 2016 presidential election, tensions between the two countries have increased. The election of Tsai Ing-wen as president of Taiwan has solidified the Taiwanese discourse against defining the territory as part of ‘One China.’ The conflict has also extended beyond the borders of both China and Taiwan, with the Ugandan government initially banning its athletes from attending the Universiade because of the ‘One China Policy.’ Although the reason for the ban was not explicitly defined, it could possibly be a result of the excellent relationship between the two countries, with Uganda being the beneficiary of substantial Chinese loans. The decision by Uganda not to attend the event however was overturned at the last minute, with Ugandan athletes ultimately being allowed to participate (Chen 2017).

The Chinese boycott of the Universiade not only eclipsed the opening ceremony but a separate and simultaneous social protest also had a significant negative impact. The origin of this protest was discontent with the plan to reform the Taiwanese pension system, with the principal actors being hundreds of military personnel, teachers, police and civil servants. The protesters disrupted the games by preventing international athletes from participating in the parade of nations. Only teams of nations with names starting with the first two letters of the alphabet, such as Argentina and Brazil, were able to enter the stadium before protesters blocked the entrance. Other participating nations were represented by a single flag-bearer. It is highly unusual for an opening event to take place without the participation of all the athletes, who, after all, are the soul of the event. Paradoxically, the very thing that separated Taiwan from China – the possibility of dissent and political protest as a democratic feature – was the thing that limited the brilliance of the event. Politicians from across the party divide strongly condemned the anti-government protesters who blocked international athletes from entering the venue of the opening ceremony (Focus Taiwan 2017).

The opening ceremony

Sport is a way of formatting and perpetuating national and transnational identities across local and global lines of affiliation (Giardina 2005, 13). In this context, the opening ceremonies of large sporting events are an excellent opportunity to create and transmit narratives, with the aim of sending a clear message to national and international audiences about the essence of national identity and the place of the host nation in the world. Opening ceremonies therefore are narratives which are very carefully constructed, and according to Tu Chien-kuo, a member of the Universiade production team, preparations for the opening and closing ceremonies of the event took two years (China Post 2017). A great deal of care was taken with the construction of the messages displayed in the opening ceremony: all the messages showed a particular vision about what it means to be Taiwanese from a national-interest perspective. As CDA suggests, the opening ceremony was one text among many that formulated and reformulated what it means to be Taiwanese. The messages encouraged reflection on how this idea of identity strengthens the interest of national government in the international arena, with the ultimate goal being recognition that Taiwanese nationality is unique and different from Chinese nationality.

Taipei Stadium was the venue of the Opening Ceremony, with approximately 26,000 people enjoying the show. It consisted of renowned artists and groups of students building a specific narrative about the singularity of Taiwan in performances emphasizing the cultural diversity and the historical legacy of Taiwan as one nation. The ceremony began with Chi Cheng, the first Taiwanese woman to win an Olympic medal in 1968, when she won a bronze for the 80 m low hurdles (Xiao and Lee 2003). Cheng led a group of eight athletes who carried the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee Taiwan flag commonly used in sporting occasions.

Among the significant events were performances by A-Lin and Wang Leehom, famous Taiwanese pop singers; Billy Chang, the first local dancer to perform with the Cirque du Soleil; Peiju Chien Pott, who was once a principal dancer in the Martha Graham Dance Company, and master violinist Tseng Yu-chien. The presence of these artists showed how the Taiwanese can triumph in different disciplines internationally and gain appreciation. The motivation behind these events was actually twofold: first, the actors themselves were a source of national pride, and second each performance connected with the international audience to show the people of Taiwan as global citizens.

The program included three acts: ‘Vibrant Island,’ ‘Hybrid Taipei’ and ‘Global Tribe.’ In total, 3800 people participated in this ceremony. ‘Vibrant Island’ displayed typical Taiwanese indigenous symbols. The singers Yaga Tunga and Sangpuy Katatepan Mavaliyw brought sounds of aboriginal Taiwan to the audience and the scenery, choreography, and dress of the dancers showed the richness of indigenous Taiwanese culture. The representation of indigenous people however also demonstrated how identities are shaped through the appropriation and perpetuation of stereotypes that impose one way of understanding a national identity. In Taiwan, only 2%of the population are indigenous, with the three major groups on the island being Mainlander (13%), Hakka (12%) and Holo (73%) (Chiu, Hwang, and Bairner 2011).

In the light of China’s increasing claims that Taiwan is a rogue province, and as a result of multiple forms of imposed rule, contemporary Taiwanese seek to formulate a specific identity of their own. This indigenous character can be seen in numerous stories which lead to one singular version of this emergent identity (Liu 2012). Thus, in the discourse surrounding the creation of a national identity, aboriginal peoples have been used to generate, articulate, and legitimize an original Taiwanese character, one distinct and distant from the Chinese character.

