Invited Seminar: Foster Care

Ms. Erin RAFFETY
PhD Candidate, Princeton University
"Foster Care: Child-rearing Across Generations in Guangxi"
9 March 2012

With the recent release of books such as Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the of the Tiger Mother and Pamela Druckerman’s Bringing up Bebe, parenting has once again become a popular topic in public discourse. These books cover the Chinese and French ways of parenting, respectively. It is with this background that the Anthropology Department invited Princeton PhD candidate, Erin Raffety, to give a talk about the intergenerational parenting discourses in relation to foster child care in China, specifically in Guangxi.

In her talk Raffety covers two generations of parents, the seniors (52-71 years old) and the middlers (22-41 years old). Rafferty unpacked the conflicting ideas of parenting between these two cohorts using ethnographic examples based on participant observation with foster families and her work with an orphanage. Rafferty found that foster parents in Guangxi tended to be seniors, while orphanage workers tended to be middlers, some of whom had children. The seniors would discipline their children through humiliation and (bluffed) threats such as telling the children that they would be taken back to the orphanage or that they were unwanted. The middlers said one should just ignore the children when they misbehaved and use positive techniques such as telling children how much they loved them at other times to encourage them. Rafferty noted that the former technique is the older more Chinese method of parenting that is predicated on a more confrontational discipline, while the latter is influenced by recent western models of positive parenting.

The conjecture over the effectiveness of different parenting methods is not only intergenerational, but intercultural. This was reflected in parts of the question and answer session. Some audience members noted that the positive parenting advocated in western societies led to spoilt children, as Chinese orphans were excessively doted on by families. The foster parents in Guangxi felt that telling the children that you love them would only lead them to be spoiled. Yet, there is also the question of the children’s feelings of abandonment. Raffety noted that this was matter of context. There are times when children should be disciplined and times when they should be loved and encouraged, and what is appropriate depends on the cultural context and expectations. Raffety’s talk shows how anthropology can successfully unpack different perspectives on issues such as parenting and analyse the conflicts between these perspectives.

Leo PANG 

M.Phil Candidate
email.leopang[AT]gmail.com

 

-------------------------------------------------

    改革開放之後，每年都有大量海外家庭收養中國大陸被遺棄的兒童。這一現象與後社會主義中國政治經濟變遷及與外部世界的互動存在密切相關。 3月9日，人類學係有幸邀請普林斯頓大學人類學系博士生候選人Erin L. RAFFETY女士就這一問題於“週五研討會”（Friday Seminar）上發表演講。

Raffety女士的研究基於其近兩年在中國廣西壯族自治區首府南寧市的田野調查。在研究中她著力展現了收養家庭中針對兒童教養問題認識的代際差異、傳統價值觀與現代話語之間的衝突以及這一現象背後所折射出的社會文化變遷。 

Raffety的研究主要針對“老年家長”（52歲-71歲）與“中青年家長”（22歲-41歲）這兩個群體各自對教養子女的認識展開分​​析。例如在針對如何“管教”孩子這一問題上，老年群體傾向於體罰或責罵，而中青年群體則認表現出更多容忍且更願意表達鼓勵。同時，在面對NGO組織的觀念衝擊時，雙方所持態度也並不相同。 Raffety因此認為當下關於兒童養育的代際話語差異實際上是現代化背景下傳統價值觀所受到的挑戰以及轉型期人們對“安全感”的強調，同時她還認為家庭結構由大家族向小家庭的過渡，會使人們重新認識孩子在生活中的意義。

YUAN, Changgeng 

PhD Student

ycg0451015[AT]126.com

HKAS Highlight: The Manila Hostage Crisis and Hong Kong Interethnic Relations

Ms. Candy Hiu Yan Yu
M.Phil Candidate, Anthropology Dept., CUHK
"The Manila Hostage Crisis and Hong Kong Interethnic Relations"
Invited Talk at the Hong Kong Anthropological Society
29 February 2012, Hong Kong Museum of History

First year MPhil candidate, Candy Yu gave a talk based on her undergraduate research on how the Manila Hostage Crisis affected the relations between Filipinos and Hong Kongers. Yu examined this relationship on three levels – the individual level specifically focussing on the relationship between Filipino Domestic Workers and their Employers, the societal level and the international level with the dynamic between China, the Philippines and Hong Kong in wake of the crisis.

