Authorised Heritage Discourse? —

A Critical Discourse Analysis to understand the Valorization of Built

Heritage in Hong Kong

Hui Cheung Man, Charmaine

A proposal presented to The Chinese University of Hong Kong

In partial fulfilment of the candidacy requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture

Supervisor: Prof. HO Puay Peng

TABLE OF CONTENTS Synopsis ......................................................................................................................... 1

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

II. Research Question .............................................................................................. 4

III. Literature Review................................................................................................ 4

i. Overview ......................................................................................................... 4

ii. History and Development of Conservation ..................................................... 7

iii. Power dynamics in heritage valorization process ......................................... 21

iv. Heritage Value............................................................................................... 29

v. Conservation of modern architecture ............................................................ 31

vi. Heritage in Hong Kong ................................................................................. 35

IV. Reinstating the Research Question ................................................................... 49

V. Methodology ..................................................................................................... 51

VI. Initial Research ................................................................................................. 54

VII. Thesis Plan ........................................................................................................ 60

VIII. Bibliography .................................................................................................... 61

Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 68

1

Authorised Heritage Discourse? — A Critical Discourse Analysis to understand the

Valorization of Built Heritage in Hong Kong

SYNOPSIS

This research aims at investigating heritage discourse in Hong Kong from 1970 to 2016. With

reference to Laurajane Smith’s notion of Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD), this paper

will examine firstly, the extent of extrospective-ness in the heritage policy of Hong Kong;

secondly, whether professional discourse have contributed to the heritage valorization in

Hong Kong; thirdly, what kinds of subaltern and dissenting heritage discourse are depicted in

Hong Kong; and fourthly, the power dynamics between the authorized and subaltern/

dissenting discourse. By conducting a critical discourse analysis on government records and

diversified online and offline channels of published news, interviews and public opinions, this

study aims to deepen our understanding towards heritage valorization process—how the

threshold of significance is stipulated in various heritage discourses and how such discourses

have created ramifications on the society’s perception on the built historic environment.

I. INTRODUCTION

My interest on this topic was started off by the Hong Kong Government’s initiation in

studying “Industrial Heritage” in the Kowloon East back in 2012. The Energizing Kowloon

East Office (EKEO), an auspice of The Development Bureau of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region (HKSAR) commissioned a study to document the “industrial heritage”

in the Kowloon East and to use industrial heritage to develop a heritage trail or “culture map”

for tourist, and to derive urban design strategies and guidelines with an objective to preserve

the character of the district as it transforms from industrial to business area. However, the

EKEO has been clear that it is not the government’s intention to intervene the pace of urban

2

transformation or preserve any tangible industrial remains. 1 The “conservation” of the

industrial heritage character is evidently out of social and cultural considerations, as stated

explicitly in the project brief. EKEO describes industrial heritage as “an inspiring theme for

public art” and “a sensational link for the past, present and future in the pace of rapid urban

transformation,” which also serves to manifest the “Hong Kong’s can do spirit” and to

express Hong Kong identity by honouring the industrial past.2 Industrial heritage is deployed

as a design strategy. Without preserving any industrial remains, the “idea” of industrial

heritage is displayed, at the same time being displaced for social, cultural or development

purpose. Even though the industrial buildings have witnessed the rapid industrialization and

de-industrialization in Hong Kong, they are not old enough to be recognized as heritage, nor

do these buildings possess high aesthetic value. There are also practical reasons for not

grading industrial buildings in Hong Kong, for example, majority of the industrial buildings

in Hong Kong are flatted factories and the ownership is complicated; the industrial districts

are also too messy and polluted to be aligned with urban design standards. However, the

government’s initiative in recognizing the heritage value of the industrial remains or

industrial culture shows that the government hesitated to be totally indifferent to the rapid and

drastic changes in the urban built environment. The attempt to extract the character, or the

intangible quality, from the disappearing built form can be viewed as a radical effort in

utilizing the concept of heritage. The disregard of the materiality of heritage on one hand, and

the embrace of the heritage concept and its uses on the other hand, present a paradoxical

heritage conception.

The interpretation of this situation as a paradox actually stemmed from the understanding that

1 Industrial districts like Kowloon East are rapidly changing into business areas since the introduction of “The Revitalization of Industrial Building Policy” by the Development Bureau in 2009. The establishment of the EKEO also expedited the transformation in Kowloon East. The pace of development and rise in rental prices has provoked public outcry especially from the arts and cultural community which has settled in Kwun Tong since 2000. Since the industrial buildings in Hong Kong are too young to be declared as monuments or historic buildings, many features of industrial remains were being wiped out or replaced by shiny curtain walls. 2 Works Branch, Development Bureau, HKSAR Government. “Provision of Consultancy Service for Study on Industrial Heritage of Kowloon East and its Potential for Public Art/ Urban Design” Consultancy Brief, 20 Sep 2012, 1-2.

3

heritage has to be based on certain materiality of either historic or aesthetic interest, be it

historic buildings or relics. Laurajane Smith argues that this conventional notion of heritage is

the result of, what she calls, the “Authorised Heritage Discourse” (AHD). Smith argues that

AHD naturalizes the heritage practice of selecting what ought to be preserved, and ultimately

promotes a certain sets of Eurocentric “western elite cultural values as being universally

applicable”; at the same time, it undermines alternative and subaltern ideas about heritage.3

The characteristics of AHD, as defined by Smith, are firstly, 1) assuming authority to define

the “legitimate spokespersons for the past,” i.e. inviting experts such as architects,

archeologists and historians to judge if the past is valuable to protect; 2) treating the idea of

heritage as innately valuable – “all that is good and important about the past” is contributing

to the development of the “cultural character of the present.” 4 The AHD appears as a lens to

“see” heritage. It shapes our mind when we consider what is valuable to be preserved. As