Over the last four centuries Taiwan has been the subject of creeping colonization by a succession of foreign governments. A century ago, Aboriginal Taiwanese still controlled over half of the island’s territory. However, over the last 100 years, the Japanese conquest and subsequent colonization and the encroachment into indigenous lands of the Chinese Nationalists ‘have caused great social upheavals within Aboriginal societies’ (Munsterhjelm 2014, 84). The KMT treated indigenous Taiwanese particularly badly, and although initially the KMT focused on wiping out Japanese cultural influence, their subsequent focus became the creation of a homogenous Chinese identity. Local identities were displaced through the imposition of Mandarin – despite only a quarter of the population of the island speaking this language in 1950 – and the teaching of Chinese history and geography of China (Rigger 2013).

‘Hybrid Taipei’ represented modern life in a high-tech metropolis. The act started with an image of the city’s omnipresent sheet-metal houses, street signs, and temples, and showed a vision of modern Taipei including the sounds of scooters and busy streets. The show presented a polychrome picture of a fast-growing and young city, and the scene was supported with huge LED screens with picturesque features like night-market stalls. One of the most interesting elements of this act was the juxtaposition of past and present, tradition and democracy. The rock band Boxing brought the audience an indigenous song with a loud punk rock sound and a modern theme: Democratic Taipei. The guiding concept behind the elements presented, according to Lin Kun-ying, was the belief that modern Taiwan was not created by a lone actor but a group effort. In this way, a collective action where a cooperative attitude matters has resulted in development and successful modernization (China Post 2017). Reading between the lines, it is possible to understand that what is really being showcased is the uniqueness of the Taiwanese community and national identity, both of which have been forged by the Taiwanese people.

The final section was ‘Global Tribe’, and one of the most outstanding moments of this event was the solo violin performance by Tseng Yu-chien. This act included the dance piece ‘Connection through Technology’ with Peiju Chien Pott, and the song ‘Why Don’t You Just Love Me?’ interpreted by the superstar Leehom Wang. This performance was interactive, allowing audience members to download an app which could turn their smartphones into musical instruments, further emphasizing the image of Taiwan as a hub of the global technological revolution.

The climax of the ceremony took place after the arrival of the torch in the stadium, and the subsequent ignition of the main crucible. Chen Chin-feng, the first Taiwanese professional sports player to appear in a Major League Baseball (MLB) game in the United States, was the person chosen for the much-anticipated moment. Baseball has been an integral part of Taiwanese culture for more than a century (Morris 2011), and Chen lit a ball of fire to ignite the flame inside the brazier. The presence of Chen however, an aborigine of Siraya tribal ancestry, actually served to reinforce ethnic stereotypes rather than emphasize inclusion, which had been the desired effect. The opening ceremony subsequently concluded with an impressive fireworks dispaly.

Director Liao Ruo-han and tech artist Lin Kun-ying, designers of the ceremony, stated that: ‘The performance combined local Taiwanese elements, showcasing Taiwanese soft power to the world by presenting the vibrant scenery of Taipei streets and the technology-driven island’ (IUSF 2017). In other words, the discourse of the opening ceremony combined three powerful and attractive ideas with the aim of showcasing Taiwanese identity: the use of native people to claim an origin distinct to that of Mainland China, the diversity of urban Taipei, and the use of technological advances as a synonym of progress. Obviously, this conceptualization of Taiwanese identity does not encompass the totality of the vast richness of Taiwanese history and society, but the discourse of the event was purposely constructed with the intention of gaining international sympathy in the international arena for this long-isolated country.

In the Universiade, three major symbols framed the opening ceremony. The first of these was the Chinese character ‘北.’ This means both Taipei and north, and it was combined with the word ‘U.’ The logo symbolized three concepts: Universiade, united, and university, referencing the college athletes who were participating. The official website publicizing the Universiade stated that: ‘The upward-leaping and rhythmic lines of the 2017 Taipei Universiade logo echo the constant pursuit of excellence and continual innovation of Taipei’. In other words the logo established a narrative referencing a distinctive feature of Taiwan: the capacity to project towards the future through innovation, which was also a theme highlighted in the opening ceremony.