While noting that there have been many cases of abuse by employers, Yu found that there were many cases where employers realised that the crisis had nothing to do with their employees. She pointed out cases where employers stood up for their employees when the helpers were the target of abuse when shopping. Yu noted that there was a parallel discourse on internet forums that was much more derogatory in the wake of the crisis. Yu argued that this is because many of those on the internet forums did not have domestic helpers and had never met any Filipinos, thus the only image of Filipinos that they have is the media’s portrayal in the wake of the crisis.

Yu’s coverage of the international level illustrated the precarious position of Hong Kong in international affairs. She focussed on Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang’s inability to reach President Benigno Aquino, who dismissed Chief Executive Tsang as not being on the same standing internationally. Yu argued that this showed that despite Hong Kong not being a nation state, Hong Kongers did not want the Chinese government to intervene on a diplomatic level, reflecting a wider societal suspicion towards Mainland China.

Yu’s talk shows how anthropology can be used to examine current events such as the Manila Hostage Crisis. With the use of interpretive anthropology, analysing the Manila Hostage from multiple perspectives of the individual, society and international relations, Yu was able to shed light on several issues such interethnic relations to the political position in Hong Kong.

For more information please visit the Hong Kong Anthropologist to see a copy of Candy’s research paper on which this talk was based.

Leo PANG
M.Phil Candidate
email.leopang[AT]gmail.com

Invited Seminar: The Ethnic Minority Health Project

Dr. Kevin K.C. HUNG
Assistant Professor, CERT-CUHK-Oxford University Centre for Disaster and Medical Humanitarian Response, School of Public Health and Primary Care, CUHK
"The Ethnic Minority Health Project: 
Health Promotion in Remote, Extremely Poor, Disaster Prone, Ethnic Minority Communities in China."
2 March 2012

How do practices change? Who should change them? This is one of the key issues in Kevin K.C. Hung’s talk about his work with the School of Public Health at CUHK on their China Village Project. The project aims to promote better public health in impoverished, ethnic minority areas of China that have undergone natural disasters. Hung’s talk focussed on the work at one of the project’s field sites in the village of Ma An in Gansu province in North Western China. They have introduced measures to reduce incidents of diseases such as lung cancer by encouraging the use of alternative sources of fuel in cooking, other than raw fuels like wood or charcoal, and encouraging smokers to quit smoking. Hung noted that on follow up trips much of the information that they had passed on to villagers had been forgotten and that this was problematic. Hung hopes that the gap in retaining information and implementing it can be overcome with greater utilisation of anthropological research methods.

There was a rigorous debate during the question and answer session after Dr. Hung’s talk, about changing the practices of local villagers. Many in the audience felt a sense of unease about a group of affluent Hong Kongers going up to Mainland China to tell people how to live better, healthier lives. Some audience members questioned the practicality of advice such as abandoning cooking with raw fuels indoors and the adaptability of a model based on interaction with Africa in the context of China. Others in the audience pointed out that anthropologists had often romanticised local practices in the past. What should be done? How can the optimum policy in public health be achieved, while acknowledging the validity of local practices such as burning wood? Hung noted that increased collaboration and empowerment of local people are important factors in achieving the best outcomes for public health in remote, impoverished areas. Thus, anthropologists have a key role to play in building a mutual understanding between local villagers and the public health workers.

Leo PANG

M.Phil Candidate

email.leopang[AT]gmail.com 

Invited Seminar: The Apotheosis of Wu Feng

Dr. Magnus FISKEJÖ
Associate Professor, Dept. of Anthropology, Cornell University

"The Apotheosis of Wu Feng"
24 February 2012

Magnus Fiskesjo’s talk, The Apotheosis of Wu Feng analysed the story of Wu Feng. The story, which is still passed down by people of Han Chinese descent in Taiwan to this day, is that Wu Feng was noted for his efforts to stop the practice of head hunting among the Tsou people. This effort cumulated in his heroic death in his old age as he sacrificed himself when he rode to his death, as the final kill of the local warriors, who then repented and abandoned the practice. Fiskesjo noted that this was the portrayal in the museum, which was built by Taiwanese settlers of Han Chinese descent and was never visited by the local Tsou people.