Smith argues, the formation of AHD relies heavily on 1) the rise of professional discourse in

late 19th Century that empowers or canonizes “expertise and aesthetic judgement;”5 2) the

grand narratives of nation and class with a root in the imperialist past, 6 and 3) the

international organizations—“the authorizing institutions”—to achieve universal dominance.7

Smith emphasizes that the AHD is a set of self-referential narrative with a particular set of

consequence.8 As shown in her research, one of the consequences is the inability of the

general public to recount their heritage experience outside the AHD discourse.9

In view of the recent initiative of the government, though not directly from Antique and

Monument Office (AMO)—the government department that looks after heritage issues,

heritage discourse in Hong Kong seems to have, paradoxically, bound by and liberated from

the Smithian AHD at the same time. In the case of industrial heritage in Kowloon East,

3 Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage (London, New York: Routledge, 2006), 11. 4 Ibid., 29. 5 Ibid., 11, 19. 6 Ibid., 17, 21. 7 Ibid., 87-106. 8 Ibid., 11. 9 Ibid., 135.

4

discourses agree to the AHD by seeing historical buildings should be innately valuable,

therefore, industrial buildings without architectural merits or age value should not be

preserved. However, the heritage value is recognized and emancipated from materiality, being

passed on in the most abstract and intangible form which appears to have freed itself from the

restraining AHD. It shows that the concept of AHD alone is inadequate in helping us make

sense of our government’s decision on heritage.

II. RESEARCH QUESTION

The approach adopted by HKSAR towards the industrial heritage in Hong Kong led us to

ponder again the ontology of the heritage concept, and how we have come to consider what is

valuable for being passed on to the future generation. This research will explore, in the

particular context of Hong Kong, whether our ways of understanding heritage is framed by

the AHD; if AHD is not the sole influence as demonstrated by the case elaborated above,

what other factors are at play in framing our understanding?

III. LITERATURE REVIEW i. OVERVIEW

Positioning in the constellation of studies

There is a great wealth of literature on heritage that can lay the ground for further exploration.

Emma Waterton and Steve Watson’s book The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary

Heritage Research tries to present an overview on heritage research in the past and at present

as it embraces “diverse interest, disciplines and perspectives.”10 The authors identified some

strands or trends in heritage studies, e.g. the early study of heritage interpretation in 50s

(Tilden’s Interpreting Our Heritage), the study of heritage protection (Cleere’s 10 Emma Waterton and Steve Watson, eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research (Basingstoke: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2015), 3.

5

Archaeological Heritage Management), the study of heritage industry, commodification and

tourism in 80s (Wright’s On Living in an Old Country; Lowenthal’s The Past is a Foreign

Country; Hewison’s The Heritage Industry), the study concerning the operational issues

(Swarbrooke’s The Development and Management of Visitor Attractions; Hall and

McArthur’s Integrated Heritage Management; Leask and Yeoman’s Heritage Visitor

Attractions), the study of community heritage and identity (Leone’s “Towards a critical

archeology”; McDavid’s “From ‘Traditional’ Archaeology to Public Archaeology to

Community Action”), and the discursive formulation of heritage at the turn of the century

(Tunbridge et.al.’s A Geography of Heritage : Power, Culture and Economy; Smith’s Uses of

Heritage). As disarranged as it may seem in terms of theory and methodology, this tracking

exercise is helpful in understanding heritage study as a myriad of studies.11 Waterton and

Watson agree with Tunbridge et.al. in pointing out that “an increasing focus on discursive

formulation of heritage have now become ‘the compelling direction of progress in [the field

of heritage studies]’”. 12

In another journal article presented by the Waterton and Watson, it argues that current

theoretical debates could be categorized into theories in, theories of, and theories for heritage

(italics in the original). Theories in the heritage concern mainly the “good practice” of

heritage management—identify issues and problems to be resolved by better practice;

theories of heritage adopts a “historicing frame” to put heritage in its social and cultural

context, with an aim to understand “the whole phenomenon” and is equipped with “an

awareness of its ideological underpinnings”; theories for heritage fueled by the development

in representational theories, it examines the “physical, discursive or affective” effects of

heritage at the personal level, the ordinary and the everyday; it presents a more speculative

11 Ibid., 3-9. 12 John. E. Tunbridge, Gregory J. Ashworth, and Brian J. Graham, “Decennial Reflections on A Geography of Heritage (2000),” International Journal of Heritage Studies 19:4 (2013): 369. doi:dx.doi.org/10 1080/13527258.2012.695038.

6

ends of heritage studies.13 Such categorization of heritage theories is useful in helping readers

to amass the heritage studies that are disparate in scope, subject matter, theories, and

methodology. However, by acknowledging the theories for heritage, possibilities for heritage

studies become infinite. As the authors also admit that the theories for heritage should not

only be interpreted at a personal level, and is problematic to assume homogenous personal

engagement with heritage.14 If the “theories for heritage” is a valid category, I would argue

that we should take it with caution and be critical as to where to draw the line of what is about

heritage and what is not. In light of this categorization, this research positions itself within the

realm of theories of heritage with an aim to identify the theoretical underpinnings of the

heritage concept, and how it is formulated within the wider historical, geo-political, social and

cultural context in Hong Kong. Is there such thing as “orthodox view” of heritage? Or is it

mere practice? Is the heritage value be readily debated across different economic, social and

political agenda? It is therefore neither a study of heritage practice (theories in heritage), nor a

study on the subjective experience of heritage (theories for heritage).

The idea of “ontological politics” of Mol cited by Waterton and Watson in “The Ontological

Politics of Heritage; or How research can spoil a good story” is particularly useful in helping

us comprehend the multilayered readings of heritage offered by the heritage studies coming

from various disciplines and research methodology.15 Mol argues, in her “Ontological Politics,

A word and some questions,” that different health care practices create different realities,16

namely, not different versions of realities but different realities. With reference to the

example of anemia that Mol used, the performance of anemia is different in clinical,

pathophysiological and statistical (laboratory) methods and the objects may not overlap with

each other, meaning that a patient is diagnosed clinically as suffering from anemia may go

13 Emma Waterton, and Steve Watson, “Framing theory: towards a critical imagination in heritage studies,” International Journal in Heritage Studies 19:6 (2013): 548-551. doi:10.1080/13527258.2013.779295. 14 Ibid., 556. 15 Waterton and Watson, “The Ontological Politics of Heritage; or How research can spoil a good story,” in The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research (Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, 2015), 22. 16 Annemarie Mol, “Ontological politics. A word and some questions,” The Sociological Review 47:1 (1999): 75-89. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x.

