¡AMurica!

Some time ago, two of my close friends in a long distance relationship broke up due to an ‘irreconcilable cultural difference,’ despite both of them being brought up in Hong Kong.

So where is Hong Kong positioned in the cultural spectrum really?

There are many groups of people in Hong Kong. There is the typical, local student. But there are also the minorities: there’s the ABCs (American Born Chinese) who refuse to speak Chinese and gabber loudly in public in English and for this reason  are despised by many; the Pakistanis and Indians born and raised in Chung King Mansion who speak perfect Cantonese; the Chinese immigrants with their distinctive mannerisms and habits, both rich and poor.

I don’t think you can deny their Hong Kong identity — they live here. There are quintessenntial aspects of Hong Kong culture that have an undeniable exclusiveness built by common experiences — TVB shows, Korean dramas, a common education system, popular songs, movies and venues, the SARs outbreak and watching our food slaughtered before our eyes as a guarantee of freshness.

The main difference between an ‘insider’ and an ‘outsider’ is that the insider has naturally acquired the tastes that are expected of a typical Hong Konger. An outsider, such as an academic, can have an equal understanding of tastes, but his motives stem from curiosity, instead of a natural affinity for heritage.

And yet how are tastes defined? Is there really someone who knows every single TV show down to the detail?  If each fragment of pop culture constitutes Hong Kong’s identity, is it possible that we induct ourselves entirely to its body of values, or in other words, brainwash ourselves with it? Moreover, there can’t be one unified experience of a place, regardless of whether or not it is shared.

Despite there being an overarching ‘mainstream’ culture, it is impossible that we can identify with it completely and unreservedly. Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoints and experiences because in the end we are still individuals in a collective. While a dishwasher in a restaurant may not subscribe to the newly invented jargon from universities, his experience of the place is still authentic. It applies to the underclass and also to the expats and ABCs. Cantonese colloquialisms of Hong Kong should not inhibit someone’s claim to their identity.

And yet, Hong Kongers are very sensitive to anything perceived as foreign. Once I posted a link of a series of artistic photos of Hong Kong on facebook, which was then reposted by a friend who captioned it with ‘Hong Kong in a foreigner’s eyes’. Neither Chinese nor British, Hong Kong is unique in itself, resisting other labels of definition. And yet, with such a short history, how can its culture command a sense of belonging, as much as the long-established culture of China? I believe this is one of the reasons why it is not easy to feel a sense of belonging in Hong Kong.

Recalling a conversation I had with a friend in Middlebury, he told me that Hong Kong was “dying” because we are becoming more and more stagnant. Indeed, Hong Kong seems to pride on itself so much that it has lost sight of the fact that it is a small port on the coast of China. Leung Man-Tao, a famous Chinese commentator, envisioned that Hong Kong’s literature would one day identify itself as a part of the Chinese repertoire instead of its own. While Hong Kong has a growing independent arts culture very much influenced by Europe, is Hong Kong culture itself going nowhere?

Perhaps Hong Kong should take inspiration from the various Chinese provinces and American states. While retaining its own culture, it should also address larger issues on both national and global levels. Since Hong Kong’s identity could only be categorized by the ‘others’ checkbox, instead of allowing itself to be diluted by foreign influences, it should position and identify itself uniquely against other cultures.