Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Collaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese (review)

Collaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese (review) Reviews 255 Lastbutnotleast,RichardKingconcludeswithaCRtriptychwhenheexaminesthetopicofbattle-readiness(intimesofpeace)inthevisual,performing,and literaryarts.Hisfindingsofanunnamedproletarianseizingacapitalist-roader's microphone,amartialartherotaking"TigerMountainbyStrategy,"andafactory workerwinningthetechnologicalbattleareallimagesofheroesexactlyformed accordingtothethreeprominencesformula(san tuchu).Althoughthesefeverishly cultivatedheroicincarnationsdidnotcometothedefenseoftheradicalswho actuallyinventedthem,theywerepowerfulfantasyproductscontrollingand directingpeople'smindsduringthetenlostyears. Givenitsiconicimageryandnostalgiccomeback,itskitschyreproductionand postmodernplayfulness,CRarthasattractedalotoftheoreticalindulgenceand fetishizing.Withoutexception,Art in Turmoildoesperfectlywellwithoutestablishinganoveralltheoreticalcorset.Ontheonehand,theCRisstillasensitiveand restrainedtopicinthePRCwhiletheWesthaslongsinceopeneditsexhibition hallsforCR-relatedartandacademiahaslongsincebeenanalyzingandtheorizing theCRasspectacle.Ontheotherhand,appropriatingandrecyclingCRimages mayeasilyleadtorevictimizationofthosewhocannotbutassociateCRpictures withexperiencesoftortureandhumiliation.Furthermore,thesesocialistimages havebecomeposhconsumergoodswithincapitalism.Theauthorsareclearly awareofthedoublebindonwhichtheirinvestigationisbased.RichardKinghas wiselychosenandarrangedthedifferentvoicesinhisbookandtherebysuccessfullymasteredthischallengingbalanceact.Consequently,themostdifficult question,howtoremembertheCulturalRevolution,isleftopen. IrmySchweiger Irmy Schweiger is a senior lecturer of Chinese studies in the Department of Oriental Languages at Stockholm University. She teaches and does research in the field of contemporary Chinese literature and culture; her special interest lies in the study of trauma and literature. LawWingSang.Collaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese. Aberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2009.xii,262pp. © 2011 by University of Hawai`i Press Paperback$25.00,isbn978-962-209-930-2. Inthe1990s,whenBritainwaspreparingtoreturnHongKongtoChina,therewas aflurryofpublicationsaboutthecolony.Particularlyinthelasttwoyearsinthe 256 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 countdowntowardthe1997handover,writingsaboundedthatdiscussedthe historyofcolonialHongKongandtheprospectoftheHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegion(HKSAR)underthePeople'sRepublicofChina.Atthattime,the returnofHongKongtoChinawasportrayedasaretreatofWesterndemocracyto ChineseCommunism.StillfightingtheColdWarinthepost­ColdWarworld, analyststurnedablindeyetoracismandoppressionofthedepartingBritish colonialistsandfocusedontheimminentthreatofCommunism.Stressingthe dangeroftheHongKongpeoplelosingtheirWesternwayoflife,analystspredictedanendoffreesocietyandthemarketeconomyinChina'sHongKong. PreoccupiedbythesuccessstoryofHongKongbeingtransformedfromafishermenvillageintoaglobalfinancialcenter,analystsfailedtonotethatforsome HongKongChinese,thebiggestdangerofChina'stakeoverwasthecontinuation ofthecolonialstructureofpowerafterthedepartureoftheBritish.Inretrospect, whatwasmissinginthe1990sdiscussionwasanexaminationofthepeculiar natureofHongKong'spostcoloniality:"Howdowetalkaboutapostcoloniality thatisaforcedreturntoa`mothercountry,'itselfasimperialisticastheprevious colonizer?"1 Twelveyearsafterthehandover,LawWingSangoffersasystematicstudyof HongKong'spostcolonialityinCollaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese.CoveringthehistoryofcolonialHongKongfromitsbirthin 1842toitsendin1997,LawexplainshowtheBritishdevelopedaregimeofpower thatwasbasedpartlyontheprestigeoftheBritishEmpireandpartlyonthe