7

undetected in pathophysiological or statistical methods.17 All these realities co-exist and are

equally valid, the existence of one do not challenge the legitimacy of the other. Ontologies, a

word in its plural form, is different from perspectivalism in the sense that ontologies presents

multiple realities while for perspectivalism, only the eye of the beholder multiplies but not the

reality.18 Unfortunately, Waterton and Watson only borrow Mol’s concept of “ontological

politics” to string up various research in heritage studies without giving much substantiation

or critical reflection on the use of the word “ontological politics.” For example, in the same

paragraph that Waterton and Watson cited Mol’s concept, they write:

While the ontological politics of heritage is not univocal and encompasses both

conventional and critical accounts, our intention in this chapter is to suggest that it

gives us not only the firm basis for a critique of much existing research in heritage

but also the momentum to move it to a different level and provide additional

perspectives (my emphasis)

The use of the word “perspectives” shows that the authors were insensitive to the

differentiation between “ontology” and “perspectivalism” that Mol carefully articulated in her

research. To move beyond a casual borrowing of terms, this research will attempt to consider

these philosophical reflections in the understanding of heritage concept, in the particular

context Hong Kong. The concept of “ontological politics,” when applied to heritage studies,

probes us to think whether there exists a monopolistic or orthodox version of heritage? Do

alternative discourses draw up pluralistic realities that are equally legitimate? Is it possible at

all to reflect such philosophy in heritage policy?

ii. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONSERVATION

The idea of Modern Conservation Movement

To understand the ontology of heritage, one has to put it into historical context and see how it 17 Ibid., 77-78. 18 Ibid.,75.

8

has evolved. While many scholars identifies heritage as a relatively contemporary concept

that emerged in Europe in 19th Century modernity, David Harvey argues that view is

restraining heritage studies in what he terms as “present-centred professional terrain” actually

lead to the impasse (author’s emphasis) in systematically understanding heritage, and leaving

the field with “little more than a morass of case studies,” he quotes Terry-Chandler. 19 Harvey

proposes that heritage and its effect over identity construction and enforcing or subverting

social relations has simultaneously existed in human condition and hence, not of a cause-and-

effect relationship. 20 By providing evidence of early representation and interpretation of

historical events and sites before the modern era, Harvey proposes to situate heritage studies

in a longer temporal framework and treat heritage as a cultural process. 21 The idea of

heritagization as a cultural process will be explored further in later sections of this literature

review.

Laurajane Smith, however, argues that Harvey’s point of view fails to provide insights to the

significant development in the heritage discourse in late 19th Century Europe, how it emerged

as a professional discourse that generates a particular sets practices; why and how such

discourse had “achieved dominance as a ‘universalizing’ discourse in the twenty-first

century.”22 The idea of “dominance” and “universalization” are expressed in the form of legal

decree and the wave of adoption or mutual referencing of such decrees in various jurisdictions,

and ultimately culminated as charters with international influences such as the Athens Charter

in 1931, the Venice Charter in 1964, World Heritage Convention in 1977 and Burra Charters

19 David Harvey, “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 7:4 (2001): 321, 323. doi:10.1080/13581650120105534. The scholars that have identified heritage as a19th century modern concept includes but not limited to Barthel, Jokilehto, Pendlebury, Bennett and King. Diane L. Barthel, Historic Preservation : Collective Memory and Historical Identity (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1996), 13, 15; Jukka Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation (Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999), 16-18.; John Pendlebury, Conservation in The Age of Consensus (London: Routledge, 2009), 15; Tony Bennett, The Birth of the Museum : History, Theory, Politics (London ; New York: Routledge, 1995), 17-58; Thomas F. King, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg, Anthropology in Historic Preservation : Caring for Culture's Clutter (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 11. 20 Harvey, “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents,” 335. 21 Ibid., 335-336. 22 Smith, Uses of Heritage, 17.

9

in 1979.

Smith notes that although the first legal decree to protect national antiquities dates back to the

17th Century in Sweden, the surge of the development of legal instruments in protecting

monuments do not appear until the second half of the 19th Century. These legal instruments

include Ancient Monument Protection Act 1882 (England), The Federal Antiquities Law of

1906 (America), The Regolamento of 1909 (Italy), The Oldenburg Monuments Protection

law of 1911 (Germany), The Loi du 31 Decembre 1913 sur les Monuments Historiques of

1913 (France) and First Nature Conservation Act of 1937 (Denmark), and hence, the

legalization of heritage protection, if not the heritage concept itself, is by large a modern

development. 23 Jukka Jokilehto has also acknowledged this turn in the development of

conservation practice. In A History of Architectural Conservation, Jokilehto traces the

development of conservation practice and theory throughout the European history in

meticulous details and he distinguishes the conservation practice in the modern era from those

in the ancient times and calls it “modern conservation movement.”

Jokilehto explains that this modern conservation movement has found its first expression in

18th Century Europe as a result of developments in the Age of Enlightenment. The modern

conservation movement is characterized by its sharpened sense of historical consciousness,

the awareness of the pluralized culture and the question of values.24 Jokilehto quotes Foucault

to express the changes in value perception in the modern era, “Value can no longer be defined,

as in the Classical age, on the basis of a total system of equivalences, and of the capacity that

commodities have of representing one another. Value has ceased to be a sign, it has become a

product.” 25 The modern conservation movement and within it, the arguments around the

heritage practice, reveals the destabilized link between the act of conservation and the value

created. When the “restoration fury” encounter increasing criticism in the second half of the

23 Ibid., 19. 24 Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, 16-18. 25 Ibid, 18; see also Michel Foucault, The Order of Things, an Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage books, 1994), 254.

