China through Hindu eyes

Indumadhav Mullick's (1869-1917) China Bhramana (Travels in China) [1911] and Benoy Kumar Sarkar's (1887-1949) Bartaman Yuge Chin Samrajya (The Chinese Empire in the Present Age) [1922] are two little known early-twentieth century Bengali travel accounts of China. Being probably one of the first Bengali tourists to record his travels in China, Mullick briefly visited Hong Kong, Macao, Canton and Amoy whereas Sarkar who came to China with a keen academic interest in China lived in China for nearly a year and travelled extensively through Manchuria, Beijing, Nanjing, Shanghai and the southern region. Sarkar was arguably "one of India's first Sinologists". He wrote two other books on China, one in English: The Chinese Religion Through Hindu Eyes: A Study in the Tendencies of Asiatic Mentality (published with a foreword by Wu Ting-fangby the Commercial Press in Shanghai in 1916) and one in Bengali: Cheena Sabhyatar A, AA, KA, KHA (ABCD of Chinese Civilisation) in 1922.

Sarkar "also narrates the research activities of the Royal Asiatic Society in Shanghai, which he considered 'China's only association for intellectuals. In addition to meeting the president of the Society, Mr. Morrison, who was also the British Consul General and had lived in China for about twenty years, he developed a friendship with the secretary of the Society named Samuel Gu Ling, It was with Samuel that Sarkar visited various Buddhist sites in nearly Hanzhou. Sarkar was eventually elected as a life-member of the Society." (p. 478) He also points out that "a monthly journal that dealt with with English grammar, literature, spelling, etc. The readers of this journal, according to him, were young Chinese who were interested in learning English...Writing about a monthly journal called Science that was printed in Shanghai, Sarkar says that most of the articles were originally published in America. These articles were translated with funds donated by Chinese students studying in America." (p. 479)

From Narayan C. Sen's "China as Viewed by Two Early Bengali Travellers: The Travel Accounts of Indumadhav Mullick and Benoy Kumar Sarkar," China Report, Vol. 43, No. 4 (2007), pp. 465-484.

Some more references:

Madhavi Thampi, Indians in China, 1800-1949 (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005).

Anand Yang, "An Indian Subaltern's Passage to China in 1900," Education About Asia, Vol. 11, No. 3, Winter 2006, pp. 12-15.

English in Hong Kong

I am in the middle of something, but I am still able to, among piles of books and articles in my workstation in the office, read a paper on this topic. One of those is Andy Kirkpatrick, Daivd Deterding and Jennie Wong's "The International Intelligibility of Hong Kong English," World Englishes, Vol. 27, No. 3/4, 2008, pp. 359-377. Subjects are three female and three male final (fourth) year English majors at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, who are going to teach the English language in primary/secondary schools in Hong Kong and this study aims to examine their English intelligibility to native-speakers.

Here are some excerpts: "by comparing these results with those of the earlier Singaporean intelligibility research. The Hong Kong speakers appear to be more intelligible than their Singaporean counterparts...the Hong Kong listeners found Singaporean speakers harder to understand than the Singaporean listeners found the Hong Kong speakers." (p. 365)

"This is an interesting indication for two reasons. First, Singaporean English has more status as an independent variety than Hong Kong English, and has also been the subject many scholarly descriptions...This may mean that Singaporean speakers are more comfortable with their variety and feel less need to align it with an external standard..." (p. 365)

"It should, however, also be pointed out that the relatively heterogeneous and cosmopolitan nature of Singapore and Australia when compared with Hong Kong may mean that Singaporeans and Australians are more familiar with a range of varieties of English and their associated accents." (p. 365)

The last point in particular drew my attention and needs more in-depth explanation. This phenomenon aptly reveals that Hongkongers, and the culture of Hong Kong as a whole, lack diversity and exposure to a variety of accents of not only English but Cantonese and Mandarin. Hongkongers look up to authority, authenticity, and origin. British English accent is always preferable. London the better, Oxford the best. Mid-England accent? Are you speaking English? If you are not convinced, watch Little Britain's fat fighter against Indian accent English. If you still can't get it, look at how Hong Kong and Macao political leaders have been being sneered at their poor and entertaining Mandarin by Hongkongers who are no native Mandarin speakers will get my point. Let alone how Hongkongers denigrate Mainlanders' amusing Cantonese. It derives from the same logic. Hongkongers are homogenous and closed-minded.

BTW, would it be more interesting to compare this study with the English major students in University of Hong Kong and/or Chinese University of Hong Kong?

Overdue ・ extremely overdue ・ 新井一二三

Overdue和extremely overdue離不開我的生活。每朝打開outlook express，就會有一大堆overdue和extremely overdue的電郵。假如是在ICQ的話，就會換成一連串的「喔噢‧‧‧‧‧‧」。借書和還書是每朝早的例行公事。沉悶，有時帶點驚喜。「久候了」，等了這本那本書個多星期，有時會換成是我對書本的歉意。還不了，只好遲還，也就是結局。我都幾乎麻木了。一頁十多個overdue和extremely overdue，看也不看，不管了，全選後就通通刪除。心裏有數，知道哪些是孤兒，被遺落在書海中。

上個月看了幾本新井一二三的書，也是時候要在extremely overdue來臨之前歸還。看了《東京上流》（2005）、《我這一代東京人》（2007）和《偽東京》（2008）。第一本早就看了還了，第二和第三本在家中細嚼。

人離鄉賤，物離鄉貴。距離和陌生是孕育美麗誤會的最佳土壤。我猜，她的書對日本人沒有多大樂趣可言，大抵上是老生常談，不過是糅合歷史、文學和文化的日本故事和經驗。正如香港人不看香港人寫的書一樣。看膩了，見慣亦平常。