cooptationofasmallgroupoflocalelite.CentraltoLaw'saccountisthenotion thatcolonialismisnotmerelytheruleofforeigncolonists.Rather,itis"anetwork ofrelations"operatinginmultiplesitesandchannelsinthecolony"throughwhich theimpersonalforces[ofcolonialism]maystilllingerintheabsenceofadiscernablecolonizer"(p.3).Todrivehomehispoint,Lawdescribesthissprawling networkofrelationsas"collaborativecolonialism,"highlightingtheclosecooperationbetweenthecolonizerandthecolonizedincocreatingastructureofpowerto governHongKong.Basedonthisconceptofcollaborativecolonialism,Lawlinks colonialHongKongtopostcolonialHongKong,emphasizingthecontinuationof thecolonialstructureofpowerafterChina'stakeover.Insodoing,Lawprovidesa convincingexplanationforwhythetransitionfromBritishHongKongtoChina's HongKonghasbeensosmoothandsuccessful. Toexaminethecolonialstructureofpowerintoday'sHongKong,Lawdivides thebookintothreeparts.Inthefirstsection(chapters1­3),heexplainstheformationofcollaborativecolonialisminearlycolonialHongKong(1840­1911).For Law,colonialruleismultifaceted.Asasystemofoppressionanddispossession,it givesthecolonizersamonopolyofpower;atthesametime,italsoseducessome membersofthecolonizedtoserveinthecolonialregime.Aprimeexample, accordingtoLaw,istheChineseeliteinearlycolonialHongKong.Alsoknownas the"colonialintelligentsia,"theeliteweremainlycompradors,traders,andtransla- Reviews 257 torswhofollowedtheBritishtosettleinHongKong.Beforethearrivalofthe British,theywereonthemarginsoftraditionalChinesesocietybecauseoftheir failuretopassthecivilserviceexaminations.Yet,throughcollaboratingwiththe British,theybuilttheirpowerbaseinHongKongbyinvestinginlocalorganizations(pp.20­29),supportingtheuseofEnglishasaclassmarker(pp.49­56),and transformingHongKongintoashowcaseof"imperialpedagogy"ofWestern scienceandmoderngovernment(pp.69­75).Intheseexamples,Lawdemonstratesthat someofthecolonizedtookadvantageofthecolonialsystemfortheir owninterests. Inthesecondsectionofthebook(chapters4­6),Lawexaminesthecultural politicsofChinesenessinHongKongfrom1911to1997.Hearguesthattheriseof ChinesenationalismdidnotunderminetheBritishcolonialrule.Onthecontrary, itstrengthenedthecolonialrulebyallowingthecoloniststochoosedifferent nationalistgroupstoformalliancesinrulingHongKong.ThestrengthofLaw's argumentliesinthechaotichistoryofChinesenationalisminthetwentieth centurywhen,atanygivenmoment,thereweremultiplegroupscompetingto representChina.Tofurthercomplicatematters,membersofthesecontending groupsgatheredinBritishHongKongtolaunchculturewars,andsomeofthem wereeagertowinsupportfromthecolonialregime.Forinstance,duringthe 1920s,theloyalistsofthedefunctQingdynastysupportedtheBritishplanfor preservingConfucianclassicalstudiesinHongKongwhentheculturaliconoclasts inChinapushedforanendofConfucianorthodoxy(pp.106­111).Duringthe 1950sand1960s,the"south-boundintellectuals"oftheformerGuomindang officialswhomigratedtoHongKongaftertheCommunistRevolutionsupported thecolonialgovernmentinpromotinga"diasporicnation"tostopthespreadof Communism(pp.132­142). Inthelastsectionofthebook(chapters7­8),LawbringsthehistoryofcolonialisminHongKongtothepresentday.Callingthissection"lingeringcolonialism,"Lawsuggeststhatpost-1997HongKongisstillacolonydespitethatthenew mastersareChinese.Forhim,collaborativecolonialismpersistsinpost-1997Hong Kongfortworeasons.First,usedtogainingpowerbyworkingwiththecolonial rulers,thecolonialintelligentsiainHongKongcanneverbecomethenational bourgeoisietoleadanationalindependencemovement.Insteadofformingan independencemovementofHongKong,theydirecttheirnationalismtosupportingBeijing'seffortstorepossessHongKong.Second,somemembersoftheHong KongelitefindthatitisintheirinteresttoworkfortheBeijinggovernment.Acase inpointis"northboundcolonialism"inthe1990s,whenmainlandChineseenthusiasticallyembracedamarketeconomy.Takingadvantageoftheirtechnological andmarketingskills,theproducersofpopularcultureinHongKongquickly