10

19th Century, various discourse or polemics appeared over how things ought to be preserved

and what values are generated. It demonstrates the subtle yet fundamental shift of the heritage

concept, from a practice of “how” in the repair and restoration of historical things and

buildings, to a value-loaded movement to discuss both “what is to be preserved” and the “how”

informed by “what.”26

Jokilehto situates such shift in heritage protection against the background of the Age of

Enlightenment which is qualified by the interrelated strands of political, intellectual,

economic and social development. Politically, the age of Enlightenment is delimited by the

changes from aristocracy rule to the French Revolution, through which the idea of democracy

and national identity underwent rigorous investigation; intellectually, the scientific and

technical advancement had led to the prevalence of positivism and objectivism, and hence a

quest for scientific proof for knowledge production; economically, industrialization and the

mass production has heightened the debate over originality and authenticity; socially,

industrialization and urbanization has led to the rise of mercantile class, and the unsettling

social structure and identity. It is against such background that the heritage conservation

practice was being considered from a renewed perspective to find ways to legitimate itself in

the destabilized social structure. 27 Similarly, Hobsbawn addresses the issue of how the

changing society demands something “ancient.” He attributes the “invention of tradition” to

the rise of mercantile class in late 19th Century, and traditions were deployed as “new devices

to ensure or express social cohesion and identity and to structure social relations.” 28 The idea

26 Jokilehto used the term “restoration fury” to describe the time when positivism and the development of sciences had encouraged a wave of restoration, heightened by the policies of Ecclesiologists in England and the governmental guidelines on restoration in France after 1830s. Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, 18. 27 Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, 16-18. 28 Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 263.

11

of identity is intertwined with the idea of heritage in many ways and is elaborated by many

scholars, this part will be elaborated in latter session in this literature review.29

The Development of Professional Discourse

Smith argues that professional architects and the newly emergent discipline of archaeology

back in 19th Century were significant in the institutionalization of heritage, i.e. the

development of legislation. This is why, Smith argues with the support of her discourse

analysis of major international charters, that the AHD is fundamentally reliant on the

professional discourse or expertise over material culture. This part of the literature review will

look at whether there is any direct relationship between the development of professional

discipline and the legislation.

In the Uses of Heritage, Smith does not explain in depth how the profession of archaeology

had led to the legislation of heritage protection, but she has cited John Carman’s Valuing

Ancient Things: Archaeology and Law to support her views. However, a closer look on John

Carman’s work reveals that Smith’s reading might have oversimplified the issue. Carman’s

work explains that the archaeologists have been appropriating laws for the development of the

field, e.g. James Talbot had proposed a parliament bill in 1858 to appropriate the Treasure

Trove, a royal prerogative started from the end of middle ages, to build national collection of

antiquities, but the bill did not get passed. Carman’s research shows that the later success in

passing the Ancient Monuments Protection Bills in 1882 was very much the effort of Sir John

Lubbock, who was not only an archaeologist, but was also famous as banker and politician of

the Liberal Party. The struggle between Ethnological Society which is led by Sir John

Lubbock, and Anthropological Association which is led by Tories, was predominantly

political; and Lubbock’s attempt in archaeological legislation was very much driven by his 29 For example, Lowenthal discussed the idea of heritage gives us a collective identity and hold citizens responsible for the collective past. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 604-610.

12

liberal political vision to include Ireland in the scope of protection.30 Therefore, one can

hardly generalize that the legislation of heritage protection was driven by the development of

archaeological profession. Instead, it shows that the legislation of heritage protection indeed

requires a contextualized reading against its social and political background and the context

of legislation may vary from one jurisdiction to another.

The relationship between the professional discipline of architecture and the legislation is even

more obscure. Again, set against the background of England, Smith identified that John

Ruskin’s The Seven Lamps of Architecture is indicative towards future conservation practice,

and William Morris being the founder of Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

(SPAB), wrote Ruskin’s philosophy into the SPAB manifesto in 1877.31 Smith claims that the

SPAB has functioned to “lobby and educate government and society at large about ‘proper’

conservation principles,” and hence, the modern conservation practice, such as the “Public

Planning Guidance 15” in England heavily quoted William Morris and SPAB as a sign

showing that the architecture discipline or discourse has informed the legislation or the

“institutionalization” of heritage protection.32 However, such reading is problematic because

of the following reasons. First, Sir John Lubbock first proposed the Ancient and Monument

Protection Bill in 1873, that was before the establishment of SPAB in 1877, no evidence

could show that SPAB has participated in the initiation of the legislation. Second, even one

could argue that SPAB might have influenced public opinion so to favour the passing of the

Bill in 1882, a detailed study on the bill would challenge the validity of such interpretation.

The Bill and the subsequent legislation were carefully designed by Lubbock to specifically

exclude the medieval monuments which SPAB strived to preserve.33Although Lubbock was

also one of the founding members of SPAB, as noted by Chippindale, he was in favour of

30 John Carman, Valuing Ancient Things: Archaeology and Law (London, New York: Leicester University Press, 1996), 80-89. 31 Smith, Uses of Heritage, 19. 32 Ibid., 19-20. 33 Carman, Valuing Ancient Things, 86.

13

interventionism while Morris opposed to any form of state authority or intervention. 34

Therefore, the concern over conservation principles promoted by SPAB has no direct relation

with the Ancient and Monument Act in 1882. Third, the extent of influence of Ruskin and

Morris on the architectural practice is questionable, at least in their times. They fought hard

against the mainstream architectural practice within and outside the architectural institution,

despite the fact that neither Ruskin nor Morris was architect.35 In 1874, Ruskin refused the

Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Gold Medal, the first person ever to do so. In

1877, SPAB under the leadership of Morris also assumed an antagonistic position against the

established profession. SPAB initiated a public campaign to denounce the architectural

practice at consecutive meetings of the RIBA itself.36 The media Builder and Building News

were skeptical towards the “confrontational approach” adopted by SPAB.37 The architects

were also disinterested in following Morris’ dogma. There were a large number of castle ruins

under reconstruction between 1890 and 1930, the architect Martin Conway said, when he

began to rebuild the ruin of Allington Castle in Kent in 1905,

We set at naught the theories of the so-called antiscape school [of William Morris].