The second major symbol was the mascot Bravo. Mascots have been part of the Olympic Games since 1968, when Schuss, a stylized skier, was introduced at the Grenoble, France, winter Olympics (Butler and Bissell 2015). Mascots therefore are seen as physical representations of the ideologies of sporting teams and events (Butler and Bissell 2015), and the black bear, a species native to Taiwan, was the inspiration behind the Bravo mascot. An online vote was held to choose the mascot (Taipei City Government 2016), with the IUSF building a powerful narrative around the symbol on several different levels. Part of this narrative highlighted awareness of the fact that humans live on a fragile and finite planet, and therefore need to collaborate to save all forms of life by living in a sustainable way. Bravo represented a threatened species which should be conserved for future generations. The message sent by Bravo highlighted the importance of protecting the natural environment. Another part of the narrative referenced the fact that bears are fierce. A powerful and brave animal echoed the determined spirit of athletes ‘as well as representing the indomitable spirit of Taiwan.’ (IUSF 2017). In addition, the mascot was depicted making the ‘V for Victory’ sign. Finally, the name Bravo in Chinese sounds like ‘brilliant’, and the hope was that this event would not only exceed expectations but that both Taipei and Taiwan would succeed in projecting a positive image of both the country and its people. Finally, ‘Bravo!’ is an Italian expression of approval, reinforcing the desire for a successful competition.

The third symbol was the theme song: ‘Embrace the World with You.’ Kris Wu, a famous Chinese-born Canadian singer and actor, performed this song. The melody mixed traditional music with Rumba rhythm, Latino instruments and techno elements. One part of the song features the phrases ‘Open your arms and let me embrace you. Let’s share the warmth of friendship from near and far. Making a circle and dancing brings us together. We can gaze deeply upon kindness and beauty.’ The song invokes one of the classic universal narratives of the world of sport: the idea of a noble activity that promotes peace and harmony and improves peaceful coexistence between peoples and nations. In addition, the melodic rhythms join the traditions of indigenous music with other rhythms derived from global cultural trends. In this way the song reflects the idea of one nation and evokes the presence of the island’s indigenous people and their roots, while simultaneously linking the world peacefully and looking towards a technology-based future horizon.

Conclusions: sport and national identity as a dialectic process

Nationalism is a significant motivation for participation in international sports events because international sports are very effective at spreading national identity. The opening ceremonies in particular are seen as a unique opportunity to transmit a creative, powerful and attractive message about the essential elements of national identity. In a globalized world where messages are communicated via mass media and information technologies, events in which athletes compete to achieve both personal triumph and national pride are an effective way of building favorable impressions of diverse nations and of strengthening the links between community members. These shows are a window looking out onto a vista of nationhood, one which showcases the essence of a nation and the illusions, dreams, and future hopes of the host country. These events also afford the host nation an opportunity to boost support and sympathy on the international stage.

For this reason, CDA as a tool can be an opportunity to reflect about the power relations constituted as discursive elements. In the study of opening ceremonies, international tournaments, or the study of student sport, CDA is an unique tool for the analysis of texts and messages behind a simple show. But the text – and text could be words, images, performances, mascots, or songs played at sporting events – are not neutral. On the contrary, these texts reproduce identities, ideas, norms and values linked by a particular way of understanding the life and the social relationships that benefit one social group over others. New research about the opening and closing ceremonies of international sport events based on CDA and considering the acts involved in these performances could determine how we can enrich our explanations about identity, nation, power and sport as a part of a complex web of symbols and meanings of the social world.

The Taipei Universiade had a particular political significance, with Taiwan’s long search for international recognition framing the games. However, there was no respite from the disputes between China and Taiwan, with the resulting tensions continuing in the days leading up to the games and even during the opening ceremony. The Universiade gave Taiwan the opportunity to construct a narrative of what it is today, and this article demonstrates that sports are more than mere games, but instead support the construction and reconstruction of national identities. The opening ceremony of the Taipei Universiade demonstrated that the discourse in this event highlighted the idea of Taiwan as the fusion of old and new, past and present, tradition and innovation, indigenous people and the heritage of classical Chinese civilization, and that all of these combine to create a singular Taiwanese identity. This projects a national identity very different from that of Chinese national identity.

As proposed by CDA, the general context influenced the discourse of the opening ceremony. Specifically, the international context that framed this event reinforced the belief that Taiwan is under continuous pressure to cede both autonomy and international recognition. The Universiade therefore was an essential tool for strengthening a different Taiwanese identity, one explicitly distinct from Chinese identity: this international sporting event, and the opening ceremony in particular, favored an idea of the national identity of Taiwan as something substantial and independent. However, this idea also denies other possibilities of identity, in particular that pertaining to Aboriginal groups. Thus, the discourse of the opening ceremony not only simultaneously perpetuated stereotypes about native peoples but also highlighted the need for these groups to be awarded legitimate recognition in Taiwan. Finally, this case shows how national identities are constructed and reconstructed through speech. Although Taiwanese consciousness is not inevitably or consistently at odds with Chinese cultural identity, the opening ceremony of the Taipei Universiade highlighted an aspect of it related to political aims: showing the world that Taiwan is different from China. The Taipei Universiade evidenced how sport is inextricably intertwined with the political aim of supporting national interests on the world stage.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).