Hèunggóngyàhn: On the past, present, and future of Hong Kong identity

Abstract

On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong was returned to China after a 150-year interlude as a British colony. This transition is not only political in nature, it is also a cultural transition. At present, two broad constructions of Hong Kong cultural identity vie for the allegiance of Hong Kong's people: “Hong Kong as a part of China” and “Hong Kong as apart from China.” These constructions of identity present are reflected in vying constructions of identity past: British-influenced historians and Chinese-influenced historians offer very different interpretations of Hong Kong's precolonial and colonial history in their arguments over whether or not Hong Kong is truly a “Chinese” city. These different interpretations point to a larger fact: between the competing hegemonies of the British and Chinese empires, Hong Kong people have only lately begun to define themselves as having an autonomous cultural identity. “Hongkongese” as a cultural identity involves a “Chineseness plus” that has three clusters of meaning: “Chineseness plus affluence/cosmopolitanism/capitalism,” “Chineseness plus English/colonial education/colonialism,” and “Chineseness plus democracy/human rights/the rule of law.” This article examines the cultural identity of the people of Hong Kong and argues that the survival of Heunggongyahn/Hongkongese as a cultural identity depends on whether or not the voices of democracy will continue to be heard in Hong Kong.

On 1 July 1997, Hong Kong was handed over from Great Britain to China, an extraordinary development in the world history of colonialism. Mass media throughout the world have been focusing on the political issues of the handover, the jockeying of Great Britain and China over how Hong Kong is to be ruled. But the issue of Hong Kong's handover is not only political but also cultural: how, in light of their change of rulers, do Hong Kong's people identify themselves? Who do Hong Kong's people think they are? In this paper I examine two dominant conflicting discourses of Hong Kong's cultural identity, Hong Kong as apart from China and Hong Kong as a part of China; and I examine the past, present, and possible futures of heunggongyahn (Hong Kong people), the identity of being Hongkongese.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gordon Mathews

Oral versions of this paper were given at the Conference on the Social History of Hong Kong, Osaka, 1-2 March 1997, and the Association for Asian Studies annual meeting, Chicago, 13-16 March 1997. The research for this paper was funded by the Research Grants Council of the University Grants Committee of the Hong Kong Government (CUHK 145/96H). I am grateful for comments and criticisms from Grant Evans, Wong Heung Wah, and Alvin Y. So, as well as those of an anonymous referee; Tom Fenton was very helpful in his guidance. Tsang Ching Yi, Suen Man Ping, and especially Wong Ngai Lui, as student research assistants, were of great help in locating articles in Chinese for this paper, as well as in their perceptive criticisms of its arguments. Wong Fung Yu, Eve, Tang Hiu Tung, Daisy, and especially Lo Man Fong were of great help in tracking down graphics and illustrations.

Notes

The handover of Hong Kong from Great Britain to China may be seen in broad scope as representing one of the final chapters in the worldwide history of colonialism and post-colonialism, as societies throughout the world have divested themselves of their European political masters. But Hong Kong's handover is extraordinary in its particulars in at least two respects: (1) Hong Kong boasts a high degree of affluence, cosmopolitan self-consciousness, and personal freedom, and (2) Hong Kong's decolonization is viewed by many in Hong Kong as recolonization, as control over Hong Kong is passed from one empire to another. In this paper, for reasons of space I do not examine Hong Kong's handover in larger, comparative perspective, important though that is, but focus instead on Hong Kong's particulars at this historical moment.