Another list of recent readings

Cleand up my work desk (just the tip of the iceberg...) and compiled recent readings below, some read very recent and some almost a year ago.

Rana Mitter, "Writing war: autobiography, modernity and wartime narrative in Nationalist China, 1937-1946," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 18 (2008), pp. 187-210.

Matthew Hilton, "The death of a consumer society,"Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 18 (2008), pp. 211-236.

孔祥吉：〈日本機密檔案中的伍廷芳〉，《臺大歷史學報》，第33期（2004年6月），頁215-259。伍廷芳向日本提供的情報及其原因。

何冠彪、劉詠聰：〈羅香林出生日期考辨〉，《臺灣師大歷史學報》，第35期（2006年6月），頁177-220。應為1904年10月19日或1905年10月9日。

何冠彪：〈「六經尊服、鄭，百行法程、朱」－－惠士奇紅豆山房楹帖問題考釋〉，《臺灣師大歷史學報》，第38期（2007年12月），頁29-68。

王爾敏：〈梁廷柟對於西方之認識及其開新視野〉，《臺灣師大歷史學報》，第35期（2006年6月），頁115-140。

蔡惠堯：〈晚清深圳地區基督教傳播史論〉，《臺灣師大歷史學報》，第36期（2006年12月），頁131-152。

廖振旺：〈初論乾隆北京城書籍市場的分布與貨源－－以李文藻〈琉璃廠書肆記〉為中心的探討〉，《臺灣師大歷史學報》，第36期（2006年12月），頁53-100。

王秀雲：〈不就男醫：清末民初的傳道醫學中的性別身體政治〉，《中央研究院近代史研究所集刊》，第59期（2008年3月），頁29-66。

why HK tutorial centre (colleges) are a real bargain?

Compared to UK tutorial colleges, HK tutorial centres (colleges) are a real bargain. Just have a look of the following two examples in London and Edinburgh will understand what I mean.

David Game College, for example, is an independent college in London which provides GCSE (equivalent to HKCE) and GCE (equivalent to HKAL) courses. One GCE AL subject costs £3,700 per annum, three subjects for £10,500 per annum. Two-year three-subject would ask for at least £21,000! 

Basil Paterson College is another independent college in Edinburgh which provides small class learning, between 4 and 6. One GCE AL subject needs £4,288 per annum! Two-year three-subject definitely cost a fortune.

In fact, the fees stated above are full-time fee whereas HK tutorial centres mainly run part-time courses. If tutorial colleges help, why pour the money into water? Locals appear to ignore the fact that public schools monopolize the market of HKCE and HKAL students. The moment for tutorial colleges to flourish is yet to come. Rarely any very bright students dare to give up their seats in public schools and turn to tutorial colleges for full-time learning (except leftouts and resits). If public schools is a waste, why the majority tends to, on the one hand, enjoy the various benefits of public schools, and on the other, rely on tutorial colleges for pure examination training while at the same time severely condemning the consumerism of so to speak tutorial culture.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

In a highly gendered and consumerist metropolis, intentional sexual appeal and fashionable outfit of tutors reflect the arguably biased marketing priority of sex and fashion less than the homogenous nature of the business and the ease to achieve good grades.

UK GCE General Studies vs HK Liberal Studies II

As the sequel of the previous post, in addition to six key skills (communication; application of number; information technology; working with others; improving own learning and performance; problem solving), thinking and analytical skills, I add the assessment objectives in which candidates should be able to:

1) demonstrate relevant knowledge and understanding applied to a range of issues, using skills from different disciplines;

2) communicate clearly and accurately in a concise, logical and relevant way;

3) marshal evidence and draw conclusions; select, interpret, evaluate and integrate information, data, concepts and opinions;

4) demonstrate understanding of different types of knowledge and of the relationship between them, appreciating their limitations

In fact, these objectives are not unfamiliar to teachers of Liberal Studies. More details about the content of each domain (i.e. areas and possible discussion topics) could refer to the OCR. For example, the cultural domain includes 6 areas: a) beliefs, values and moral reasoning; b) aspects of culture; c) media and communicatio; d) religious experience and its alternatives; e) creativity and innovation; f) aesthetic evaluation.