Fiskesjo unpacked the layers of interpretation of this story from the perspective of different groups in Taiwan. From the perspective of Taiwanese Aborigines, Wu Feng is a treacherous trader who cheated them out of profits and justifiably died as a result. From the perspective of Taiwanese of Fujianese descent, Wu Feng is seen as someone who can teach important lessons about the superiority of Chinese morality and about self sacrifice in his efforts to stop the Tsou people’s practice of head hunting. From the perspective of the Japanese colonisers of Taiwan, the story of Wu Feng served a purpose of propaganda for their expansionist policies in Asia, supporting an evolutionary view of cultures with Japan now serving as the civilizing force. This myth was readily adopted by the KMT party since it supported Chinese dominance. Fiskesjo tied these layers of interpretation to broader macro level political factors such a colonialism and political repression by the Japanese and KMT.

It was not until the 1988, with the lifting of martial law and the beginning of democratisation in Taiwan, that there was a freer discussion and eventual revelation about the truth behind the story of Wu Feng. Prior to that there had not been much freedom of speech and the adoption of the story by the KMT made it even more difficult to question its veracity. The final blow for the credibility of the story of Wu Feng, Fiskesjo pointed out, was evidence that it had served and been promoted by the Japanese colonists. These factors contributed to its erasure from school texts.

Fiskesjo showed that the story of Wu Feng and the controversy surrounding it hinges on the issue of indigenous relations in Taiwan. Fiskesjo pointed out, significantly, that head hunting was a relatively recent practice by indigenous people. Fiskejo argued that head cutting was used as a device to portray the Tsou people as savages in the story of Wu Feng. In modern day Ahlishan there is a tourist industry built upon Wu Feng. Fiskejo points out that none of the tourism enterprises such as stalls and guest houses are owned by the local Tsou aborigines. Fiskejo uses this case to illustrate the issues of indigenous relations surrounding the story of Wu Feng through this displacement of Tsou from their land.

Fiskejo painted a portrait of the plight of indigenous peoples like the Tsou in Taiwan through the multiple interpretations of the story of Wu Feng and the larger macro level factors of political economy, which led to its spread and eventual erasure from school texts. He noted that the story is still widely known by those over forty years of age, and though some Taiwanese who sympathise with the indigenous people have disavowed the story of Wu Feng, others continue to pass it down as though there is no controversy.

Leo PANG
M.Phil Candidate
email.leopang[AT]gmail.com

Arts Faculty Colloquium: Understanding Globalization through Chungking Mansions

Dr. Gordon Mathews
Professor, Anthropology Dept., CUHK
"Understanding Globalization through Chungking Mansions"
24 February 2012

The Anthropology Department’s, Dr. Gordon Mathews presented the first in a series of Faculty of Arts Colloquiums based on his book Ghetto at the Centre of the World about Chungking Mansions. As well as covering the background of Chungking mansions and the people there, the talk focussed on explaining the anthropological methods that he used in the course of his research. These included methods of participant observation such as hanging around, listening and asking questions, as well as staying in some of the guest houses. Mathews also talked about the application of theories such as Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems theory and Arjun Appadurai’s of globalisation theory in his research. The talk showed how anthropological research methods, particularly long term field work, can yield findings that other forms of research such as questionnaires would not be able to uncover. Mathews noted that because most of what was going on in the Chungking Mansions in relation to trade such as the trade in copy phones was illegal, researchers would need to gain the trust of the traders before they would share their stories. Overall, Dr. Mathews’ talk showed listeners how anthropological research is carried out and its effectiveness in sensitive situations such as that of Chungking Mansions.

Leo PANG
M.Phil Candidate
email.leopang[AT]gmail.com

Invited Seminar on Authorized Heritage Discourse

Dr. Laurajane SMITH
Constrained by Commonsense: 
Authorized Heritage Discourse and its Implications for the Study of Heritage 
17th February, 2012 

Ms. Ah Li CHEUNG with Dr. Laurajane SMITH

“There is no such thing as heritage.” That was a powerful, yet controversial statement made by Dr. Laurajane Smith during a seminar held on 17th February 2012. One of the most discussed topics in recent heritage studies falls back to the question of what heritage is. Smith gave a seminar on this topic based on her research findings in different fieldsites in England, Australia and the United States explaining the concept and interpretation of heritage. Seeing heritage as embedded governmental agency is a way of understanding heritage.