一二三的名字，令我常起西營盤薄扶林道和第一街交界的叁去壹點心粉麵飯。坐車經過，沒有路過。

三本書之中，《我這一代東京人》尤其有趣。內容和我的研究興趣有關係的，摘錄如下，以資記錄。

銀座一丁目的餅乾蛋糕店風月堂創始於一八七三年，「三丁目有由基督教書店發展起來的教文館」。（頁79）

上野洋食店精養軒（創於一八七六年）有一道餸名為Hayashi Rice（即燉牛腩飯，似是英國的homemade hashed beef）。發明者有兩個說法，一是精養軒有林姓廚師，為同事們煮這道菜，作為員工午飯膳食，後來正式收入菜單。林姓的日本語即是はやし hayashi。一是專賣洋書的丸善書店創辦人早矢仕有的發明。早矢仕在書店附設的食堂（濤按：書店也有食堂？！）出售這道菜；又有傳早矢仕經去神田佐久間町三河屋洋食店，吃過英國式的hashed beef，繼而改良而成。早矢仕的日本語也是はやし hayashi。新井估計經常出入光顧丸善的周樹人、周作人兄弟也曾食過Hayashi Rice也有可能。（頁106-7）我早就對於一八六九年成立於橫演，背後有福澤喻吉作為推手的丸善很感興趣，奈何在香港仍然找不到《丸善百年史》。可惜。 丸善的歷史見此及此。

新井在阪神間摩登主義中，由村上春樹上溯谷崎潤一郎，再回到山崎豐子。山崎繼1963年的《白色巨塔》的10年後，創作以1970年代金融銀行重組為背景的《華麗一族》。書中位於蘆屋山部最高級地段六麓莊的豪宅萬俵公館，據稱「是1930年代參考香港的白人居住區設計出售的」。（頁124）她應該指是山頂吧。

新井筆下，又從嘉納治五郎引出魯迅。講道館成立於貴族出生的柔道家嘉納治五郎之手，教授英語的弘文館，原來也是嘉納所創立。嘉納在1893年擔任高等師範學校校長達二十六年，任內接收過許多清國公費留學生。新世紀之初，1901年，又創辦私立弘文學院，錄取更多的清國留學生，其中包括魯迅（周樹人）。魯迅還在設於校園內的講道館分道場練習過柔道。1909年，魯迅離開日本的同年，弘文學院停辦。（頁146-56）魯迅會柔道嗎？可能。

《偽東京》所寫的不外是大城市的現象和問題，大致上都能夠在世界其他大城市中找到，譬如電車上缺德粗暴的失落世代（年青人），高學歷的失業（即是博士），對教師諸多挑剔的怪物父母，超高收入階層的消費等等。不過，也有一段分析東京的地方值得引錄和借鏡：「由我看來，東京最大的問題是：面積太大。‧‧‧‧‧‧新開發的郊外住宅區越來越遠，很多人為了上下班，天天都花掉三個鐘頭。如此不僅浪費時間，而且使人無法享受東京之優點和魅力了。‧‧‧‧‧‧實際上，每個東京人只是生活在市內某一個角落，城中小鎮而已。或者說，我們猶如群盲，而東京是一頭巨象，普通人根本不可能掌握整座城市的面貌。」（頁182-3）

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

以下是從維基摘取東京、倫敦、紐約、香港、上海等大都市的總面積和人口，以資參考比較：

東京都的總面積是2,187.65平方公里，人口12,993,920。

倫敦的總面積是1,706.8平方公里，人口7,556,900。

紐約市的總面積是1,214.4平方公里，人口8,363,710。

香港的總面積是1,104.32平方公里，人口7,008,900。

上海的總面積是6340.5平方公里，人口20,800,000。

首爾的總面積是605.25平方公里，人口10,421,782。

台北的總面積是271.8平方公里，人口2,608,186。

巴黎的總面積是105.4平方公里，人口2,193,031。

有何發現？香港好像不算太擠迫。

Divine mission

Excerpts from Jeff Gomez's Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age (London: Macmillan, 2008):

"when a person, or even an entire industry, is convinced that they're on a divine mission, then they're going to be even less, rather than more, inclined to change their ways and try something new. And the more that publishers ignore the drive (much less temptation) to change, the more they will marginalize themselves, pulling away from the rest of the culture, and instilling an us or them worldview that may take years to shake" (p. 40-41).

Although he refers to the publishing industry, his point could also apply to the field of education, in particular humanities education and to be more specific, in my field, Chinese culture education. With the mission to disseminate Chinese culture to local HK Chinese students, mostly second or third generation from the mainland China, who were born and bred in colonial setting (e.g. law and manner), and received colonial education with next to nothing so-called cultivation of Chinese culture and national education, it is WE who essentialize, marginalize, and museumize Chinese culture into something merely to be comprehended (as a kind of knowledge) and appreciated (as a kind of heritage) rather than consumed and practiced in everyday life. After all, everyone of us is completely Chinese by upbringing in a Chinese society.

"Hongkongers would like things to be better"

Here I quote from a columnist:

"Hongkongers would like things to be better. According to public opinion surveys in recent years, everyone would like their child to have improved life chances at birth. They would prefer it if their wife or daughter had the same odds of surviving maternity as women in other advanced countries. They would appreciate full medical coverage at lower cost, longer life expectancy, better public services, and less crime.

When told that these things are available in Austria, Scandinavia, or the Netherlands, but that they come with higher taxes and an 'interventionary' state, many of those same Hongkongs respond: 'But that is socialism! We do not want the state interfering in our affairs. And above all, we do not wish to pay more taxes.'"