The reports on General Studies for June 2008 (15,003 candidates took AL, 25,224 for AS, and 40,227 in total) is telling because, I think, it reveals what would probably happen in our Liberal Studies. Let's have our subject report forecast.

In the chief examiner's report, it states that "too many" students dealt with a range of diverse opinions using "rather simplistic 'tabloid' thinking" and they seem to act like copycats for they copied "the language of the headline and opening paragraphs of some tabloid newspapers". What are the key resources suggested? Newspapers and journals, e.g. The Guardian, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Financial Times, The Economist. However, the chief examiner threw up his hands in despair. HK EDB also suggests and encourages newspapers as a key resource but HK newspapers are no less tabloid than British ones. What's more ironic is that tabloid newspapers issue so to speak "liberal studies pages" to attract schools, students and parents to subscribe!

The chief examiner explicitly explains his strong disaggreement with the frequent use of media evidence to support arguments because it "often reveal[s] a rather naive view of the power of the media and the way it works". He warns that careful use of the media for evidence in the context of the wider aspects of the industry is needed.

Mark schemes coming next.

UK GCE General Studies vs HK Liberal Studies I

Liberal Studies? General Studies? Critical Thinking?

It is fair to say that the education system in Colonial HK was molded by that of Britain copying GCSE and GCE. In post-colonial HK, following the US-and-UK led educational trend rather than surrendering its "educational sovereignty" to the PRC, it is even fairer to justify that HK is yet to be "nationalized".

In this regard, however, Liberal Studies simply does not exist at all in the UK GCE (General Certificate of Education, equivalent to HKALE). The immediate parallel subject could be General Studies (7831).

General Studies (here I stick to the Advanced GCE and its specifications) are divided into three key domains: scientific, cultural and social, with culture, science and society making connections across these three domains. The scientific domain addresses science, mathematics and technology; the cultural domain focuses on culture, morality, arts and humanities; the social domain explores society, politics and the economy.

The subject is designed to encourage students to: 

1) develop a greater awareness of human knowledge, understanding and behaviour; 

2) integrate knowledge from a range of disciplines in a way that will allow candidates to develop a synoptic view of how they relate to one another and to show how each may contribute to the understanding of issues being studied (see below); 

3) appreciate that there are various ways of interpreting different types of information and assess the relative merits of evidence in order to understand such concepts as objectivity, neutrality and bias; 

4) think critically, logically and constructively about significant problems, acquire an appreciation of the strengths and limitations of different approaches and demonstrate an ability to justify their own; 

5) develop a critical awareness and understanding of perennial and contemporary issues and develop a greater awareness of their historical and contemporary contexts in order to enhance skills of evaluation; 

6) communicate with coherence and clarity in an appropriate format and style. 

Issues to be studied are 1) spiritual, moral, ethical, social and cultural issues; 2) environmental and health issues; 3) the European dimension; 4) avoidance of bias. It clearly states that "answers to such questions will inevitably differ widely. However, where appropriate, they should demonstrate awareness of the issue concerned, factually-supported opinion, evaluation and a reasoned conclusion".

From the official specifications of HK Liberal Studies, I found one single word most puzzling to me: independent. Independent thinkers, independent thinking independent learning, independent study, independent enquiry study, even independent field of knowledge frustrated my independent intellectual enquiry. From the specifications of General Studies, I noticed only The Independent and The Independent on Sunday. Even from that of Critical Thinking, I dug none at all (except independent sources). Secondary school education should have assumed that students learn to think and learn independently whereas independence entails no criticism or critical thinking.

Another aspect from the criticism side is that students inevitably think, speak and write nonsense. Given that HKers are Homo oeconomicus (economic human), such kind of pragmatism is too familiar to everyone of us, which is itself nonsense. What do we expect from a 17-or-18-year-old teenager without any real-life (or cruel life) and working experience? I found this claim too unrealistic. The subject matter aims not to test student's aspiration. A kidult is neither socially nor economically independently. Let's not forget power is knowledge.

Dubliners vs a HKer

Embrace the old nightmare, James Joyce's Dubliners. Hooray!!!

