Knowledge circles in colonial Hong Kong, 1945-1997
|
||||||||||||||
Abstract,
How and by whom was knowledge produced in post-war colonial Hong Kong? This question forms the topic of my current book project, under contract with Columbia University Press. The project investigates how academics, journalists, writers and students produced and circulated knowledge about social, economic, political and historical issues during the colonial era, and how they engaged broader communities of readers. The focus is on the role of institutions within Hong Kong society that served as vectors for the knowledge produced by intellectuals, in particular newspapers, journals, universities, civil society organizations, as well as the reading publics that intellectuals reached through their writings. A variety of ideological and epistemic systems played a role in these institutions, in particular Cold War liberalism, Chinese cultural nationalism, and colonial ideology.
The timeframe is organized around the changing knowledge regimes in three periods. In the post-war years (1945-1966) there were two main strands of intellectual activity. Within the colonial establishment, liberal elites (both Chinese and foreign), in particular lawyers and scholars, seized the opportunity presented by the Young Plan (1946) to form groups advocating for a higher degree of self-governance. After the establishment of the PRC regime, conservative scholars and liberal journalists fleeing mainland China gathered around institutions like New Asia College and the Union Research Institute. The Confucian scholars tried to safeguard “cultural China” outside the mainland, while the journalists and politicians who identified with the Third Force claimed the inheritance of May Fourth ideals and tried to advance a democratic agenda for China. Both relied on the support of the US cultural Cold War effort through the Asia Foundation for their respective publications. This period stands out by the influence and moral authority of liberalism advocated by humanities scholars.
In the second period (1966-1979), the moral authority of the post-war elites was challenged by social movements dominated by various forms of anti-colonial ideas. The protest movements of 1966 and in particular 1967 were to some extent infiltrated by pro-PRC forces, and the violent methods used in 1967 were rejected by most Hong Kong residents. Yet the underlying critiques of colonial governance found widespread resonance. They led to a newfound interest in empirical methods and the gradual rise of social sciences within the academic establishment. In the early 1970s, the Chinese as Official Language and Defend Diaoyutai Movements mobilized the students in Hong Kong’s elite universities. Anticolonialism became the dominant ideology of this period.
In the third segment (1979-1997), after governor MacLehose’s visit to Beijing, the focus shifted to Hong Kong’s return to China, and the question of so-called “democratic reunification” (democratizing both Hong Kong and China). Professionals and academics again formed circles and networks to produce research and advance their political ideas. After the democracy movement of 1989 was crushed in mainland China, Hong Kong intellectual elites devoted themselves to advancing political reforms in Hong Kong.
How and by whom was knowledge produced in post-war colonial Hong Kong? This question forms the topic of my current book project, under contract with Columbia University Press. The project investigates how academics, journalists, writers and students produced and circulated knowledge about social, economic, political and historical issues during the colonial era, and how they engaged broader communities of readers. The focus is on the role of institutions within Hong Kong society that served as vectors for the knowledge produced by intellectuals, in particular newspapers, journals, universities, civil society organizations, as well as the reading publics that intellectuals reached through their writings. A variety of ideological and epistemic systems played a role in these institutions, in particular Cold War liberalism, Chinese cultural nationalism, and colonial ideology.
The timeframe is organized around the changing knowledge regimes in three periods. In the post-war years (1945-1966) there were two main strands of intellectual activity. Within the colonial establishment, liberal elites (both Chinese and foreign), in particular lawyers and scholars, seized the opportunity presented by the Young Plan (1946) to form groups advocating for a higher degree of self-governance. After the establishment of the PRC regime, conservative scholars and liberal journalists fleeing mainland China gathered around institutions like New Asia College and the Union Research Institute. The Confucian scholars tried to safeguard “cultural China” outside the mainland, while the journalists and politicians who identified with the Third Force claimed the inheritance of May Fourth ideals and tried to advance a democratic agenda for China. Both relied on the support of the US cultural Cold War effort through the Asia Foundation for their respective publications. This period stands out by the influence and moral authority of liberalism advocated by humanities scholars.
In the second period (1966-1979), the moral authority of the post-war elites was challenged by social movements dominated by various forms of anti-colonial ideas. The protest movements of 1966 and in particular 1967 were to some extent infiltrated by pro-PRC forces, and the violent methods used in 1967 were rejected by most Hong Kong residents. Yet the underlying critiques of colonial governance found widespread resonance. They led to a newfound interest in empirical methods and the gradual rise of social sciences within the academic establishment. In the early 1970s, the Chinese as Official Language and Defend Diaoyutai Movements mobilized the students in Hong Kong’s elite universities. Anticolonialism became the dominant ideology of this period.
In the third segment (1979-1997), after governor MacLehose’s visit to Beijing, the focus shifted to Hong Kong’s return to China, and the question of so-called “democratic reunification” (democratizing both Hong Kong and China). Professionals and academics again formed circles and networks to produce research and advance their political ideas. After the democracy movement of 1989 was crushed in mainland China, Hong Kong intellectual elites devoted themselves to advancing political reforms in Hong Kong.