For the last thirty years...when asking ourselves whether we support a proposal or initiative, we have not asked, is it good or bad? Instead we inquire: Is it efficient? Is it productive? Would it benefit gross domestic product? Will it contribute to growth? This propensity to avoid moral considerations, to restrict ourselves to issues of profit and loss - economic questions in the narrowest sense - is not an instinctive human condition. It is an acquired taste."

Agree? Actually the above excerpts are from Tony Judt on The New York Review of Books. Apparently, he is not talking about Hong Kong. Why bother? He refers to America. I simply change the subject "Americans" to "Hongkongers" but it still perfectly fit the situation here in Hong Kong. Agree?

Tony Judt's "What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy?" on The New York Review of Books, Volume 56, Number 20 · December 17, 2009.

香港，你還是文化沙漠

最新一期的HKU Convocation Newsletter 《香港大學畢業生議會通訊》(Issue 3, December 2009, p. 24)牽動我的思緒，引起我莫名的悲慟：

「在陸佑堂...

一九二三年，孫中山先生在這裡演講。

一九三三年，蕭伯納George Bernard Shaw在這裡演講。

一九三五年，胡適之先生在這個講台上接受香港大學名譽博士學位。

一九四二年，張愛玲是這一個在戰爭中變成了臨時醫院的地方的護士。

一九六四年，陸佑的兒子陸運濤到台灣出席影展，拍合照的時候，李安就站在旁邊。

二零零六年，李安拍《色，戒》，有一幕熱血愛國青年在舞台上演話劇，就是這個舞台。」

二零零九年，龍應台在陸佑堂舉行《大江大海：一九四九》全球首發演講會

以上的人物有何相同之處？沒有一個是香港人。香港，還是買辦文化當道，還是酷愛大論述、大歷史、大傳統。《大江大海》以下層人物為焦點，反映被歷史遺忘的倖存者如何在歷史大論述下「倖存」。走在人文學前沿的作家，呼吸最自由的空氣，置身於學術典堂，卻不得不隨俗。演講時，也不能擺脫以上中國和西方著名人物在南方一隅的足跡。不知道她還有沒有提及厭棄香港的魯迅？大家都忘記了以香港為家的Sir H. N. Mody，難怪他只好沉默地被棄置於毫不起眼的一角。

文化南被，是多麼令人期待而振奮的命題。香港需要孫中山，香港也需要張愛玲，香港更需要龍應台，香港就是不需要香港。

一個學生跟我說，消費外國貨不是很好、很正常的嗎？我們只需要入口，入口最好的，不需要出口，更無需發展自己的東西。我們要發展自己的東西需要很多成本。我們每個人不是都很熟悉comparative advantage嗎？反正我們都只愛最好的，管它是哪個地方的。言下之意，不言而喻。

「二零零八年，港大以等額配對由「孔慶熒及梁巧玲慈善基金」捐贈的港幣一千五百萬元，設立永久基金，成立孔梁巧傑出人文學者計劃，旨在長久支持傑出人文學者駐校教學、研究和創作，推動大學及社會的人文發展。首任「孔梁巧傑出人文學者」龍應台，埋首於港大柏立基學院的寫作室，完成《大江大海：一九四九》。」

畢竟，她不是學者。十年後，不，一年後，有誰會記得她在「香港」完成《大江大海一九四九》？誰會在意？她和港大的笑容背後的面容和計算，你可以想像嗎？我不想想。

村上隆

你是藝術家嗎？你是文化人嗎？想創業嗎？或許「創業」這個詞貶低了你，不若說你想自力更生嗎？或者說，你想生而無撼嗎？或是是在歷史上留個名嗎？

前文引：看了以上十多本，好些在課堂上用得著，更多的是用作腦震盪，讓腦筋清醒一下，看看研究範圍以外的閒書。李葦、周佩霞、馬傑偉、朱耀偉、吳志森和陳沛理都算是恰到好處的刺激。別有趣味的還是日本作家，總不會使我失望。大前研一是早想看看的，果然沒有失望，不過也沒有太大得著，畢竟他的主張早有所聞，除了他所堅信「在二十一世紀當中，並不存在所謂的『專業人士』」的話，使我再三思索之外（難免不去反思From Students to Professionals的口號），其他都符合預期。新井一二三是意外收獲。不知從何處想來借她的書，一借就借了好幾本。她觸覺敏銳，觀察細膩，融化足以悶死人的歷史資料於小品文中而不覺乏味。正如她所說凡事從歷史入手是最容易的。其實，由史入文應是最易趕客，最難不嚇怕人的。敘事行文如織布般細密，不簡單。最驚喜的，最有啟發性的，腦震盪最劇烈的，更令我改觀的，殊不知是村上隆。反覆細讀咀嚼，翻來翻去抄錄原文，意外。

