| This is a study of the making of the Chinese bourgeoisie in Hong Kong during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The focus is how, in Hong Kong, a Chinese bourgeoisie was able to forge a non-confrontational and friendly relationship with the alien, colonial government. The study argues that the making of a Chinese business elite was inseparably linked with the colonial nature of the island. Colonialism was made possible by Chinese cooperation throughout the early history of the colony. Central to the study is the bourgeoisie's creation of an upstanding civic status in the colonial setting. Both confluence and conflict characterized Hong Kong's geographical, political, and cultural position at the edge of the Chinese and British empires, and this combination offered certain opportunities for Chinese merchants to become an organized, self-conscious business elite. The colonial government's insistence that Hong Kong's historical purpose in the British empire be that of a commercial center singled out those Chinese businessmen who impressed the government by helping Hong Kong achieve and maintain this historical ideal. By the turn of the century, the colonial government saw the Chinese businessmen of the colony not simply as profit-bound sojourners, but as allies in the struggle for order and stability, not just in Hong Kong and in south China, but in the British empire. The case of Hong Kong challenges the assumption that nationalism inevitably pits colonized against colonizers. Chinese nationalism in Hong Kong was inextricably linked with the colonial nature of the city. Rather than driving the bourgeoisie and the colonial government apart, the idea of a powerful, modern China united them. To both parties, a strong, modern China meant a commercially vibrant China. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the study argues that a sense of Hong Kong identity characterized the Chinese bourgeoisie. This identity fostered a unique cooperation between the bourgeoisie and the colonial government, especially during emergencies such as the strike-boycott of 1925-26.* ftn*Originally published in DAI Vol. 59, No. 5. Reprinted here with corrected title. |