Interrogating the book as a colonial writing, it was painfully boring and tough from start to finish.

However, the pain has lingered in my mind for years and, again, very recently.

Like a kid longing for a lollipop, finally, I bought the book happily last Friday. (even happier, right before going to the office and shared my excitement with my workmate in the office)

An American friend of mine once replied to my silly twittering in facebook ("why the hell am I becoming a historian?"), and said "is it painfully fun?" Bingo!!! 

Miscellaneous notes from nowhere

Cooking/lifestyle programmes have been phenomenally successful throughout the world, from Iraq to HK.

It tends to be gender-specific. Take home chief, beautifully translated in Chinese as 帥哥廚師到我家 in Taiwan, is hosted by the Aussie mast chief Curtis Stone, whose shiny smiling face and sexy outlook have conquered every shocked charming young lady shoppers/housewives (mostly middle-class) to say yes to take him home.

Rarely anyone in HK could be a world-class chief, bestseller cookbook author (as "illiterate" as Jamie Oliver "wrote" several) and charismatic presenter at the same time. None at all.

Monie and Kelena

wishy-washy food programmes, fuzzy philosophy of life, luxury, leisure and pleasure (four Ls) ideal for stinky monolithic pseudo-middle-class, a middle-aged charmless man with a handful inarticulate young beauty (or so-called models or Miss HKs) which makes one easily tend to think of Beauty and the Beast.

stupid gendered entertainment more than food, entertainer more than chief, sloppy graphic design rather than artistic film shooting and photographing, chiefs become merely informants, ignorant "cute" host working out behind the host chief, rarely teach how to cook it yourself at home

why the world is not FLAT!!!

A very simple testimony is that YouTube keeps telling you "[t]his video is not available in your country."

你吃過鯨肉嗎？

近來多看別人的部落，看到關於鯨肉的文字和討論（也請看看留言部份，以免知其一，不知其二）。我回應了一下，如下：

人類是有原罪的動物。 

這不是基督宗教的原罪，而是生存的原罪。

人類要延續生命，就要"捕食"其他生命。動物是生命，植物也有生命。

當你見到植物正常地生長，或是在黑暗之中尋找一絲絲光線以求存，你就知道植物也有頑強的生命力，即使是街道上石磚間的野草也一樣。

捕鯨(鯨肉近於獸肉，即紅肉，熟食應較生食為佳)有國際條約明文規範，日本、美國、加拿大、挪威、冰島、格陵蘭都有捕鯨，尤其是日本因二戰後食物匱乏，鯨肉成為戰後兒童的學校的主糧(幾乎可以宣稱是集體回憶。美國人為何抵制日本人捕鯨是另一回事)。基本上捕鯨是合法的(有數量、品種、內銷等限制)!

當捕鯨涉及多國多種族的文化和生計時，反捕鯨就不是一句殘忍就足以概括一切。反過來說，人工養育生命然後捕殺，又是如何的"善良"或不殘忍?

當城市人漸漸不再親手捕殺，不用放血剖肉，不見動物淹淹一息的片刻，不聽其爭扎的嘶叫聲，甚至是根本未接觸過食用的動物，未聽過其真實叫聲(更不用說分辨)，一切都有人代勞的時候，到手的不過是方方正正的紅肉白肉，城市人實在沒有資格反對合法捕鯨，乃至詆譭合法捕鯨的人為殘忍。

題外話，近十多二十年來西方有些書籍指控基督教妨礙保護動物運動(這個我不大認同)。大家可以參考下，以增廣見識，不要瞎子摸象。

想不到鄰家小朋友居然...

每日面對鄰家小朋友淒厲的哭聲和被父母喝罵"福佳"，我就知道小學教育的不容易...