如果說「藝術需要世界水準的行銷策略」（頁40-47），同樣道理，書籍和文化也一樣。

他在第一章的第一節就寫下向日本藝術界挑戰的宣言：「為什麼到現在為止，日本藝術家在國際間闖出名號的屈指可數？」他以挑釁性的口吻說：「原因非常簡單，就是『他們沒有因循承襲歐美藝術世界的規則』」（頁40），「因為現在藝術的根據地在歐美」（頁62），具體來說，就其個人經驗而言，「現今藝術世界的中心重鎮還是美國。」（頁95），而「在歐美藝術的世界裡，存在著堅定的不成文鐵律，被建構得一絲不笱。」（濤按：同理，在日本本身的藝術世界裡，也應該一樣）（頁40）「歐美的權威或價值，絕對性地支配著整個藝術世界，這是個人無法動搖的事實。」（頁94）他甚至宣告：「不受國際肯定的作品，就沒有意義」（頁90-95）他自己也說出「在日本，我並沒有成功，直到在美國被接受之後，日本的評價才開始隨之而來。」（頁93）「日本之所以肯定我，也是因為我被歐美認同的關係。」（頁179）親歷切膚之痛的村上，無何奈何地告誡日本的同行；「我們應該體認到，自己本來就是白人所忌諱的黃種人這個事實。我們也應該知道，在歐美美術界中，我們的存在就像是馬戲團裡的小丑角色，不，甚至是耍猴戲的猴子。」（頁96）「儘管歐美人尊敬日本文化的某些局部面向，但日本人基本上是有色人種，說直接一點，對歐美人來說，還是一種令人忌諱的存在。歐美人只是在享受極東島國這個戰敗國的人民把玩了數十年的玩具罷了。」（頁227）他繼而承認，「日本並不處在戰敗後復興的狀態，而是一直處於戰敗的狀態。」（頁234）「歐美有著強烈的保護主義色彩，一旦在生意層面上輸了，馬上就會上演一齣毫無文化、弱肉強食的戲碼‧‧‧‧‧‧就算真的很優透，但只要是來自外部的東西，都有可能被歐美藝術的核心所驅逐。」（頁170）

究竟這套「歐美藝術世界的規則」是什麼？「『尋找自己的身分認同（identity），將之視為創作動機』」是其一，「說明在歐美美術史及自己國家的美術史當中，哪一部分的藝術可以拿來與自己的作品相對比較」應該是更為重要的。（頁96）他認為創造「文化變革的開端」，在於「不要將自己的文化視為羞恥，讓大家知道它是可以被全世界肯定的東西」（頁100），因為「如果不跟不同價值觀的人講話，未來什麼都不會改變」。（頁67）這種「講話」、對話、交涉等所謂「自我的意見主張」，在村上眼中，是日本同行所毫不善長的。（頁99-100）

他接著說：「在以歐美為中心的藝術世界裡（濤按；村上多次強調這一點），交易的是人心。」藝術家應該以滿足人的慾望為目的，而且「必須清楚自己的慾望是什麼」，並「必須強烈提出如何與慾望相處」。他認為「強烈的慾望並不會妨礙藝術創作」，日本藝術界目前的「問題反而出在大多數的藝術家沒有強烈的慾望。」（頁41）他嚴厲地批評日本的藝術界，「不管是藝術家、作家、或是評論家，大家都一個接一個成了學校老師。很諷刺地，在日本靠藝術或知識維生的人（濤按：很難不對號入座），夠扮演社會中的某一齒輪功能的舞台只有學校。但如果文化人的最終目的地只是大學教授的話，就算他們對年輕人談論夢想也沒有用。」（濤按：拆穿了許多道貌岸然的嘴臉。「讀聖賢書，所謂何事？」）

勉勵的說話也不是完全沒有的：「想成為藝術家的年輕人，首先應該理解的是，藝術家也是一個社會人」，「強韌地生存下去」「才是勝利的祕訣」。（頁42）要面對藝術家的生存之道，先要認清「所謂藝術家，從以前就是沒有資助者就無法生存的渺小存在。」（頁61）「日本應該倚賴的資產是技術（而且是「很精湛的」（頁100）），歐美應該倚賴的資產是發想。」（頁83）「文化是鬥爭局勢的一種，為了對抗美國，我們必須以歷史及藝術作為武器。要挑戰充滿自傲的歐美世界，應該發揮我們所擁有的潛在能力。」村上就向歐美美術界「介紹了世界通用的日本文化武器：『重視可愛的文化』，還有『御宅族文化。」（頁170）「日本的感受性之中最顯著的一個，是『可愛造型角色』的創造。」（頁180）他強調時刻要保持危機感，「在日本文化當中呈現獨佔狀態的東西，若是不在商業手法上採取更激進的態度，總有一天會被美國這樣的合約社會給吞食掉‧‧‧‧‧‧在不知不覺之間就讓美國變成了御宅族文化的權威，而我們在被榨乾之後，什麼東西都沒剩下。」（頁171）即是說要「由自己（濤按：即日本本身）建立權威」。（頁176-181）」守護世界最高品質的日本造型人物的權利，才能夠在未來創造今後的藝術大國。」（頁181）透過「學習歷史」，掌握歐美美術史的脈絡，正如「每個業界都有該領域特有的脈絡，『開關脈絡的歷史抽屜』，就可以產生價值與流行」，「就能做出自由的作品」。（頁158-166）

「在歐美，大家對於藝不會追求像日本那種『顏色很漂亮』之類、瞹昧的感動‧‧‧‧‧在歐美製作藝術作品有一個不成文的定律，那就是「透過作品，創造出世界藝術史上的脈絡』‧‧‧‧‧『觀念』或『概念』‧‧‧‧‧才是價值的根源、品牌本質，也是藝術作品能受到肯定的理由。」（頁50）「與其說是浮世繪有力量，不如說是被歐美建立的文化脈絡所支配吧！」（頁88）「要如何創造出前往西洋美術史脈絡的入口，這是個重要的問題。」（頁89）進一步而言，「如果要挑戰世界的話，應該要先意識到：是否有用西洋藝術世界的語言，完整地傳達作品的意涵。」（頁53）日本藝術家如何透過翻譯傳達信息，他說「花心思在［翻譯］文章［即作品簡介］上是最基本的禮貌‧‧‧‧‧‧以往想要挑戰海外市場的藝術家之所以無法順利的原因之一，其實就是這種稍微多付出一點心思就可以解決的事情。」（頁55）為什麼？因為「藝術作品是否能夠讓溝通成立，就是決定勝負的關鍵。」（頁64），更「因為現代美術的評價標準是『概念的創造』，所以必須更加重視語言。」（頁54）