According to them we ought never to have replace old work by new of the same

design…Just as the Wyatts, in the time of Henry VIII, had done just what they

pleased to bring the old house into habitable and beautiful harmony, so could we act

in our day and generation.38

Therefore, it is problematic to assume that there was a univocal narrative from the

architectural practice towards the “proper” conservation as advocated by SPAB. There is,

34 Christopher Chippindale, “The Making of the first Ancient Monument Act, 1882, and its administration under General Pitt-Rivers,” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 136 (1983): 9. See also Stephan Yeo, “Socialism, the State and some oppositional Englishmen,” Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880-1920, eds. Robert Colls and Philip Dodd (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 353. 35 Unlike his French counterpart Viollet-le-Duc. See Pendlebury, Conservation in the Age of Consensus, 16. 36 Chris Miele, “Morris and Conservation,” in From William Morris: Building Conservation and the Arts and Crafts Cult of Authenticity, 1877-1939, ed. Chris Miele (New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2005), 45. 37 Ibid. 38 John Cornforth, The Inspiration of the Past. Country House Taste in the Twentieth Century (Harmonsworth: Viking, 1985), 23. Cited in Wim Denslagen, Architectural Restoration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity (Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 1994), 13.

14

however, a gap in understanding how the conservation ethics promoted by Ruskin and Morris

had gradually gained recognition amongst all other voices, and how it influences and informs

current heritage practice, within and outside England.

Having mentioned that, it is not to deny the interrelations between professionalization and the

wave of legislation over heritage protection. As it clearly is one of the missions for Sir John

Lubbock to fight for the rise of the professional class, under the leadership of the head of the

Liberal Party, Gladstone, as against the aristocratic Tory in 1870s.39 Perkin’s The Rise of

Professional Society: England since 1880 delineates there emerged a form of “professional

ideal based on trained expertise and selection by merit which emphasized human capital.”40 It

is also against such background noted a rapid increase in the public domain – the creation of

national education service in 1870, followed by the compulsory elementary education in 1880

and the abolishment of fee for Board School education in 1881. The 1870s and 1880s also

demarcate the period of the surge of legislation, e.g. the Public Health and Artisan’s

Dwellings in 1875, the Licensing Bills in 1871, Bills for Public Health in 1872, the Ten hours

Bill for female shopworkers in 1873, The Employers and Workmen Act of 1875, the

Merchant Shipping Act of 1876, the Bankers Book Evidence Bill in 1870s, Employer’s

Liability Act in 1880, the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883, etc.41 A professional

society, has a number of characteristics, as defined by Perkin. One of the characteristics is

that the concept of professionalism reaches “well down the social ladder” and is not just

another ruling class. 42 There appeared to be a “professional control of the market for a

particular kind of expertise” in search for status and power.43 The professional society has

subverted and superseded the aristocratic society, thus, people gain power by becoming an

expert not by owning lands. It would be interesting to see how this kind of professionalism is

being translated in our understanding of the heritage protection legislation, if it has, as Smith 39 Carman, Valuing Ancient Things, 87. 40 Harold James Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society: England since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989), 3-4. 41 Richard Shannon. The Crisis of Imperialism 1865-1915 (London: Paladin, 1976), 93,103,105. Cited in Carman, Valuing Ancient Things, 78. 42 Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society, 3. 43 Ibid., 4,7.

15

argues, formulated the AHD. How professionalism is being changed or challenged across

different time, social and cultural context? Other than expertise over material culture such as

architecture and archaeology, what other professions are working its way into the heritage

discourse? What is next after professionalism that can subvert the inner logic like how

meritocracy subverted aristocracy?

Heritage as a European or Eurocentric Concept?

Both Jokilehto’s and Chaoy’s work have demonstrated the long history and origin of historic

conservation in the Western society. Choay points out that the notion of heritage and the

conservation practices associated with it is European as she clearly demarcates a point in

1870s when the concept of historic monuments “went to” Japan while Meiji opening to the

West. 44 Also acknowledged by the Nara document on Authenticity, Choay said the Japanese

notion of monument conservation — to keep the building in “a perpetual state of newness

through ritual reconstruction”— is different from the European notion.45 In the context of

China, Liang Sicheng wrote in the discussion of Jixian Dule-si Guanyin-ge Shanmen Kao in

1932, that whenever there was a change of political sovereignty in Chinese history, many

rulers followed what Xiang Yu did in late Qin to set fire in the city in order to proclaim his

power.46 Therefore, people in China rarely know the value of historical buildings, nor do they

have the capacity or the specialized knowledge to conserve the buildings. Then he urged for

the legislation over the protection of heritage.47

44 Francoise Choay, The Invention of the Historic Monument, trans. Lauren M. O’Connell (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 3. 45 Ibid. 46 Liang Sicheng 梁思成, “Jixian Dule-si Guanyin-ge Shanmen Kao” 薊縣獨樂寺觀音閣山門考, Liang Sicheng Quan Ji 梁思成全集 (Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 2001), 1:161. Original text in Chinese: “至於我國，歷朝更迭，變亂頻仍，項羽入關咸陽宫室火三月不滅，二千年來革命元勛，莫不效法項王，以逞

威風，破壞殊甚。在此情形之下，古建築之得幸免者，能有幾何?” 47 Liang Sicheng, Liang Sicheng Quan Ji, 221-222. Original text in Chinese. “觀音閣及山門，既為我國現存建