gainedalion'sshareoftheChineseconsumermarketbysellingcapitalisticmodernity(pp.182­189).Inpost-1997HongKong,theseredcapitalistscontinuetouse theirconnectionswithBeijingofficialstoexpandtheirbusinessenterprisesinthe 258 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 motherland.Naturally,theredcapitalistsarethestaunchsupportersoftheBeijing ruleinHongKong. WhileLawoffersaconvincingargumentforthecontinuationofcollaborative colonialisminpost-1997HongKong,hetendstooverstatehiscontributionto postcolonialstudies.Throughoutthebook,Lawrepeatedlyclaimsthathesucceeds incastingdoubton"colonialManichaeanism"thatjuxtaposesthecolonizerand thecolonizedasarchrivalsintheepicbattlebetweentheoppressorsandthe oppressed.2BasedonexamplesfromcolonialandpostcolonialHongKong,he concludesthatHongKong'spostcoloniality"cannotbegraspedasmakingthedeep gulfbetweenthecolonizerandthecolonizedbutadispersionofhierarchies throughvarioustechnologiesofcodingandterritorialization"(p.201).Lawoverlooksthat,inpostcolonialstudies,thereareplentyofdiscussionsaboutthe h eterogeneity,mutualities,andnegotiationsthatcrossthecolonialdivide.3In postcolonialstudies,therearealsodiscussionsofhowglobalcapitalismcreatesa newformofcolonialismthatnolongerreliesonasharpdistinctionbetweenthe colonizerandthecolonized.4WhatLawclaimsasabreakthroughisactually frequentlydiscussedinpostcolonialstudies.Furthermore,inemphasizingthe dominanceofthecolonialstructureofpower,Lawrunstheriskofexaggerating thedurabilityandeffectivenessofthepoliticalsystem.Heoverlooksthefactthat, inpostcolonialstudies,attentionhasbeenpaidtotheresistanceofthecolonized, especiallythosewhoarenotintheupperclassofsociety.5 Overstatinghiscontributionnotwithstanding,Lawclearlyshowsthepolitical http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png China Review International University of Hawai'I Press

Collaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese (review)

Hon, Tze-Ki
China Review International , Volume 17 (2) – Mar 1, 2010
Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/collaborative-colonial-power-the-making-of-the-hong-kong-chinese-5qk6oqm4gc

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9367
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Reviews 255 Lastbutnotleast,RichardKingconcludeswithaCRtriptychwhenheexaminesthetopicofbattle-readiness(intimesofpeace)inthevisual,performing,and literaryarts.Hisfindingsofanunnamedproletarianseizingacapitalist-roader's microphone,amartialartherotaking"TigerMountainbyStrategy,"andafactory workerwinningthetechnologicalbattleareallimagesofheroesexactlyformed accordingtothethreeprominencesformula(san tuchu).Althoughthesefeverishly cultivatedheroicincarnationsdidnotcometothedefenseoftheradicalswho actuallyinventedthem,theywerepowerfulfantasyproductscontrollingand directingpeople'smindsduringthetenlostyears. Givenitsiconicimageryandnostalgiccomeback,itskitschyreproductionand postmodernplayfulness,CRarthasattractedalotoftheoreticalindulgenceand fetishizing.Withoutexception,Art in Turmoildoesperfectlywellwithoutestablishinganoveralltheoreticalcorset.Ontheonehand,theCRisstillasensitiveand restrainedtopicinthePRCwhiletheWesthaslongsinceopeneditsexhibition hallsforCR-relatedartandacademiahaslongsincebeenanalyzingandtheorizing theCRasspectacle.Ontheotherhand,appropriatingandrecyclingCRimages mayeasilyleadtorevictimizationofthosewhocannotbutassociateCRpictures withexperiencesoftortureandhumiliation.Furthermore,thesesocialistimages havebecomeposhconsumergoodswithincapitalism.Theauthorsareclearly awareofthedoublebindonwhichtheirinvestigationisbased.RichardKinghas wiselychosenandarrangedthedifferentvoicesinhisbookandtherebysuccessfullymasteredthischallengingbalanceact.Consequently,themostdifficult question,howtoremembertheCulturalRevolution,isleftopen. IrmySchweiger Irmy Schweiger is a senior lecturer of Chinese studies in the Department of Oriental Languages