「藝術的顧客是極奢華的有錢人。」（頁65-70）「在瘋狂的世界裡燃燒生命的有錢人，他們的『不滿足』投向了藝術，就像是要確認一直都用金錢解決一切的富裕者所看不見的慾望一樣」，「會想要『超越人類』‧‧‧‧‧‧會想要看到天才看到的風景‧‧‧‧‧‧藉由眼前看到的天才痕跡，而希望獲得突破現實界線的靈感」。（頁68）同時，「在西方的美術世界裡，藝術是無法與這種社交界特有的炫耀或競爭的氣氛切割的。」（頁51）年初時，在一個藝術收藏品展覽的開幕禮上，同事對出席的所謂嘉賓頗有微言，套句話就是second-tier甚至是third-tier的人物，「亂七八糟」是僅餘的評價。不過，也就是需要這批人的存在，藝術品的買賣才能夠活躍起來。

日本同行中批評村上的應該多不勝數，「村上這個貪錢的傢伙」之類的說話應是最常見的。他說「金額是評價當中最容易瞭解的軸線」（頁60）「金錢可以製造機會換取時間跟人心，是不可藐視的工具。」（頁238）「來自於人種、環境的關係，即使看似相同的『人』這個種族，能夠理解的部分還是有其界限。而『金錢』這個共通語言，正是可以突破此界限的溝通工具。」（頁237）厭惡金額或金錢的人，「可以說他們是害怕：『被誰都能知道的數字評價，真正沒有價值這件事就會被拆穿了吧！』」（頁60）「金錢」是一道令人難以理解的「牆」，「比藝術領域內的問題更接近藝術本質，是無法解決的『人』的業障‧‧‧‧‧‧因為藝術是人類業障的最底層也是核心。」（頁237）

不可一世，不是嗎？。今以後記最後一段的其中一句作結：「這些自以為是的歪理」。（頁241）

Bad Language

Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language from the Public Administration Committee, the House of Commons, UK

"George Orwell wrote that political language was 'designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind'"

"The language used in politics and government matters because politics is a public activity and the services that government provides are public services. The public nature of government and its activities means that politicians and public servants should be required to communicate with people in a straightforward way, using language that people understand. We have encountered numerous examples of official language, however, where meaning has been confused and distorted. Bad language of this kind is damaging because it can both prevent public understanding of policies and inhibit original expression and thought."

"Poor communication by government bodies dealing with the public is a significant concern, especially when large numbers of people are affected. Long, complex official forms, officious letters and confusing requests for information can all deter individuals from attempting to deal with public authorities. This is particularly worrying when it prevents people from getting the benefits or services to which they are entitled."

"Mockery, as practised by sketchwriters and other political observers, serves a useful purpose by reducing our tolerance for the misuse of language. More generally, "good" political language should be encouraged, and the use of language that distorts or disguises meaning should be exposed and condemned."

"We believe that the use of inaccurate, confusing or misleading official language which results in tangible harm, such as preventing individuals from receiving benefits or public services, should be regarded as maladministration. People should be encouraged to complain about cases of bad official language directly to the body concerned, and government needs to take such complaints of maladministration seriously. Failure to do so would provide grounds for people to complain to the relevant Ombudsman about poor official language."

How professors behave: from academics to thieves

I made a brief note on my half-read good read Michèle Lamont's How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgement (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 2009) some time ago. Just today, when I was on the way to the office in a refreshing morning, I was thinking another interesting title which could draw curious eyes of postgraduates students and the public who hold a highbrow attitude on academics: How professors behave.

I hadn't had a very clear idea about how to make the subtitle as sound as possible, issues ranging from conversation to speech, from conduct to manners, from phone etiquette to table etiquette, from outfit to walking style, from attitude toward cleaners to superstars. The list runs as far as an ordinary person will probably do.

Coming back to the office for less than an hour I decided to use what had just happened to me to be a sound subtitle and here is the full title: How professors behave: from academics to thieves. Intriguing! A visiting young scholar from afar unlocked the (his) mysteries to life, to me.

Yes, he stole my sources behind me and was caught by me in the office. Technically, he copied a file (pdf copy of published primary sources) and was ready to copy more from my flash drive in an open-for-all desktop to his own portable drive when I left my flash drive unattended. I was terribly shocked at that very moment as if your laptop hanged suddenly before you save your doctoral thesis. So was he as if you as a schoolboy cheating on exam was caught by a teacher.

He admitted that he stole (he himself said "stole" many times) the file from me when he realized that the drive was mine as soon as I was returning to the desktop. Apparently, he did not know, as he insisted twice, it was mine and thought it belonged to my colleague as he confessed later in front of two of us such that he seemed to feel free to copy as many and freely as he wished.

Yes, it was not his first-time file lifting, not even second or third I dare to assure you.

We were taught not to plagiarize in university and postgraduate school; in the same way I teach students not to do so. I admit now that I was wrong so were my teachers. We should not even steal!

I myself was responsible for my own fault, carelessness and lack of sense of academic security (I could hardly claim it is about copyright at all).

After all, academics are human beings. This incident drew me back to the column I read lately, Stanley Fish's "Will the Humanities Save Us?" on The New York Times in which he questioned desperately but strongly: "Do the humanities ennoble?" I myself add a negligible remark to this academic incident: the theft is a humanities academic.