築物中已發現之最古者，具保存較佳，實為無上國寶。如在他國，則政府及社會之珍維保護，唯恐不善。

而在中國則無人知其價值，雖薊人對之有一種宗教的感情及愛護，然實際上，薊人既無力，亦無專問知識，

16

It is not to say that, however, that the Chinese do not have the practice of conservation. As for

the conservation of relics, antiquarianism has a long history in China and was popular as early

as in Song Dynasty, but Bruce Trigger points out that the practice of antiquarianism mainly

serves the purpose of historiography and is far from the modern notion of archaeology as

Chinese scholars made no effort to recover data by carrying out excavations. 48 Pierre

Ryckmans writes in the article “The Chinese attitude towards the Past” that there is a

“spiritual presence and physical absence of the past” in China. Educated visitors who

travelled to China would encounter the past in all forms of history and memories but not in its

monumental sense.49

Therefore current institutionalization of heritage that treats heritage as a common asset of the

humanity might have a European root as Choay demonstrates. Choay’s book on The Invention

of the Historic Monument explains that Ruskin was the first to conceive the protection of

historic monuments at an international scale. Ruskin proposed the creation of a European

protective organization, independent of the state mechanism and funded by its members, to

buy back the “European asset” if they are on sale or lease and to take care of the conservation

of the building.50 Morris also showed concerns for ancient buildings in territories beyond his

national boundary in Naples, and even the European boundary in Turkey and Egypt.51 One

could argue that it might have inspired the future establishment of the international charters.

However, Ruskin’s dream did not come true until exactly100 years later in 1954 with the

數十年來，不唯任風兩之侵蝕，具不能阻止軍隊之毁壞。今門窗已無，頂蓋已漏，若不及早修葺，則數十

年乃至數年後，閣、門皆將傾圮，此千年國寶，行將與建章、阿房同其命運，而成史上陳述。故對於閣、

門之積極保護，實目前所亟不容緩也。

保護之法，首須引起社會注意，使知建築在文化上之價值;使之閣、門在中國文化史上及中國建築史上之

價值，是為保護之治本辦法。而此種之認識及覺悟，固非朝夕所能奏效，其根本及在人民教育程度之提高，

此是另一問題，非營造師一個所能為力。故目前最重要問題，乃在保持閣、門現狀，不使再加毁壞，實一

技術問題也…在社會方面，則政府法律之保護，為絶不可少者。軍隊之大規模壞，遊人題壁竊磚，皆須同

樣禁止。而古建築保護法，尤須從速制定、頒布、施行; 每年由國庫支出若干，以為古建築修葺及保護之

用，而所主其事者，尤須有專門知識，在美術，歷史，工程各方面皆精通博學，方可勝任。” 48 Bruce G. Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 42. 49 Pierre Ryckmans. The Chinese Attitude towards the Past (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1986), 2. 50 Choay, The Invention of the Historic Monument, 94. 51 “Speech at the annual meeting of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, 1889, cited in Choay, The Invention of the Historic Monument, 94.

17

creation of the Convention culturelle européenne du Conseil d’ Europe. The gap of 100 years

in between these happenings actually renders such interpretation on the more speculative end.

The origin of the idea of international collaboration in heritage protection may or may not be

Ruskinian, the basis of such collaboration would inevitably resulted in a consensus over what

should be protected. The creation of the World Heritage List in 1972 in the Convention

concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (better known as World

Heritage Convention) and its introduction of the basic criterion of “outstanding universal

value” for the selection is being criticized as “universalizing” the European cultural values.52

Cleere argues that, in reality, the idea of true universality may not exist and the conjecture of

the idea of universality is a hegemonic invention to impose the European value on the rest of

the world. In an article published 5 years later, Cleere acknowledges that the global strategy

of 1995 adopted by World Heritage Committee tries to revisit the criterion “outstanding

universal value” in a more holistic manner.53 Actually, the critique of Eurocentricism is not

only limited to the World Heritage Convention, but to the earlier Charters on the conservation

principles as well. Therefore, it is one of the ICOMOS agenda in the general assembly in

1990 to evaluate how Eurocentric are the ideas in the Venice Charter.54

Eurocentrism is a topic that sociology and historians have dealt with within the realm of

postcolonial studies. According to Bhambra, Eurocentrism refers to “the belief, implicitly or

otherwise, in the world historical significance of events believed to have developed

endogenously within the cultural-geographical sphere or Europe.” 55 Even though

Chakrabarty does not explicitly used the word “Eurocentric,” he argues that the thought of

52 Henry Cleere, “The concept of ‘outstanding universal value’ in the World Heritage Convention,” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 1:4 (1996), 230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050396793139042. 53 Henry Cleere, “The Uneasy Bedfellows: Universality and Cultural Heritage,” in Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, ed. Robert Layton, Peter G. Stone and Julian Thomas (London, New York: Routledge, 2001), 29. 54 Denslagen, Architectural restoration in Western Europe: controversy and continuity, 237. 55 Gurminder K. Bhambra, Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination (Basingstoke: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2007), 5.

18

Europe is indispensable when considering issues in the “far east.” He observes that, “the

phenomenon of ‘political modernity’… is impossible to think of anywhere in the world

without invoking certain categories and concepts, the genealogies of which go deep into the

intellectual and even theological traditions of Europe.”56 Heritage is one of the phenomena of

political modernity. Chakrabarty argues that “historicism” is embedded in the understanding

of the political development of the colonized. “Historicism” refers to the “first in Europe,

then elsewhere” type of global historical view where cultural difference between the west and

non-west, the colonizer and the colonized, is measured by historical time; and ultimately the

non-western would follow the footstep of the West, only “replacing Europe with a locally

constructed centre.” 57 Chakrabarty quoted John Stuart Mill as a representative of the

historicists who argued that the Indian are not civilized enough to self-rule and urged them to

wait until majority of the population are literate or educated, while the subsequent universal

adult suffrage in India actually proved the opposite.58 Therefore, Chakrabarty argues that the

totalizing thought of the Europe is although indispensable, it is inadequate at the same time,

and proposes to follow the hermeneutic tradition of Heidegger to write difference into history

by conducting subaltern studies.59

The discussion of values and significances is pivotal of heritage practice. Atkinson and

Bridge challenge that, in the post-colonial world, ideas of aesthetic value and historical

significance of preservation are based on those of white people and the new middle class.60 In

terms of museum practices, Christina Kreps also notes that Eurocentrism is consciously

fought against. She argues that there are “localized and non-Eurocentric practices in the non-

Western context that are invested not only in restoring a people’s right to and control over the

56 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000), 5. 57 Ibid., 7. 58 Ibid., 8-10. 59 Ibid., 16. 60 Rowland Atkinson, and Gary Bridge, “Introduction,” in Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism, eds. Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge (London, New York: Routledge, 2005), 1-17.