Smith shed light on the conception of heritage by introducing the history and nature of the western “authorized heritage discourse.” A discourse is a way of representing the world and making society meaningful. According to Smith, heritage is a set of cultural symbols indicating national or universal values. The imagination of heritage is a site that is grand, old, and aesthetically pleasing. Through these sites, national identity is constructed and reinforced. Smith mentioned the country houses in England as a typical example of the western authorized heritage discourse. Visitors reflected that they felt comfortable at the site and believed that it is the representation of English history. During their visit, they constitute a sense of self and relate the site to their own history even though these sites only represented the history of the elites in England. The country houses represent a sense of national identity and a sense of being middle class for the visitor, and hence created the feeling of pride and comfort for the visitors during their experiences at the site.

In contrast, Smith also raised the issues of “dark heritage” encountering the authorized heritage discourse. She illustrated this with the funding of exhibitions on the topic of the abolition of slavery. Some museums were celebrating the abolition as a moral victory which was challenged by Africans in Britain. Consequently, other museums attempted to reveal the history of slavery, a part of history that has been ignored in England. The African British engaged actively in the exhibition and felt a sense of recognition of their history. However, other visitors kept themselves emotionally distanced from the exhibition and denied it is a part of their own history. She added this is not happening only in England, but also in Australia, where the history of aboriginal children taken from their families is not acknowledged by society. The seminar concluded that the idea of dissonant and dark heritage is a failure as it reveals a part of history that the majority of people do not recognize and do not take as a part of their own heritage and history.

Last but not least, Smith’s seminar was very inspiring in the way that it questioned the common understanding of heritage as something beautiful and grand and showed the failure of dissonant heritage because people resist the idea. Her definition of authenticity is very stimulating as she emphasizes the feelings of visitors as they experience heritage. If the emotion feels real and intense, the heritage experience is considered to be authentic. The seminar showed the concept of heritage and the implications that the authorized heritage discourse has for the study of heritage. Heritage is not reducible to a ‘thing’ or ‘place’, but a set of emotions, values, meanings, and experiences that people associate with it.


CHEUNG, Ah Li
M.Phil Candidate
ahlileah[AT]yahoo.com.hk

Meeting with Students: Heritage Issues

Dr. Laurajane SMITH

17^th February, 2012

“Meeting all the students was the best part of this trip,” Smith commented after her first Hong Kong visit. In the afternoon on 17^th February, Smith gathered around a table with Professor Tracey Lu and five other postgraduate students to discuss a number of heritage related topics when Smith had a chance to get to know and share her insights about students’ research topics.

The almost two hour long meeting was very enjoyable for everyone. Students were very enthusiastic in raising different questions as well as stimulating some controversial debates concerning many aspects of heritage studies. Some of the discussed issues include the mission of UNESCO in cultural heritage management, the relationship between memory and heritage, the functions of heritage, “authorized heritage discourse,” capitalism and heritage, the question of authenticity, and the role of community participation in heritage preservation.

Even though many topics have been covered during the meeting, the discussion followed mainly two directions: heritage and the past, and uses of heritage. When being questioned about what the past is, Dr. Smith highlights the domination of the West, mainly referring to Europe, in the construction of history. Many ICOMOS experts are Eurocentric. Therefore, many heritage sites of the world outside Europe are unrecognized and de-privileged. The example of the UNESCO world heritage list is further evidence. Some students said that there is no way out of the situation with the domination of Western power, but Smith saw the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention signed by UNESCO in 2003 as a good signal for the underrepresented countries to show the world their heritage masterpieces. 

The debate over the uses of heritage is mainly a struggle between the state and the community. As Smith declares, “all heritage is dissonant.” All heritage involves different groups of stakeholders and conflicts are inevitable for any sort of heritage. She stresses that in the past, the community was the one that is ignored and marginalized. But there has been a dynamic change that the community gains more power in negotiating with the government and gets legitimized by the nation in many cases. 

