Reading a Newspaper Editorial's Stance
A Year 12 student, Priya, is analysing a 600-character editorial from a Chinese-language community newspaper in Sydney. The headline reads 《春节游行：传统还是表演？》 (Spring Festival Parade: Tradition or Performance?). The opening paragraph praises the parade's scale and the mayor's attendance. The second paragraph notes that "一些老华侨摇头说，这已经不是我们当年的春节了" (some old overseas Chinese shake their heads, saying this is no longer the Spring Festival of our day). The final paragraph concludes: "无论如何，能让主流社会看到我们的文化，总是好事。" (In any case, being able to show mainstream society our culture is always a good thing.) Priya's teacher has asked her to identify the editorial's stance. Priya says the editorial is clearly pro-parade because the last sentence says it is "always a good thing."
1. Evaluate Priya's conclusion. Is the editorial straightforwardly pro-parade? Support your judgement with evidence from the structure and wording of the text.
Read the worked answer
Priya's reading is partially correct but too simple. The editorial does not adopt a single pro-parade stance; it stages a tension and then resolves it in a way that privileges instrumental value over cultural authenticity.
The evidence is structural. The opening paragraph is descriptive and mildly celebratory (scale, the mayor's presence), establishing the parade's public success. The second paragraph introduces a counter-voice - "some old overseas Chinese shake their heads" - which the editorial does not refute or mock; the verb 摇头 (shake one's head) and the quoted lament carry real weight. The final paragraph then closes the tension with 无论如何 (in any case / regardless), a concessive marker that signals the writer is setting aside the authenticity objection rather than answering it.
So the stance is best described as pragmatic instrumentalism: the parade is endorsed because it gives 主流社会 (mainstream society) visibility of the culture, while the authenticity concern is acknowledged but left unresolved. Priya's error is to treat the last sentence as the whole argument. In Chinese editorial convention, the closing sentence often performs a harmonising function; the analytical work is done in the middle. A strong answer names the concessive structure (先扬-后疑-再合, praise–doubt–synthesis) rather than quoting one line.
2. Priya must write 200 words on how the editorial's use of the phrase 我们的文化 (our culture) positions its readers. What should she argue, and what textual detail should she cite?
Read the worked answer
Priya should argue that 我们的文化 is an exclusive-inclusive pronoun choice that reveals whom the editorial imagines as its audience.
The key detail is the contrast between 我们 (we/us) and 主流社会 (mainstream society). By saying the parade lets 主流社会 see 我们的文化, the writer positions the readership outside the mainstream: "we" are the community whose culture is being displayed, and "they" are the audience for whom it is displayed. This is a display relationship, not a shared-participation relationship.
That framing has a consequence Priya should draw out: it actually supports the old overseas Chinese's complaint while appearing to dismiss it. If the parade's value is that outsiders can see "our culture," then the culture is being objectified for an external gaze - exactly what the older generation resents. The editorial's reassurance therefore contains the critique it claims to answer.
Priya should also note the ambiguity of 我们: it may include the newspaper's readers but exclude the older generation quoted in paragraph two, who are described in the third person (一些老华侨). The pronoun thus quietly splits the community into a modern, outward-facing "we" and a nostalgic "they." A strong 200-word answer cites 主流社会, 我们的文化, and 一些老华侨 together and explains the positioning each performs.