Betwixt and Between: Hong Kong Studies Reconsidered

Abstract

This essay endeavours to explore the elusiveness of Hong Kong from the perspective of postcoloniality. After its reversion to the Mainland, Hong Kong can neither rely on nor retain its special role between China and the world. The impact of this crisis also reaches into the cultural and social level of our lives with significant implications to Hong Kong studies on the theoretical level. Through its dialogue with Sinophone studies, this essay reconsiders “Hong Kong Studies as Method” – developed from Koon-Chung Chan’s model of “Hong Kong as Method” – as it relates to the rise of China in the context of Asianization. While it does not intend to privilege Hong Kong for the explanations of global and inter-Asia cultural dynamics, this essay argues that what provokes concerns with the idea of “Hong Kong Studies as Method” may contribute a new perspective of understanding the transformation in not only Asia, but also the world. In short, the major theoretical thrust of this essay is to address the reconfiguration of Hong Kong culture and society in the age of global modernity, exploring the possibilities of seeing Hong Kong studies as a method.

• Hong Kong studies
• hybridization
• in-betweenness
• postcoloniality
• status quo

Acknowledgements

The author owes special gratitude to Arif Dirlik and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and ideas.

Notes

1 This essay aims to provide an introductory guide to connect various debates related to Hong Kong and the rise of China, pointing to a possible direction for Hong Kong studies in this difficult time. Hong Kong is arguably the place where the impact of the rise of China is most acutely felt, and its resistance to “Mainlandization” and related issues such as censorship should contribute important perspectives to emergent global crises in many other regions. Parts of this essay are collected in Yiu-Wai Chu, Found in Transition: Hong Kong Studies in the Age of China (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, forthcoming). Here, I simply provide a selective slice in order to accomplish my purpose.

1 Lui (2017) attributed social and political controversies in Hong Kong to its “awkward” position, which has been framed by “One Country, Two Systems” designed to “freeze” the status quo of Hong Kong.

2 The independence of the judiciary and the integrity of common law have come to be viewed as symbolical to Hong Kong’s autonomy under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle. Although this role seems to have weakened in the 2005 debate [on 27 April 2005 the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress interpreted Article 53(2) of the Basic Law as mandating “a new Chief Executive selected in accordance with Article 53(2) shall serve the remainder term of the preceding Chief Executive”], common law, with its western origin and cultural values embedded, still plays a significant role of cultural identity marker in Hong Kong and its people’s attempts to distinguish themselves from their counterparts in the mainland. (Sin 2006, 65)

3 Often subversive and ephemeral, cultural identity may seem too insubstantial to provide a coherent and organized realm of resistance to domination. However, the same qualities make it difficult for the state to reach and contain. Evidence from other places and other times suggests that it is quite capable of outlasting even the most determined efforts to erase it. (Jones 2015, 254)

4 According to Ferguson:

While institutions like the rule of law are declining in the West, it is still strong in Hong Kong, and even without democracy it is a reason why Hong Kong beats cities in the US in every aspect of [economic] competitiveness.

According to Mishra: “Hong Kong’s situation reflects how western ideas can be unsuitable for Asian societies … What we need to do is to make clear that the nation-state system leads to a lot of needless suffering” (Chiu 2013).

5 It is not possible here to provide an elaborated account of the recent localist turn, which is a very important issue for Hong Kong. Although it is not germane to my discussion in this essay, this turn should be acknowledged here. For a nuanced account of the rise of localism in Hong Kong, see Veg (2017).

6 Despite the so-called internal strife, most Hong Kong people see their identities as pluralistic and international, according to a poll conducted in April 2014. For details, see Veg (2015, 70).

7 This was not new. Lo (2007, 227) had already stated clearly that “to put it bluntly, the HKSAR has become a colonial appendage of the PRC, both in terms of the power to control the polity and influence the economy.”

8 I am indebted to Arif Dirlik for this idea. For a detailed account of the “post-revolutionary” and/or the postcolonial, see Dirlik (1997, 163–85).