【這篇講評發表於香港回歸前夕在地民間組織「七一連線」所舉辦的會議中，講評的論文資訊待查】
The article presented by Ms. Choi and Ng traces the evolution of the cultural identity of Hong Kong in the context of its socio-economic development and the political contestation between the Hong Kong people and the Chinese, as well as the colonial government. Since I have never been a HongKong resident, and know not very much about HK, I don‘t think I can intelligently comment on the historical narrative provided by Ms. Choi and Ng, although the story seems to nicely weave various phenomena, historical incidents, and cultural representations into a coherent account and gives an outsider like myself an insight into what’s has been going on during the colonial rule of Hong Kong.
What I shall say next is probably very naive and preliminary, given the fact that I got this paper only yesterday and did not really have much chance to think through the whole thing yet. So please bear with me if you find my remarks short of doing justice to Choi and Ng‘s article.
It seems to me that there are three power relations involved in the triangular relationship between HK, China and the Colonial West. They are: the class relation between the upper/middle class and the lower class; the colonial relation between Chinese culture and the western culture; and the political relation between nationalist politics and democratic politics. I basically want to say something about the tension between these power relations in light of Choi and Ng‘s article.
There have been various arguments showing that the conflict between traditional culture and the western culture carries a class connotation. That is, the western cultural symbols have been used as a means for class domination. It is argued that the upper and the middle classes are usually well versed in utilizing the new, foreign, or colonial cultural symbols or resources, and are usually easily adapted to the ever-changing, atomistic, impersonal world of free trade and professionalism. The lower class on the other hand depends more on the traditional cultural institutions, which are prevalent especially in the informal sectors, and personal, familial, ethnic relations. Class antagonism is thus sometimes expressed through anti-colonialism struggle. And if the anti-colonial struggle is articulated with a state-oriented nationalism and patriotism, as in HongKong‘s case, then democratic struggles and civil society politics could be interpreted as an internalization and perpetuation of the colonial cultural values, as well as capitulating to the demands of the elite class. In that case, democratic struggles and civil society politics may be seen as not reflecting the true needs of the lower classes who demand political stability to maintain economic growth.
The political implication of Choi and Ng’s article is then to postulate a unique and local Hong Kong cultural identity born out of a regional culture–which is delicately distanced both from a traditional Chinese identity and from a colonial identity. It is implied that such a unique HK cultural identity may serve to not only refute the equation of HK‘s cultural identity with middle class identify and colonial identity, but also refute the equation of HK identity with traditional Chinese identity and nationalistic identity. This new HK cultural identity thus delicately poised can then further articulate with the democratic politics of civil society, but at the same time without falling prey to classism and colonialism.
In order to work out this proposition, Choi and Ng have to explain why there seems to be such a dramtic juxtaposition of traditional Chinese cultural elements and western cultural elements in HK‘s culture, as people sometimes observe–for this kind of juxtaposition is seen as evidence of a serious class polarization. Many then describe this phenomenon as: “there are people who lack ‘modern’, i.e., western cultural resources and hence cannot get out of the traditional nexus.” In other words, they are left behind in the so-called modernization of Hong Kong.
Choi and Ng steered away from this course. They point out that traditional Chinese cultural elements are preserved thurough the ethnic culture rather than the class cuture. I certainly agree with that observation, for there is a material basis for the persistence of ethnic ties and ethnic culture–i.e. for religious reasons or for the economic reason of particular trades and professions which ethnic groups often engage in.
The culture-equals-class argument falls short again when we consider another example. HK‘s cultural identity is gradually developing into a hybrid identity, so to speak. One proof of this is the rise of Cantonese songs at the end of 70’s (Choi and Ng refer to them as Cantopop on page 5), which shows the formation of this newly emerging local identity as distinct from the Chinese identity that is usually associated with mandarin songs. The interesting thing here is that the sense of identity underlying Cantopop is also distinct from the identity of the elite class or the colonial west, since the Cantonese dialect is not the language of the colonial elite.
More importantly, and politically relevant, is that this hybrid HK identity has been partially formed through anti-colonial struggles. Therefore, it should not be interpreted as an internalized colonial identity which simply sees China as the other. And it goes without saying that because of the June-4th-related movements in Hong Kong, the politics of civil socity also contributes to the formation of HK‘s identity.
There are many other arguments and historical accounts in Choi and Ng‘s article to demonstrate the formation a local Hong Kong identity, which I do feel is quite convicing. I also agree that this HongKong identity is hotly-contested; that is, it is always in a process of forming and evolving. Hence, it is possible that it may articulate with certain class or colonial values. It seems to me that after July 1st, although the actual colonial rule is over, the anti-colonial struggle needs to continue. For it is apparent that the Chinese government is exploiting the anti-colonial sentiment for its nationalistic and patriotic politics. Thus it is crucial for the people here who are committed to democratic politics to continue and expand their struggle against colonialism in many manifestations. Issuing challenges to the anti-labor practices of the multi-national businesses, to cultural colonialism, and to all forms of internal colonialization, perhaps is a way to combine the struggles against colonialism, classism and racism.
Finally, it is my opinion that perhaps HongKong people need not over-stress the fact that HongKong‘s culture is now very different from the Chinese one. On the contrary, a more aggressive stance is to claim HongKong’s culture–along with its democracy, its hybridity, its trade unions, its freedom of speech, its anti-colonialism, its fight against political oppression–in a word, to claim all that as China‘s own. This aggressive strategy will not only ease the subtle tension between HongKong people and the people of mainland, a tension which has been constructed by many political factors, but more importantly, it will also help the infusion of the cultural values of democracy into China–from the inside. After all, HK will be inside China after July 1st.