Identity Emergence
Whether a non-profit organization, an emerging nation, or any people group there seems to be a collective soul that forms, and through the environments, experiences, and influences that soul is formed in, an identity emerges. I was reminded of this emergence and learned more of the circumstances and factors that play into it as I read A Modern History of Hong Kong by Steve Tsang. I found similarities to an individual’s journey in self-discovery and awareness, integration and confidence, and the desire and struggle toward differentiation and independence. In the case of Hong Kong this identity was initiated and formed through the conflict of two nations and their own sense of self-importance as great empires.
It is interesting to consider how progress often pushes us toward conflict and conquer rather than advancing in goodwill and betterment for all in a unified effort. As seen with the development of Hong Kong through the First Anglo-Chinese War, Tsang credits the Industrial Revolution with being the “most fundamental change, which brought confrontation closer than ever.”[1] Though this very progress was enabling greater development in the economy, communication, technologies and organizational capacities, it also erected empires of conquest for personal gain. This caused me to ponder the irony of words as defined in the English language specifically, “revolution.” One definition is “a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system” while another is “the movement of an object in a circular or elliptical course around another.”[2] These two very different meanings have even a contrasting feel in nature. One is with force to overpower a system, the other is two objects coordinating around each other in a circular motion as in the solar system. The identity of a person or a collective soul is much like these definitions of a “revolution.”
Identity seems to have an ebb and flow through years of change which was true of the emergence of Hong Kong’s coming into itself. There certainly are building blocks in a person just as a people group, and for Hong Kong, Tsang attributes much to the British legacies particularly the systems that established a rule of law providing fundamental “protection and advancement of the rights and dignity of the individual.”[3] This way of life establishes a sense of order creating the boundaries in which a society can thrive. The civil service and police force were also credited as the basis of stability. Each of these three create a sort of skeletal system, a coordinating solar system providing a safe space that allows the moments of forcible overthrow to be experimented with when people feel oppressed or fearful, when identity is emerging through struggle and resistance.
For Hong Kong, as with individuals, leadership influence within and without became a significant factor to its identity emergence. Leaders throughout the process were often portrayed as more concerned about their own legacies than what was best for the people of Hong Kong. The first to seemingly be sympathetic to this need and voice for an identity was Governor Young in the 1940’s, and though his influence was short lived, identity did begin to emerge. It was almost twenty years before the people seemed to recognize their ability to reflect on who they were and what their identity would be and this through force between Communist China and the British way of life.[4] At other moments in their emergence process we see the revolution of coordination as the people began to converge their Chinese culture with the British influences. This concept was eventually the agreed upon outcome of the 1997 transfer of sovereignty, “one country, two systems.”[5] Significant forcible incidents such as the Tiananmen Square protest movement also had indelible marks upon the Hong Kong identity formation.[6] Tsang’s last chapter is entitled, “Full Circle?” bringing us back to the idea of revolution as circular orbit returning to its origin and describes Hong Kong’s retrocession.
Whether by forcible circumstances and pressures or coordinated and cooperating orbit, identity is formed through large and small revolutions both of the individual and collective soul of a people over a long period of time. This is certainly true for the Crown Colony of Hong Kong.
[1] Steve Tsang, A Modern History of Hong Kong (New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2004), 2.
[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolution
[6] Ibid, 248.
About the Author
Tammy Dunahoo
Tammy is a lover of God, her husband, children and grandchildren. She is the V.P. of U.S. Operations/General Supervisor of The Foursquare Church.6 responses to “Identity Emergence”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Fun post on identity Tammy. It will be interesting to chart our own personal identity transformations throughout this D. Min program!
Tammy, this is a very unique observation about the identity of Hong Kong and how you relate to the human identity. I agree with you because our individual identity is shaped by the historical events and the people and circumstances that we encounter on our journey of life, we are a product of our history. This also implies that there is room for changing the identity of Hong Kong through human intervention by creating events that will influence the population. Countries and cities have been changed through the preaching of the Gospel and Hong Kong too can be changed through the Gospel mission of the Church.
Hi Tammy. It does seem interesting how the identity of the people of Hong Kong changed due to the colonization and the influence of the British. I could imagine that the people of Chinese descent would be conflicted, wanting to retain their Chinese culture, and also wanting the freedoms of the British rule of law system. However, do you feel this new identity is a good one? It seems that these hybrid people face unique challenges, through no fault of their own. It will be interesting to see what will happen for the people of Hong Kong.
Mary, I wonder if the new identity is just at an early stage of its evolution. British and western culture had centuries to develop into what it currently is as also did Chinese culture. Hong Kong has been forming this new hybrid culture for 150 years at most, perhaps it’s going to take another hundred years or so before they finally settle into what they’re going to be. In that regard I wonder if the question shouldn’t be whether it’s good or bad, but in what ways does it need to evolve.
This is a good observation of the connection between individual and group growth in the unavoidable experience of revolutions. I guess it’s too easy to fix Hong Kong’s reality (or any nation state) into a neat time frame and critique the rights and wrongs of possible cultural assimilation as if it ought not to occur – ever. Yet the truth is rather different. Cultural assimilation occurs constantly, even when there is no human colonist involved. China has been colonised by technology, the internet, a burgeoning middle class and worldviews that show little resemblance to the intentions of the cultural revolution of the last century. The idea of a ‘pure culture’ requires a level of human stasis that cannot be achieved. So I guess the question goes begging, “What is the difference between a human invasion and a technological or ideological invasion” given that each of them has the capacity to alienate certain sectors of the community and violently transform culture? Also, how do we define cultural violence? Is it simply the fracturing of structured identity? If so, what formed that identity in the first place? You’re post raises a number of delicious ethical issues. Thanks.
Hi Tammy. Thanks for your post. I appreciated your comparison of an individual’s journey as compared to the journey of Hong Kong. I also liked your philosophy about how progress often pushes us toward conflict rather than betterment. We’ve seen this so much through history and it is also true with regards to Hong Kong as their identify was being developed. Thanks for sharing, Tammy.