Recent readings VIII

Michael Shepherd, "The Impact of Germanic Refugees on Twentieth-Century British Psychiatry," Social History of Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 461-469.

Paul Weindling, "Medical Refugees in Britain and the Wider World," Social History of Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 451-459.

Kenneth Collins, "European Refugee Physicians in Scotland, 1933-1945," Social History of Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 513-530.

Luca Borghi, "On Site Web 2.0: A Useful Tool for the History of Medicine," Social History of Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 589-595.

Qiang Fan, "Hot Potatoes: Chinese Complaint Systems from Early Times to the Late Qing (1898)," The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 68, No. 4 (November 2009), pp. 1105-1135. The journal is at the edge of decline.

Edward McDonald, "Getter over the Walls of Discourse: 'Character Fetishization' in Chinese Studies," The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 68, No. 4 (November 2009), pp. 1189-1213.

王家儉：〈十九世紀英國遠東海軍的戰略布局及其「中國艦隊」在甲午戰爭期間的態度〉，《臺灣師大歷史學報》，第40期（2008年12月），頁57-84。

Miscellaneous notes from somewhere

Finally, I finished Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (London: Penguin, 2005). I often came late with this trend of behavioral economics. This is indeed a bestseller with brilliant research backup, put it more specific, a popularized academic work, which makes it even more attractive to me than their creative and daring questioning and reasoning. How to popularize scholarly research among the mass with attractive and bold ideas, and more importantly, to relate to their lives have always been a challenge.

Quote: "Journalists need experts as badly as experts need journalists. Every day there are newspaper pages and television newscasts to be filled, and an expert who can deliver a jarring piece of wisdom is always welcome. Working together, journalists and experts are the architects of much conventional wisdom." (p. 91)

it brought class to the masses (p. 109)

argument is predicated upon an artificial distinction between “The Humanities” on the one hand and “The Sciences” on the other. One is useless, the other is useful. One acts only upon itself, the other acts upon the world.

These sorts of distinctions may exist on college websites and in faculty phone books, but a single moment of honest reflection will show just how baseless they are in the real world.

腦震盪

村上隆，江明玉譯：《藝術創業論》（台北： 城邦文化事業，2007）。

盧建榮：《從根爛起：揭穿學閥 ‧ 舊體制操弄敎改的陰謀》（台北縣中和市 : 前衛出版社，2002）。

大前研一著；劉錦秀、江裕真譯 ：《M型社會：中產階級消失的危機與商機》（台北：商周出版，2006）。

大前研一著；劉錦秀、謝育容譯：《思考的技術》（台北：城邦文化事業，2005）。「在二十一世紀當中，並不存在所謂的『專業人士』」（頁224）

西村克己著；鄭雅云譯：《圖解思考法：提昇資訊整理、 問題解決的速度》（台北： 商周出版，2005）。

奧村隆一著；朱立文譯：《圖形思考技巧：利用5 種圖形迅速解決問題》（台北：商周出版，2008）。

派翠克 ‧ 潘、流川美加、蔡虹：《35X33：35歲前要做的33件事》（台北：易富文化，2005）。

李葦：《狗臉的歲月：香港狗仔隊剖析》（香港：次文化，2008）。

林沛理：《香港,你還剩下多少？：香港例外主義之死》（香港：次文化，2007）。

林沛理：《能說不的秘密》（香港：次文化，2008）。

吳志森：《曾爵士，你是中國人嗎？》（香港：次文化， 2008）。

周佩霞、馬傑偉：《愛國政治審查》（香港：次文化， 2005）。

朱耀偉：《香港的當勞化 ：徘徊獅子山下尋找信望愛》（香港：文化会社， 2007）。

新井一二三：《我這一代東京人》（台北：大田出版，2007 ）。「他們〔東京人〕有都會人的瀟灑，但是缺乏奮鬥的力氣，於是在社會大轉變的時刻，總是跟不上潮流，必定淪為敗者。」（頁42）

新井一二三：《偽東京》（台北：大田出版， 2008）。

新井一二三：《東京上流》（台北市：大田出版， 2005）。

寫完稿子，趕過報告，近日閒來無事，乘車時不再手執學術論文，改以上列書籍消磨時間。怱怱看了以上十多本，好些在課堂上用得著，更多的是用作腦震盪，讓腦筋清醒一下，看看研究範圍以外的閒書。李葦、周佩霞、馬傑偉、朱耀偉、吳志森和陳沛理都算是恰到好處的刺激。別有趣味的還是日本作家，總不會使我失望。大前研一是早想看看的，果然沒有失望，不過也沒有太大得著，畢竟他的主張早有所聞，除了他所堅信「在二十一世紀當中，並不存在所謂的『專業人士』」的話，使我再三思索之外（難免不去反思From Students to Professionals的口號），其他都符合預期。新井一二三是意外收獲。不知從何處想來借她的書，一借就借了好幾本。她觸覺敏銳，觀察細膩，融化足以悶死人的歷史資料於小品文中而不覺乏味。正如她所說凡事從歷史入手是最容易的。其實，由史入文應是最易趕客，最難不嚇怕人的。敘事行文如織布般細密，不簡單。最驚喜的，最有啟發性的，腦震盪最劇烈的，更令我改觀的，殊不知是村上隆。反覆細讀咀嚼，翻來翻去抄錄原文，意外。

見後文。

同時還有：

李珮詩：〈明亡前後金陵勝景圖象之研究－－以松巒古寺為例〉，《書畫藝術學刊》，第4期，頁257-291。

Michal Daliot-Bul, "Japan Brand Strategy: the Taming of 'Cool Japan' and the Challenges of Cultural Planning in a Postmodern Age," Social Science Japan Journal, 2009, 20 pps.