at Stockholm University. She teaches and does research in the field of contemporary Chinese literature and culture; her special interest lies in the study of trauma and literature. LawWingSang.Collaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese. Aberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2009.xii,262pp. © 2011 by University of Hawai`i Press Paperback$25.00,isbn978-962-209-930-2. Inthe1990s,whenBritainwaspreparingtoreturnHongKongtoChina,therewas aflurryofpublicationsaboutthecolony.Particularlyinthelasttwoyearsinthe 256 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 countdowntowardthe1997handover,writingsaboundedthatdiscussedthe historyofcolonialHongKongandtheprospectoftheHongKongSpecialAdministrativeRegion(HKSAR)underthePeople'sRepublicofChina.Atthattime,the returnofHongKongtoChinawasportrayedasaretreatofWesterndemocracyto ChineseCommunism.StillfightingtheColdWarinthepost­ColdWarworld, analyststurnedablindeyetoracismandoppressionofthedepartingBritish colonialistsandfocusedontheimminentthreatofCommunism.Stressingthe dangeroftheHongKongpeoplelosingtheirWesternwayoflife,analystspredictedanendoffreesocietyandthemarketeconomyinChina'sHongKong. PreoccupiedbythesuccessstoryofHongKongbeingtransformedfromafishermenvillageintoaglobalfinancialcenter,analystsfailedtonotethatforsome HongKongChinese,thebiggestdangerofChina'stakeoverwasthecontinuation ofthecolonialstructureofpowerafterthedepartureoftheBritish.Inretrospect, whatwasmissinginthe1990sdiscussionwasanexaminationofthepeculiar natureofHongKong'spostcoloniality:"Howdowetalkaboutapostcoloniality thatisaforcedreturntoa`mothercountry,'itselfasimperialisticastheprevious colonizer?"1 Twelveyearsafterthehandover,LawWingSangoffersasystematicstudyof HongKong'spostcolonialityinCollaborative Colonial Power: The Making of the Hong Kong Chinese.CoveringthehistoryofcolonialHongKongfromitsbirthin 1842toitsendin1997,LawexplainshowtheBritishdevelopedaregimeofpower thatwasbasedpartlyontheprestigeoftheBritishEmpireandpartlyonthe cooptationofasmallgroupoflocalelite.CentraltoLaw'saccountisthenotion thatcolonialismisnotmerelytheruleofforeigncolonists.Rather,itis"anetwork ofrelations"operatinginmultiplesitesandchannelsinthecolony"throughwhich theimpersonalforces[ofcolonialism]maystilllingerintheabsenceofadiscernablecolonizer"(p.3).Todrivehomehispoint,Lawdescribesthissprawling networkofrelationsas"collaborativecolonialism,"highlightingtheclosecooperationbetweenthecolonizerandthecolonizedincocreatingastructureofpowerto governHongKong.Basedonthisconceptofcollaborativecolonialism,Lawlinks colonialHongKongtopostcolonialHongKong,emphasizingthecontinuationof thecolonialstructureofpowerafterChina'stakeover.Insodoing,Lawprovidesa convincingexplanationforwhythetransitionfromBritishHongKongtoChina's HongKonghasbeensosmoothandsuccessful. Toexaminethecolonialstructureofpowerintoday'sHongKong,Lawdivides thebookintothreeparts.Inthefirstsection(chapters1­3),heexplainstheformationofcollaborativecolonialisminearlycolonialHongKong(1840­1911).For Law,colonialruleismultifaceted.Asasystemofoppressionanddispossession,it givesthecolonizersamonopolyofpower;atthesametime,italsoseducessome membersofthecolonizedtoserveinthecolonialregime.Aprimeexample, accordingtoLaw,istheChineseeliteinearlycolonialHongKong.Alsoknownas the"colonialintelligentsia,"theeliteweremainlycompradors,traders,andtransla- Reviews 257 torswhofollowedtheBritishtosettleinHongKong.Beforethearrivalofthe British,theywereonthemarginsoftraditionalChinesesocietybecauseoftheir failuretopassthecivilserviceexaminations.Yet,throughcollaboratingwiththe British,theybuilttheirpowerbaseinHongKongbyinvestinginlocalorganizations(pp.20­29),supportingtheuseofEnglishasaclassmarker(pp.49­56),and transformingHongKongintoashowcaseof"imperialpedagogy"ofWestern scienceandmoderngovernment(pp.69­75).Intheseexamples,Lawdemonstratesthat