看完這篇文章後令我頓時想起早陣子在英國《衛報》看到的一則教育評論。

金融風暴令英國許多金融精英失業，英國政府想出詭計吸納令他們再就業。他們居然同羅范的想法一樣，就是叫他們去當教師(另一個原因是英國教師嚴重缺人和備受所謂專業人士批評)。不過,英國政府高明一點點,就是先為他們提供半年的培訓。此令一出,當然備受教育界批評。

《衛報》刊登了一位家庭法專業律師的夫子自道。她抱著滿腔教學熱誠,轉職任教小學英文。不過，她很快察覺到事與願遺，滿腔教學熱誠換來的是怨氣和仇視。她的抱怨大抵上和香港的所謂專業人士如出一轍，教學指引的規範，缺乏創意空間，窒礙資優生等等，不一而足。三個月，不過是三個月，她受不了，辭職。

我在大學教學，看不到中小學的情況，只從朋友親戚口中略知一二。然而我也想像到中小學教育不只是知識的傳授(大學也不應只是如此)，是言教和身教。當鄰家小朋友被父母喝罵"福佳"...

The infamous myths of HK I - population density

Kids crying, screaming, and whining loud nag my wife and I almost every day and night.

Wait! We actually have no kids, not yet. They are from our neighbours, next to and opposite our apartment. Why so annoying? (except the cruel fact that we are not rich enough to move out and afford a low density house) Besides parental irresponsibility and faults (kids being kicked out of the apartment, and even sworn at), lack of household space underlies the problems.

What makes HK "famous", and on the other hand, "infamous", is its "fortune" or "misfortune" to strive to the top list of the most densely populated cities in the world.

HK is tiny and land are scarce and sacred. Four-member family sharing a 30-square-metre house is not uncommon. In my primary school textbook chapter on HK society (two decades ago), HK was, and still is, described to be one of the most densely populated cities in the world. Given the fact that the population density of a city signifies its economic and social growth (not necessarily a positive correlation though), unsurprisingly, the ultrautilitarian HK government, both colonial and post-colonial, are thrilled to be the top list of densely populated cities in the world. Hooray! Again, we are at the top of the world! 

Let alone the innumerable urban problems (and benefits), it begs the question whether the claim is genuinely true.

to be continued...

The Chinese as Homo oeconomicus (economic human)

Maurice Freedman once said, which I couldn't agree more: "The Chinese were economically successful in South-East Asia not simply because they were energetic immigrants, but more fundamentally because in their quest for riches they knew how to handle money and organize men in relation to money." ("The handling of money: a note on the background to the economic sophistication of the overseas Chinese," Man, Vol. 19 (Apr., 1959), pp. 64-5)

Quick hits

My workmates probably hate me! Such an annoying folk!

I guess, understandably, my workmates might be very curious about and, to a certain extent, irritated by my too frequent passing by in front of their partition and use of the photocopier (I am sorry about that).

I love browsing journals and reading interesting articles. Of course, I prefer to print it out to enjoy (reading the screen is no joy at all). Paper in need is paper indeed. These are what I have been reading:

1. Paul Young, "The cooking animal: economic man at the Great Exhibition," Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2008), pp. 569-586.

2. Julie E. Fromer, "'Deeply indebited to the tea-plant': representations of English national identity in Victorian histories of tea," Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2008), pp. 531-547.

3. Thomas Prasch, "Eating the world: London in 1851," Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2008), pp. 587-602.

4.Suzanne Daly and Ross G. Forman, "Introduction: cooking culture: situating food and drink in the Nineteenth Century," Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2008), pp. 363-373.

5. Bridget Byrne, "England -  whose England? narratives of nostalgia, emptiness and evasion in imaginations of national identity," The Sociological Review, Vol. 55, Iss. 3 (2007), pp. 509-530.

6. 李鑑慧：〈十九世紀英國動物保護運動與基督教傳統〉，《新史學》，第20卷第1期（2009年3月），頁125-179。

7. Peter Stansky, "E.M. Forster (1879-1970)," in Susan Pedersen and Peter Mandler (eds.), After the Victorians : private conscience and public duty in modern Britain : essays in memory of John Clive (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 127-146.

8. Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth, "Bipartisan politics and practical knowledge: advertising of public science in two London newspaper, 1695-1720," The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 41, Iss. 4 (Dec. 2008), pp. 517-540.

9. Andrew R. Holmes, "Presbyterians and science in the north of Ireland before 1874," The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 41, Iss. 4 (Dec. 2008), pp. 541-565.