Jan Lucassen and Leo Lucassen, "The Mobility Transition Revisited, 1500-1900: What the Case of Europe Can Offer to Global History," Journal of Global History, 2009, Vol. 4, pp. 347-377.

Osamu Saito, "Forest History and the Great Divergence: China, Japan and the West Compared," Journal of Global History, 2009, Vol. 4, pp. 379-404.

Nicola Spakowski, "National Aspirations on a Global Stage: Concepts of World/Global History in Contemporary China," Journal of Global History, 2009, Vol. 4, pp. 475-495.

"This article will demonstrate...that the 'global' in these discussions [a surge in world history research and a reorientation towards what is called a 'global view on history' is not regarded as the substance of the historical process but merely as the context for the development of the nation-state as the uncontested historical unit. This specific orientation is caused by a persistent nationalism, discursive traditions, and alliances of world history writing with contemporary political discourse." (p. 475)

"In the case of world history, mainstream theory production...seems to be controlled by the older generation and, in spite of the use of 'imported' concepts, is oriented to a nationally defined discursive space." (p. 477, note 5)

A page A day

A prolific American academic once said: "write a page every day, and you will have 30 books in 30 years." This is very stimulating and tempting. It sounds true and this idea has been lingering in my mind for weeks and months. Excluding weekends, public holidays, occasional holiday trips, funerals and wedding banquets, one should at least be able to produce a monograph (or maybe a series of essays) with good discipline and perseverance. I pay tribute to this diligent professor. Squeezing a min or two could actually produce a paragraph with or without sense. Like this one perhaps.

The Decline of the English Department

William M. Chace's The Decline of the English Department: How it happened and what could be done to reverse it, The Epoch Times, November 5 – 11, 2009.

Reading this stimulating piece is sad because it led me to feel bad about the unparalleled rapid growth of library facilities across all HK uni, e.g. buying up all Oxbridge and Ivy Leagues presses books (which, from my experience, decidedly outnumbered almost all British university libraries), and switching to Web 2.0 (which is too novel to Oxbridge), but not the minds of our uni and faculty...

Recent readings VII

Brian Stanley, "The Church of the Three Selves: A Perspective from the World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh, 1910," The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, Vol. 36, No. 3, September 2008, pp. 435-452.

"The evidence submitted to the commission and the commission's report to the conference suggest that progress towards the Protestant ideal of a self-supporting, self-governing, self-extending indigenous church was extremely uneven: quite rapid in Korea, Japan and parts of China; decidedly patchy in Africa; and extremely slow in India. The commission explained these differences in part by appeal to 'racial characteristics', yet the report's use of the category of race was loose and ambiguous: the commission both deplored the failure of the indigenous churches to develop their own distinctive 'racial' character and blamed racial deficiencies for the failure of churches to advance more rapidly to autonomy." (p. 435, abstract)

真性情

嚴志雄：〈「周策縱教授紀念專輯」弁言〉，《中國文哲研究通訊》，第17卷第3期（2007年9月），頁1-4。

「我初謁師門時，師已七十餘，身體猶壯，健飯，能盡三大碗......開車率性任為，極危險。」（頁3，粗體另加）

Illustrated catalogue of the Chinese collection of exhibits for the International Health Exhibition, London, 1884

Illustrated Catalogue of the Chinese Collection of Exhibits for the International Health Exhibition, London, 1884 (London: William Clowes and Sons, 1884. Published by the order of the Inspector General of Customs).

Chapter XVII: Chinese books: 1. Translations &c., from the Peking College, 2. Translations, &c, from the various Protestant Missions, 3. Translations &c, from the Shanghai Arsenal, 4. Books lent by His Excellency the Marquis Tseng. (why non-health-concerned books included?)

Chapter XXII: 1. Restaurant and Tea-House, 2. Edibles, &c, served in the Restaurant (this is funny)

敘述史學與夫子自道

引自盧建榮的〈黎東方的敘述史學〉（《史學彙刊》，第21期（2008年6月），頁125-140）。

「中國現代史學誤把濫用徵引文獻以進行歷史書寫當成科學治史方式，黎東方逆轉潮流，主張以轉述文獻法來呈現歷史，在二十一世紀的今天看來，一方面顯示黎氏的勇氣，另一方面又見證了黎氏具有遠見，知道史學終有回歸敘述史學的一天。」（頁125）

「像顧頡剛的《秦漢方士與儒生》（1933；1954）、張蔭麟的《中國史綱：上古篇》（1941）、黎東方的《新三國》（1942）和《細說清朝》（1962），以及黃仁宇的《萬曆十五年》（1982）等五部史著，構成當代敘述史學的五大豐碑」（頁126）

「主張科學治史的權勢派（傅斯年、陳寅恪為代表）...以徵引大量資料為能事，卻美其名曰：「科學治史」，強調史家不講話，史料會自己說話。而主敘述史學的史家多能消化史料，然後以饒富自己風格的語言加以轉述，其間即令有所徵引資料，但衡之全書比重所佔分量微乎其微。」（頁126）