someofthecolonizedtookadvantageofthecolonialsystemfortheir owninterests. Inthesecondsectionofthebook(chapters4­6),Lawexaminesthecultural politicsofChinesenessinHongKongfrom1911to1997.Hearguesthattheriseof ChinesenationalismdidnotunderminetheBritishcolonialrule.Onthecontrary, itstrengthenedthecolonialrulebyallowingthecoloniststochoosedifferent nationalistgroupstoformalliancesinrulingHongKong.ThestrengthofLaw's argumentliesinthechaotichistoryofChinesenationalisminthetwentieth centurywhen,atanygivenmoment,thereweremultiplegroupscompetingto representChina.Tofurthercomplicatematters,membersofthesecontending groupsgatheredinBritishHongKongtolaunchculturewars,andsomeofthem wereeagertowinsupportfromthecolonialregime.Forinstance,duringthe 1920s,theloyalistsofthedefunctQingdynastysupportedtheBritishplanfor preservingConfucianclassicalstudiesinHongKongwhentheculturaliconoclasts inChinapushedforanendofConfucianorthodoxy(pp.106­111).Duringthe 1950sand1960s,the"south-boundintellectuals"oftheformerGuomindang officialswhomigratedtoHongKongaftertheCommunistRevolutionsupported thecolonialgovernmentinpromotinga"diasporicnation"tostopthespreadof Communism(pp.132­142). Inthelastsectionofthebook(chapters7­8),LawbringsthehistoryofcolonialisminHongKongtothepresentday.Callingthissection"lingeringcolonialism,"Lawsuggeststhatpost-1997HongKongisstillacolonydespitethatthenew mastersareChinese.Forhim,collaborativecolonialismpersistsinpost-1997Hong Kongfortworeasons.First,usedtogainingpowerbyworkingwiththecolonial rulers,thecolonialintelligentsiainHongKongcanneverbecomethenational bourgeoisietoleadanationalindependencemovement.Insteadofformingan independencemovementofHongKong,theydirecttheirnationalismtosupportingBeijing'seffortstorepossessHongKong.Second,somemembersoftheHong KongelitefindthatitisintheirinteresttoworkfortheBeijinggovernment.Acase inpointis"northboundcolonialism"inthe1990s,whenmainlandChineseenthusiasticallyembracedamarketeconomy.Takingadvantageoftheirtechnological andmarketingskills,theproducersofpopularcultureinHongKongquickly gainedalion'sshareoftheChineseconsumermarketbysellingcapitalisticmodernity(pp.182­189).Inpost-1997HongKong,theseredcapitalistscontinuetouse theirconnectionswithBeijingofficialstoexpandtheirbusinessenterprisesinthe 258 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.17,No.2,2010 motherland.Naturally,theredcapitalistsarethestaunchsupportersoftheBeijing ruleinHongKong. WhileLawoffersaconvincingargumentforthecontinuationofcollaborative colonialisminpost-1997HongKong,hetendstooverstatehiscontributionto postcolonialstudies.Throughoutthebook,Lawrepeatedlyclaimsthathesucceeds incastingdoubton"colonialManichaeanism"thatjuxtaposesthecolonizerand thecolonizedasarchrivalsintheepicbattlebetweentheoppressorsandthe oppressed.2BasedonexamplesfromcolonialandpostcolonialHongKong,he concludesthatHongKong'spostcoloniality"cannotbegraspedasmakingthedeep gulfbetweenthecolonizerandthecolonizedbutadispersionofhierarchies throughvarioustechnologiesofcodingandterritorialization"(p.201).Lawoverlooksthat,inpostcolonialstudies,thereareplentyofdiscussionsaboutthe h eterogeneity,mutualities,andnegotiationsthatcrossthecolonialdivide.3In postcolonialstudies,therearealsodiscussionsofhowglobalcapitalismcreatesa newformofcolonialismthatnolongerreliesonasharpdistinctionbetweenthe colonizerandthecolonized.4WhatLawclaimsasabreakthroughisactually frequentlydiscussedinpostcolonialstudies.Furthermore,inemphasizingthe dominanceofthecolonialstructureofpower,Lawrunstheriskofexaggerating thedurabilityandeffectivenessofthepoliticalsystem.Heoverlooksthefactthat, inpostcolonialstudies,attentionhasbeenpaidtotheresistanceofthecolonized, especiallythosewhoarenotintheupperclassofsociety.5 Overstatinghiscontributionnotwithstanding,Lawclearlyshowsthepolitical

Journal

China Review International – University of Hawai'I Press

Published: Mar 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.