The meeting did not only discuss the broad understanding and theories of heritage studies; Smith said that she also enjoyed learning about postgraduates’ research projects. Many of the students who attended the meeting are conducting heritage-related topics, such as the Blue House community museum in Hong Kong, the preservation of a Tang lineage heritage, and the Cantonese Opera music community in Guangzhou. Smith gave many valuable comments on students’ research and the students have learnt a lot from her. The atmosphere of the whole meeting was very relaxed and warm. Two hours seemed very short and the meeting ended with laughter.

Cheung, Ah Li

M.Phil Candidate

ahlileah[AT]yahoo.com.hk

Invited Seminar: All Heritage is Intangible

Dr. Laurajane SMITH

All Heritage is Intangible

15^th February 2012

With the sponsorship of the Genling World Heritage Foundation, the Department of Anthropology invited Dr. Smith to present her lecture entitled, “All heritage is intangible”. The lecture consisted of two parts: first Dr. Smith theorized heritage, and then presented some findings of her long-term research which developed her ideas of what is heritage. The focus of the lecture was to examine how heritage is constructed and how the meanings of heritage are consistently negotiated by people in various cultures and contexts.

According to UNESCO (a heritage-making body), cultural heritage is defined as human-created remains that represent unique cultures of the past, which includes tangible and intangible heritage. Dr. Smith reminded us heritage is very often understood as something “old” and beautiful, and can be measured and judged by experts, and listed, such as on the UNESCO World Heritage list. But according to Dr. Smith, this is not really heritage. In fact, she claimed, “There is no such thing as heritage.” Dr. Smith points out that heritage is not a frozen moment in material form, but a moment of actions incorporated with a range of meanings; heritage is subjective political negotiation and identity making. Although UNESCO gives a universal definition of cultural heritage, heritage has been consistently (re)created by human beings in accordance with a range of contemporary needs and concerns in their societies. Dr. Smith, however, argued that all heritage is intangible in the sense that it (re)constructs social and cultural meanings, and that make sense only in the present form and through our identity in a given place.

Dr. Smith provided supporting data from her large-scale, long-term research on museums and heritage sites in the US, Britain and Australia, to argue that the hegemonic discourse about heritage can be challenged by visitors. The authorized heritage discourse is dominated by Western Europe; heritage-making bodies such as UNESCO and ICOMOS promote a set of Western values of heritage and make them universally applicable. Dr. Smith criticized the authorized definition of heritage. It not only constrains our understanding of heritage, but also affects society, as heritage is related to social inclusion and exclusion. To illustrate this point, she noted that people visiting museums and heritage sites would often see through or even reject the official understanding of heritage, such as the official point of view legitimizing nationhood, selectively chosen by the so-called “experts.” Although the national heritage sites and museum are often used for political reasons, those cultural institutions do not and cannot really control how the visitors think, perceive and make sense of what they see. People are subjective beings and active agents adopting different ways to make or unmake heritage. Visitors’ own cultural background and their different levels of emotional involvement affect what messages the visitors take away from the heritage and how they make sense of the heritage.

Dr. Smith concluded the lecture that heritage is a cultural embodiment. It is a cultural process related to gender, ethnicity, nationhood and identity construction. So, what about the non-native visitors, how do they interpret the heritage in specific places? Is the concept of heritage still important if everything is a construction? Dr. Smith’s research is important for helping us see the cultural construction of heritage. Her lecture demonstrates how heritage can be used as an analytical framework to understand cultural change, especially how people connect with the past and create a range of meanings for the present through choosing certain ideas and images, such as those seen in the museums, to reinforce knowledge of themselves and the places they identify with.

Chan, Hiu Ling

MPhil Candidate

l_ingl_ing[AT]yahoo.com.hk

Invited Seminar: 伊斯蘭教本土化研究的意義

Prof. DING Hong 丁宏教授 

Dean of the School of Ethnology and Sociology at the Minzu University of China
中央民族大學, 民族學與社會學學院教授、院長.

Seminars, Spring '12

Please click here to view this semester's seminars hosted by the Anthropology Department.

Unless otherwise mentioned, seminars take place between 12.30-2.00pm in Room 401, Humanities Building, New Asia College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

You are welcome to bring your lunch to eat during the talk.

There is no registration required, and all who are interested, are welcome!