10. Sebastian Conrad, "Globalization effects: mobility and nation in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914," Journal of Global History, 2008, vol. 3, iss. 3 (2008), pp. 43-66.

11. Bhaswati Bhattacharya, "Armenian European relationship in India, 1500-1800: no Armenian foundation for European empire?" Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 38, No. 2 (2005), pp. 277-322.

12. Harriet T. Zurndorfer, "The orientation of JESHO's Orient and the problem of 'Orientalism': some reflections on the occasion of JESHO's fiftieth Anniversary," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient,Vol. 51, Iss. 1 (Mar., 2008), pp. 2-30.

13. OTSUKI Nami and HATANO Keiko, "Japanese perceptions of trafficking in persons: an analysis of the 'demand' for sexual services and politices for dealing with trafficking survivors," Social Science Japan Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2009), pp. 45-70. (trans. from the Japanese by Lili Selden)

 

The western origin of the early Chinese civilisation II

Yesterday, I read Issac Yue's (HKU) "Missionaries (Mis-)representing China: Orientalism, Religion, and the Conceptualization of Victorian Cultural Identity" in Victoria Literature and Culture (Vol. 37, Iss. 1, pp. 1-10., esp. p. 4 and 9, note 3) in which he reveals that Samuel Kidd (1804-1843), the first Professor of Chinese in England at University College, London, adopted the theory that "the Chinese are descended from the Hebrews" and this supposition was originated by "an unnamed French Sinologue which was then passed along to him (Kidd) via Robert Morrison." (p. 9, note 3).

Could that "unnamed French sinologue" be the French Catholic missionary Jean Basset (c. 1662-1707), who served in Sichuan as missionary of the Société des Missions Etrangères de Paris (Paris Foreign Missions Society) and left his manuscript translation of the New Testament (now called Basset/Sloane manuscript and remained in the British Museum)? Or actually the German Jesuit missionary Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1591-1666), who upheld the same supposition? It forced me to return to the theory of the western origin of the early Chinese civilisation.

Last year, in response to Hon Tze-ki's (SUNY Geneseo) Chinese article "Trials and Tributions of Joining Global Capitalism: The Dixue zazhi (Journal of Earth Studies) in Early Twentieth Century China" in New History (Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun. 2008), pp. 151-179, esp. p. 167), which claims that Terrien de Lacouperie alledged the western origin of the early Chinese civilisation in 1893 on the basis of his Western Origin of the Early Chinese Civilisation (1893), I drew attention to Lacouperie's early work Early History of the Chinese Civilisation, which was published more than a decade earlier (1880).

As early as 1867, following the Oxford giant in comparative religion and philology Max Müller, Terrien de Lacouperie published Du langage: essai sur la nature et l'étude des mots et des langues (Language: essay on the nature and the study of the words and languages) in Paris and Leipzig, in which he examined the philological structure the Chinese language (which he learned in Hong Kong due to his silk merchant father) and compared it with Indo-European and Dravidian languages. With the introduction written by the French orientalist León de Rosny (1837-1914), professeur to the bibliothèque impériale at the time, who pioneered teaching the Japanese langauge in France in l’Ecole Impériale des langues vivantes (the Imperial School of the living languages), the debut treatise established his fame as a notable comparative philologist.

Morphological, aesthetics, and intellectual capacity of the human race

Professors - Students = RESEARCH = Publish or Perish

Before the CityU demonstration, I was reading the inspiring paper of Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University and former director of the Office of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts, Professors on the Production Line, Students on their Own (2009) published by the Future of American Education Project at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). (However, it is rather disappointing or strange that the paper is no longer available to download from the web)

The foreword written by Frederick M. Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies of the AEI, unveils the mask behind the glittering crown of "research": "[is] the publication of more research the same thing as the publication of better, more informative, or more useful research?" (emphasis original) No-one can deny the smell of gunpowder in the air.

With focus on language and literature teachers as a case study, Bauerlein examines the main, or crucial, factor preventing them from engaging undergraduate teaching, research productivity. In fact, we are too familiar with the binary answers of academic career, publish or perish. Here I just quote passages of great interest to me. (obviously, this blog serves as a personal reading notebook for me)

"Thousands of shorter minor texts offered virgin terrains to younger scholars searching for unplumbed materials. The edifice of literary scholarship had numerous gaps and fissures, and books and articles were bricks and mortar filling them in." (p. 7)

It is interesting to note, as the author claims, that "the 'coverage' project is complete" after the rigourous intellectual enquiry in the last four decades. (p. 7) Really? 99% yes, I think. 1%, I disagree. Academia is more than the endless intellectual game of "coverage" or "discovery", but "reflection on discovery" and "discovery of reflection". The cliche "there's nothing new under the sun" is no new. But why we have long believed in it, and how and when it has evolved to such is in the field of intellectual history or history of idea. 

 

It follows by the "strange economy" "at work" concerning the peculiar scholarly book market. "Demand goes down and supply goes up, as does price." (p. 11) The economy is such strange that it focuses "not on the commodity or the consumer, but on the producer alone." (p. 12) Who are the consumer? The readers? No, the producer. Who are the producer? The authors, young scholars aiming at getting a job or tenure. No wonder Bauerlein asserts that "[p]ublication is a fact of survival, the foot in the door and the seat at the table, and nobody imagine otherwise." (p. 13) Whoever would be so naive to think the otherwise? It's all about "publish or perish". Inevitably, "[u]ndergraduates become duties to manage and minimize, research a duty to secure and prolong" (p. 17) 

Undergraduate teaching is an integral part of uni. education. "Students come and go in 14-week semesters, but distinguished scholars can dominate a field for decades." (p. 17) To inspire or to bore is critical and determined by prominent professors, or assistant professors. A number of Nobel laureates, and world-star scholars and authors are honoured to lecture (or teach?) in various British and American universities, on the basis of their research expertise and creativity, not teaching capacity.

However, Bauerlein forces me to think what is teaching. To inspire? To take care of?

Wong Tai Sin in the 1920s and 1930s

Hardly could you find any HKers unfamiliar with Wong Tai Sin (the temple at the very least). For locals, you couldn't ask for a more ready easy touch; for tourists, despite being the authentic local must-go sightseeing spot, finding an "authentic" taoist priest will end up nowhere.

Indeed, Wong Tai Sin is a popular Taoist god in Hong Kong. The refugee god as he has been called. The historical narratives of the belief and the temple do not feed up my fastidious habit of enquiry. Not because the authors of The Refugee God (I haven't had a chance to read it yet) was accused of poor Chinese language ability and shallow understanding of the Chinese tradition, "[mistaking] some clouds in the sky to be forests on the horizon", but more specific historical and contextual analysis is needed to re-access the limits and contributions of the belief and the temple.

I have just found two very interesting pieces of government documents, Administrative Reports 1928 and 1932. According to the AR 1928, the Report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for the year 1928 shows that, from Jan. to Dec. 1928, Wong Tai Sin Temple, Kowloon City (Sik Sik Yuen) contributed $1,500 to the General Chinese Charities Fund (GCCF, administered by the Chinese Temples Committee, which also controlled the Chinese Temples Fund, surpluses of which must be transferred to GCCF for disbursement to appropriate Chinese charities in Hong Kong), a handful more than the rent from the Kwun Yam Temple in Chi Wan Shan ($1,449), Pak Tai Temple in Wanchai ($1,374.52), and Tam Kung Temple in Shaukiwan ($1,357.5) (AR 1928, C37). In 1932, according to the AR 1932, Wong Tai Sin, again, contributed $1,500 to the GCCF whereas Wong Tai Sin was yet to be under the delegated management of the Chinese Temples Committee (under the direct administration of Sik Sik Yuen instead). (AR 1932, C66)

Why did Wong Tai Sin, or Sik Sik Yuen, bother to contribute such a large amount of money to the GCCF? Where did the money come from? Private donation throughout years? From whom? Wealthy local merchants? Were they in any way connected with the Chinese Temples Committee, say committee members? It would be very interesting to examine the complex network between temples and the giant committee to reflect the interwoven relations within the Chinese community, as well as vs. the expat. community.

to be continued...