19

management of their cultural heritage but also in liberating people’s thinking from a

Eurocentric view on museum practices.”61

Relationship between Heritage Conservation and Imperialism

Bruce Trigger suggests the Darwinian evolution theory and its latent imperialist forces has

informed the critical development of archaeology, and hence, indirectly justified the British

colonialization.62 Sir John Lubbock, who grew up as a neighbor of Charles Darwin, was an

advocate of the Darwinian unilinear cultural evolution and he viewed the inferiority of non-

European in culture as a result of their limited natural abilities.63 Lubbock’s thoughts were

written into his books Prehistoric Times and The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive

Condition of Man, were the most influential work in archaeology published in the late 19th

Century and early 20th Century. The fact that the Ancient and Monument Protection Act 1882

attributes to Lubbock’s efforts shows that such synthesis between archaeology, imperialism

and colonization are much more solid then one would imagine. Trigger even called

Lubbock’s study as “imperialist archaeology.” 64 In light of Darwinian influence on

archaeology, the colonizers who were interested in the native people and culture often see it

as a “living museum of the human past.”65 Some colonizers instructed early archaeological

survey in the colonies. For example, in 1902, Lord Curzon, the British Conservative

statesman who was appointed as Viceroy of India in 1898, carried out the first Archaeological

Survey of India (ASI).66

61 Christina Kreps, Liberating Culture: Cross- cultural perspectives on museum, curation, and heritage preservation (London, New York: Routledge, 2003), 145. 62 Trigger, A History of Archeological Thought, 114-18. 63 Ibid., 115-16. 64 Ibid., 129. 65 Ibid., 129. 66 AG Krishna Menon, “Conservation in India – a search for direction,”Architecture+Design (1989): 22-27. See also Robert Home, Of Planting and Planning (London: E & FN Spon, 1997), 48, http://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-21219.

20

It is noted, however, other than initiatives from within the colonial government, the non-

governmental organization from the colonizing country also played an important role in early

studies of the indigenous cultures. For example, it was the Royal Asiatic Society of the

United Kingdom that suggested the Government of India to employ some talented officers to

obtain copies of paintings of Indian caves and to preserve the caves from dilapidation.67 Since

both India and Hong Kong were British colonies, though of various time spans, the study on

Indian conservation is suggestive as to the possible source of information that could elucidate

the conservation history in Hong Kong.

The Rise of New Profession in the Colonial Context

Robert Home’s book Of Planting and Planning describes the various rationales behind the

making of British colonies. In lieu of the rising of new profession in the home country, the

role that various professions, such as architects, planners, surveyors, etc. can play was

relatively limited in the colonial administration. Within the colonial bureaucracy,

professionals were often “on tap but not on top.”68 This phenomenon has rendered heritage

valorization in the colonies enigmatic and at odd with the AHD: on one hand the valorization

of AHD is predominantly shaped by the development of professional discourse and the

experts played an important role in identifying valuable objects, one the other hand,

professionals were by large limited in delivering professional judgement in the colonial

administration.

This part of the literature review examines the historical development of the conservation

practice. The following part will discuss various topical issues that informed the development

of heritage discourse.

67 Bel Krishen Thapar, “India,” in Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, ed. Henry Cleere (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 64. 68 Home, Of Planting and Planning, 53.

21

iii. POWER DYNAMICS IN HERITAGE VALORIZATION PROCESS

Heritage/ heritagization as a selection process

Scholars have identified that heritage is not only about material remains of the past, it is a

process of selection of the past to be appreciated by the present and future generations.

Hewison defined heritage as “that which a past generation has preserved and handed on to the

present and which a significant group of population wishes to hand on to the future.” 69 As

neutral of such passing on as it sounds, Hewison’s definition implies that there is a process of

selection as to what should be preserved, and such value is pertinent to the “significant group

of population.” Tunbridge & Ashworth also defines heritage as the passing on process — as

the present that “selects an inheritance from an imagined past for current use and decides

what should be passed on to an imagined future.”70 While Hewison does not specify why the

significance group of population would wish to hand on certain things to the future,

Tunbridge & Ashworth’s definition on heritage gives an insight on the motives of selection

— for “current use.” Tunbridge & Ashworth’s definition of heritage echoes with Hewison’s

on the dualistic nature of heritage. Heritage is not only about the material remains of what is

inherited from the past generation; it is also about the selection, which is highly charged with

agenda of the present days. From these definitions, the intrinsic value of the material remains

and instrumental value of heritage are two sides of the coin. Heritage is a subject matter as

well as a practice. Lowenthal’s view on heritage practice that it “clarifies pasts so as to infuse

them with present purposes,” further elaborated on how heritage could be put to use, that is by

clarifying the past.71

69 Robert Hewison, “Heritage: an interpretation,” in Heritage Interpretation, ed. D.L. Uzzell, Vol. 1(London, New York: Belhaven Press, 1989), 16. 70 John E. Tunbridge and Gregory Ashworth, Dissonant Heritage: the management of the past as a resource in conflict (Chichester: Wiley, 1996), 6. 71 David Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoil of History (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), xv.

