File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL

Article: An Anthropology of 'Applied Anthropology' in Postwar Hong Kong

TitleAn Anthropology of 'Applied Anthropology' in Postwar Hong Kong
Authors
KeywordsApplied anthropology
Power inequality
The world system of anthropology
Issue Date2012
PublisherChinese Association of Applied Anthropology (華人應用人類學會).
Citation
Chinese Journal of Applied Anthropology, 2012, v. 1 n. 1, p. 47-87 How to Cite?
華人應用人類學學刊, 2012, v. 1 n. 1, p. 47-87 How to Cite?
AbstractThis article is an anthropological attempt to review the development of applied anthropology in postwar Hong Kong. Arguing that the relevance of anthropology is determined by the socio-historical order in the sense that the utility of anthropological knowledge is socially and historically specific, we have chosen to reframe the review as the study of the social “relevance” of major anthropological studies and the “utility” of anthropological knowledge these “applied” anthropological researches produced in Hong Kong. We first examine how the socio-political settings of post-war Hong Kong have given rise to a specific character and form of applied anthropology in Hong Kong. But this examination also reveals that “applied” anthropological work has never been popular among anthropologists nor considered as mainstream anthropological research in post-war Hong Kong. This is due not only to the institutional constraints in Hong Kong but also what Kuwayama (2004) calls “the world system of anthropology,” in which there is a power inequality between the anthropological practitioners in the center (US, UK, and France) and their colleagues in the periphery. This power inequality not only accounts for the lack of enthusiasm among anthropologist in Hong Kong but also has profound impact on their research agenda. However, the development of applied anthropology in Hong Kong is not just the reproduction of the anthropology of the center. There is always a gap between the anthropology of the center and its counterpart in Hong Kong. This gap is created by the intervention of the legacy of the Taiwanese anthropological traditions in Hong Kong. To push this argument further, we shall argue that individual practitioners are not just bearers of the Taiwanese anthropological tradition either. Their anthropological enterprises would also deviate from the traditions, as a result of their biographical experiences.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/187511
ISSN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, HWen_US
dc.contributor.authorYau, HY-
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-21T07:01:51Z-
dc.date.available2013-08-21T07:01:51Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.citationChinese Journal of Applied Anthropology, 2012, v. 1 n. 1, p. 47-87en_US
dc.identifier.citation華人應用人類學學刊, 2012, v. 1 n. 1, p. 47-87-
dc.identifier.issn2304-6074-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/187511-
dc.description.abstractThis article is an anthropological attempt to review the development of applied anthropology in postwar Hong Kong. Arguing that the relevance of anthropology is determined by the socio-historical order in the sense that the utility of anthropological knowledge is socially and historically specific, we have chosen to reframe the review as the study of the social “relevance” of major anthropological studies and the “utility” of anthropological knowledge these “applied” anthropological researches produced in Hong Kong. We first examine how the socio-political settings of post-war Hong Kong have given rise to a specific character and form of applied anthropology in Hong Kong. But this examination also reveals that “applied” anthropological work has never been popular among anthropologists nor considered as mainstream anthropological research in post-war Hong Kong. This is due not only to the institutional constraints in Hong Kong but also what Kuwayama (2004) calls “the world system of anthropology,” in which there is a power inequality between the anthropological practitioners in the center (US, UK, and France) and their colleagues in the periphery. This power inequality not only accounts for the lack of enthusiasm among anthropologist in Hong Kong but also has profound impact on their research agenda. However, the development of applied anthropology in Hong Kong is not just the reproduction of the anthropology of the center. There is always a gap between the anthropology of the center and its counterpart in Hong Kong. This gap is created by the intervention of the legacy of the Taiwanese anthropological traditions in Hong Kong. To push this argument further, we shall argue that individual practitioners are not just bearers of the Taiwanese anthropological tradition either. Their anthropological enterprises would also deviate from the traditions, as a result of their biographical experiences.-
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherChinese Association of Applied Anthropology (華人應用人類學會).-
dc.relation.ispartofChinese Journal of Applied Anthropologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartof華人應用人類學學刊-
dc.subjectApplied anthropology-
dc.subjectPower inequality-
dc.subjectThe world system of anthropology-
dc.titleAn Anthropology of 'Applied Anthropology' in Postwar Hong Kongen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailWong, HW: hwwongc@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityWong, HW=rp01232en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros220358en_US
dc.identifier.volume1en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage47en_US
dc.identifier.epage87en_US
dc.publisher.placeTaipei (臺北)en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats