Contemplating Land: An Ecocritique of Hong Kong

Abstract

In The Cambridge Introduction to Literature and the Environment (2011), Timothy Clark argues that “ecologically, national borders have always been unreal” (132). One should start to cultivate ecocritical thinking beyond geographical, national, and cultural boundaries. In what ways does eco-cosmopolitanism enable us to cultivate ecocritical thinking that addresses environmental issues in various scales (local, national, transnational, global), while resisting the risk of reproducing the deep ecological cliché that everything on earth is simply connected as a global unity? My observations suggest that in recent years there has been a conscious ecocritical turn, a return to land/nature and also related farming activities in Hong Kong. Its intention is not only to overturn the colonial discourse but also to seek ways to imagine Hong Kong apart from its economic prosperity. This focus on the land and nature represents two trends: the sense of connectedness between humans and nature, which calls into question the exploitive use of natural resources, and the emergence of alternative communities (for example, Sangwoodgoon or House of Living) that integrate an appreciation of literature and film (cerebral activity) with an active engagement in farming (physical activity). They emerged as alternatives to the urban way of life that is characterized by capitalism, developmental discourse, and a lack of environmental awareness. They are flexible and operate on a small scale – producing organic food and handmade products – but they also represent a spirit of activism and a desire to change the future of Hong Kong as a cosmopolitan city. To offer a post-urban perspective, this paper explores whether the phenomenon of “eco-farming” / alternative communities hints at a possibility of going beyond the boundary set between the rural and the urban? To phrase it in another way, would the “rural” turn in Hong Kong hints at a shift from urban to rural, and see rural not as a metaphoric or social construct but instead focus on soil’s material agency as a matter that “produce (helpful, harmful) effects in human and other bodies.“ (Bennett, 2010: xii).