「徵引和轉述本來是學術社群中人賴以從事知識生產的兩大技巧，本不宜偏廢，可是飾以科學外衣的權勢派卻認定，將史料加以轉述會有扭曲原文原意的風險，乃因噎廢食，不允許史學同業採用轉述技巧寫史。他們把對科學的誤解，濫用成規定史學同業的操作規範：凡使用轉述寫作技巧者，即違反科學此一天條。虧得上述顧頡剛、張蔭麟、黎東方，以及黃仁宇諸輩不信此邪，以致他們的著作才能在書市歷久不衰、允為出版社的常青樹，即令在政治分裂的海峽兩岸，這五本書可以越界流通、毫無阻滯。相反地，傅斯年和陳寅恪作品只縮限在業界供人當學術史料研讀，書市一般讀者是連看都不想看的。」（頁127）

「學閥傅斯年」（頁129）

「有節制地引文，在歷史書寫上是一項優點，相反地，毫無節制地引文，除了暴露為文者不會寫書之外，更讓讀者望而卻步、不忍卒讀，不，不忍開讀！」（頁130）

「生在二十一世紀的我們，倘若仍迷信徵引可與科學畫上等號，那無形中等於相信傅斯年的史著優於司馬光的《通鑑》。這樣將是乾坤顛倒、是非不分了。」（頁130）

「黃仁宇之後的敘述史著的另一個轉折是由盧建榮所創的、藉由書中角色扮演多元敘事觀點的媒介。」（頁131，註引盧氏唐代五部曲）

This article resonates with a book on my desk by a story-telling historian at Yale, Maya Jasanoff's Edge of Empire: Lives, Culture, and Conquest in the East, 1750-1850 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005). In her acknowledgements, she wrote "[t]he project evolve into a Ph.D. dissertation at Yale University, where I was fortunate to learn about history in an academic environment that value narrative writing." (p. 323)

The Ugly Truth about Hybridity

In order to expose myself more to the cruel reality (which is apparently a self-torture), I watched The Ugly Truth last weekend, which is very intriguing, funny, and up-to-the-point. I strongly recommend it to my friends and students who have been so much frustrated by male-and-female relationship. I can assure you that it is a completely different experience to pay to admit the ugly truth about men and women before working on it.

What's more stimulating, and literally uglier were the side dishes, the hate-it-or-love-it trailers of True Legend (蘇乞兒) featured by Jay Chow's bizarre costume, MJ's posthumous concert-movie This is it (which I was deeply drawn to watch it but stopped by a rational head), and the Japanese- and Eurasian-starred (Joe Odagiri and Maggie Q) The Warrior and the Wolf (狼災記) (I wonder if they would speak Chinese in the movie).

The last one is particularly related to an article I have just read today, Emma Jinhua Teng's "Eurasian Hybridity in Chinese Utopian Visions: From 'One World' to 'A Society Based on Beauty' and Beyond," Positions, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 2006, pp. 131-163.

I have the least intention to draw my readers, if any, from reading the original paper by reproducing my summary. Let me jump to the conclusion at once: "hybridization does not challenge the existing racial order, but rather reinforces notions of racial hierarchy while palying into the politics of 'lightening.' Thus, if the idealizations of the Eurasian examined here disrupt the boundary between yellow and white, they simultaneously create a new boundary between the yellow/white and the darker races: hybridity's effect is less a disruption of binary categories than a displacement." (p. 158)

Take a break, reading an out-of-your-field article won't cause you a penny.

Recent readings VI

〈毛漢光教授訪談回憶錄〉，《中正歷史學刊》，第10期（2007），頁1-12。“歷史學的核心就是時間”，“沒有辦法找到時間的動能，那就不能算是歷史學”，“沒有發現時間在這整個事件發生過程當中所具有的影響力”，“跟我們現代的社會學研究沒有兩樣，只是一個橫剖面”。

〈雷家驥教授訪談回憶錄〉，《中正歷史學刊》，第10期（2007），頁13-25。“學界門戶之嚴、同黨化異之切”。

秦曼儀：〈書籍史方法論的反省與實踐──馬爾坦和夏提埃對於書籍、閱讀及書寫文化史的研究〉，《臺大歷史學報》，第41期（2008年6月），頁257-314。

裴英姬：〈《燕行錄》的研究史回顧（1933-2008）〉，《臺大歷史學報》，第43期（2009年6月），頁219-255。

大木康：〈從出版文化的進路談明清敘事文學〉，《中國文哲研究通訊》，第17卷第3期（2007年9月），頁175-178。

陳潔儀：〈西西《我城》的科幻元素與現代性〉，《東華漢學》，第8期（2008年12月），頁231-253。

陳維新：〈雍正皇帝遣使赴俄外交禮儀交涉－－兼論清朝官書不載托時、德新使俄問題〉，《俄羅斯學報》，第9期（2008年12月），頁1-32。

洪國鈞：〈電影這小玩意兒……：電影／評論／歷史的消費遊戲〉，《中外文學》，第31卷，九月號（2002年9月），頁54-68。

Guo-Juin Hong (洪國鈞), "Framing Time: New Women and the Cinematic Representation of Colonial Modernity in 1930s Shanghai," Positions, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Winter 2007), pp. 553-580.

Fabio Lanza, "Politics of the Unbound: 'Students' and the Everyday at Beijing University, Positions, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Winter 2008), pp. 569-599.

Rebecca E. Karl, "Journalism, Social Value, and a Philosophy of the Everyday in 1920s China," Positions, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Winter 2008), pp. 539-567.

Mary Backus Rankin, "Alarming Crises/Enticing Possibilities: Political and Cultural Changes in Late Nineteenth-Century China," Late Imperial China, Vol. 29, No. 1 (June 2008), pp. 40-63. using Chinese newspapers as key sources.

Review of Modern Foreign Languages provision in higher education in England By Professor Michael Worton, Vice-Provost, University College London, for Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)

Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2009 by Institute of Fiscal Studies.