English Version
When I finally brought the card game into a real setting, the atmosphere turned out to be far livelier than I had imagined. I had set up the space with a spread of Chengdu-style food—hotpot bubbling at the center, sweet dan hong gao (egg pancakes) on the side—so participants could walk around, taste, and chat freely. The playing cards themselves instantly broke the usual seriousness of a research environment. In fact, I borrowed this idea from Unit 1 Project 4, Team D: first, immerse stakeholders in the mood of the theme, and then connect that experience directly to the activity. In London, I basically tried my best to “stage” a Chengdu atmosphere, food and all (yes, I went all in, haha).
Once everyone was fed and comfortable, they each received five cards—and the first round began.
The first participant played a card and explained: “This card represents hotpot. Hotpot isn’t just food—it’s a social space, it’s how we Chengdu people gather.” The idea resonated instantly, with almost no one challenging it. Hotpot quickly took its place as a core cultural symbol of Chengdu.
But as the game went on, conflicts began to surface. Another participant played “night market,” arguing that it reflected Chengdu’s lifestyle. Someone immediately disagreed: “But night markets are everywhere—across China, even in Southeast Asia. What makes Chengdu’s night market unique?” The player had to draw another card. This moment revealed a gray area of cultural identity: which symbols are truly distinctive, and which are just surface-level tags?
Then came perhaps the most interesting round. A younger participant played “panda.” The room fell into brief silence. Someone laughed: “That’s too touristy—pandas belong more to the city’s external image than to our daily lives.” But another voice quickly countered: “Still, think about it—whenever outsiders hear ‘Chengdu,’ their first reaction is panda. Isn’t that also part of our identity?” The panda symbol stretched between “lived reality” and “external perception,” embodying a presence that was both contested and unavoidable.
As rounds unfolded, the cultural imagination only grew richer. Some put forward “teahouses” to emphasize leisure; others argued for “street basketball” and “graffiti” as signs of a younger, rebellious spirit. Each card played felt like a cultural symbol stepping into the spotlight, while every challenge or agreement helped clarify its place in the hierarchy.
By the end, hotpot and teahouses emerged as the strongest points of consensus. Night markets and pandas, on the other hand, provoked the most debate—showing just how layered and complex cultural identity can be. What I gathered wasn’t just a list of cultural elements, but a deeper understanding of how stakeholders construct Chengdu’s cultural identity through interaction and conflict.
This game taught me something important: the research isn’t about pinning down a set of symbols, but about following the process of negotiation, where meaning is constantly being reshaped.
In my next blog, I’ll share how I used a method of “cultural dislocation” to push the experiment further—asking participants to imagine Chengdu from the perspective of an outsider, and challenging their own assumptions about the city’s identity.
Chinese version
当我真正把卡牌游戏带入现场时，氛围比预想中更活跃。因为在开放式空间的我布置了成都特色美食—火锅、甜品—蛋烘糕让 Stakeholders 能够随意品尝、走动、交流，而扑克牌的形式打破了研究场景常有的严肃感。整个活动氛围我有借鉴Unite1 Project4 Team D的形式，先让stakeholders沉浸在美食的氛围中，并且这个美食也和当日活动话题是相关的，可以说极力在伦敦打造成都氛围感hhhhhhhhhh。品尝完美食之后，每个人都拿到了属于自己的五张牌，第一轮的出牌随即开始。
一位参与者打出了第一张牌，并解释说：“这张牌代表火锅。火锅不仅仅是食物，它是一种社交场景，是我们成都人日常聚会的方式。”这一点很快引发了大家的共鸣，几乎没有人提出异议。火锅作为成都文化的核心符号，在第一轮便被确立下来。
然而，随着游戏的深入，冲突逐渐显现。另一位参与者选择了“夜市”，并声称它能够体现成都的生活方式。随即有人提出反驳：“夜市在全国各地都有，甚至东南亚很多城市也很热闹，成都的夜市并没有特别独特。”于是，出牌者不得不再加一张牌。这一幕清晰地揭示了文化认同中的灰色地带：哪些符号是独特的？哪些只是表面化的标签？
更有趣的是，当一位年轻参与者打出“熊猫”时，场内出现了短暂的沉默。有人笑着说：“这太旅游化了吧，熊猫更多是对外的形象，不是我们日常生活的部分。”但另一人立即补充：“可是你想想，几乎所有外地人一提成都，第一反应就是熊猫。这难道不也是身份的一部分吗？”熊猫的符号在游戏中被拉扯在“真实生活”与“外部视角”之间，成为一种既被质疑又不可避免的存在。
随着回合的推进，参与者的文化想象逐渐丰富。有人提出“茶馆”作为元素，强调它的悠闲氛围；有人强调“街头篮球”和“涂鸦”，代表年轻一代的叛逆文化。每一次出牌，都像是一次文化符号的亮相，而每一次反驳和同意，都让这些符号的位置更加清晰。
最终，火锅和茶馆被反复确认，成为最能凝聚共识的成都符号；夜市和熊猫则引发最多争议，呈现出文化身份中复杂而多层的结构。通过这场卡牌游戏，我不仅收集到文化元素本身，更重要的是，我看到了 Stakeholders 如何在互动和冲突中“建构”成都的文化认知。
这场游戏的故事告诉我：研究的关键并非符号列表，而是符号在对话和争论中被不断协商的过程。下一篇 Blog，我将继续分享我如何通过“文化错位”的方式，让参与者以外来者的视角重新想象成都，并进一步挑战他们既有的文化认知。
Leave a Reply