22

Heritage is a process, not history

Henceforth, as it differ from what the Romantics think, history is not heritage. William

Morris as a Romantic, believes that the idea of heritage is to invoke the past. Building

conservation is not simply “reflecting an interest in the aesthetics of the built form as such”; it

is, for Morris, the “capacity for a true conception of history, a power of making the past part

of the present.”72 He believes that heritage can bring the past alive. On the contrary, as many

critics have argued, due to the selection process mentioned above, heritage is viewed as a

debased history. In The Heritage Industry, Hewison argues that history is absorbed in heritage,

but is “floating on the larger frame of the present”; using heritage as a touristic resource is “a

devaluation of significance, an impoverishment of meaning.” 73 Some other scholars have

considered the use of the past as a resource “imaginative” and “dishonest,”74 and could even

be called a form of “cultural prostitution.”75 Lowenthal challenges the idea of authenticity and

the ultimate coining of the word antiheritage animus summarizes the corpus of opposition to

the heritage concept into six basic elements: destructive chauvinism, elitism, incoherence and

inanition, commercial debasement, and bad history.76

Heritage as a cultural process

David Harvey argues that heritage is not simply a physical artefact or record, but a cultural

process, 77 in which he quotes Bender, “identities are created and disputed, whether as

72 William Morris quoted in Edward Palmer Thompson, William Morris: Romantic to Revolutionary (New York: Pantheon, 1977), 235. 73 Robert Hewison, The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline (London: Methuen, 1987), 136, 138. 74 Peter Toyne Newby, “Tourism: Support or threat to heritage,” in Building a new heritage: culture, tourism and identity in the New Europe, eds. Gregory Ashworth, and Peter J. Larkham (Routledge, London, 1994), 209, 217. 75 Georg F. Pfafflin, “Concern for Tourism: European perspective and response,” Annals of tourism research, 14:4 (1987): 578. 76 Lowenthal, Heritage Crusade, 88, 100. 77 Harvey, “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents,” 336.

23

individual, group or nation state.”78 Lowenthal also acknowledges the role identity plays in

this process of identity politics as “chauvinistic” and “elitist,” and is “contested” because it

represent values from a certain dominant class, echoing Smith’s idea of the AHD. Laurajane

Smith further claims that “all heritage is intangible.”79 Even though Smith was aware that

places, sites, objects and localities are identifiable as heritages, by stressing on the

intangibility of the heritage, Smith tries to denaturalize the material basis as innately valuable

as heritage. From Smith’s point of view, all preservation and conservation process putting the

material remains under protection or management is a “constitutive cultural process.”80

Heritage that upholds the value of the dominant class

Scholars try to demonstrate that the invention of heritage is by large for the interest of the

middle and upper class. Smith uses the heritagization of the English country house as an

example to illustrate that heritage was used to serve the upper class’ interest. Although the

Ancient Monument Protection Act 1882 does not provide protection for the medieval historic

buildings, the protection of landscape was institutionalized with the creation of the National

Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty in 1895. In 1907, The National Trust

Act was enacted endowing National Trust the right to declare properties it possessed as

alienable.81 Historic buildings were fallen into protection under this Act. Mandler writes in

his study of the English heritage that Phillippe Kerr, the eleventh Marquess of Lothian,

lobbied the National Trust Officials to consider the “plight” of the country house, urging the

Trust to acquire the houses from the hands of aristocrats who were impoverished after the

First World War, to repair and modernize the country houses and let them to tenants, some of

78 Barbara Bender, “Introduction; landscape — meaning and action,” in Landscape: politics and perspectives, ed. Barbara Bender (Oxford: Berg, 1993), 3. 79 Smith, Uses of Heritage, 3. 80 Ibid. 81 Marcus Crouch, Britain in Trust (London: Constable Young Books, 1963), 7.

24

whom may be their old owners.82 Hewison points out that the National Trust in the United

Kingdom was criticized by one of its former chairman Lord Antrim as a “self-perpetuating

oligarchy” and is the fiefdom of “the amenity earls.”83

Although the landed class is less dominant in the National Trust in the United States, Barthel

notes that the majority of its members and leaders was drawn from the upper middle and

upper class and hence is charged for its “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant cast.”84 Therefore,

not only is the maintenance and protection over heritage with the public expenses serving the

nouveau pauvre middle-upper class directly, the National Trust in United Kingdom and

United States are also serving the taste and gaze of their white- or middle and upper class-

leaders.85

Patrick Wright also notes, in On Living in an Old Country, the increased interest in visiting

country house in England is a tendency to go back to the old social hierarchy which appears

to be “alluring” in the modern days when such hierarchy is no longer formative.86 The mass

interest in nostalgia is also articulated by Hewison, as a means to “adjust to change.”87 It

shows that the value of heritage is propagated throughout the society, from the middle-upper

dominant class to the lower and working class, out of a conservative bent.

Heritage appreciation as a cultural capital

Therefore, scholars have used Bourdieu’s theory on cultural capital to explain the power

dynamics behind heritage appreciation. To understand heritage, cultural capital is required

82 Peter Mandler, The Fall and Rise of the Stately Home (New Haven, C.T: Yale University Press, 1997), 295-296; see also, Smith, Uses of Heritage, 22. 83 Hewison, The Heritage Industry, 55. 84 Barthel, Historic Preservation, 6. 85 Although National Trust is a private charity, it has a special relationship with the Treasury. The properties given to the national trust are in lieu of tax. Therefore, the resources that National Trust uses on property maintenance can be viewed as a kind of public resources. 86 Patrick Wright, On Living in an Old Country (London: Verso, 1985), 22. 87 Hewison, The Heritage Industry, 45.

25

and the idea of cultural capital is often associated with economic capital and family education

background, the taste and hence the ability to appreciate demonstrate what Bourdieu called

“aesthetic legitimacy.” 88 Ashworth argues that there is a “dominant ideology hypothesis”

asserting that governments or ruling elites will “project a message legitimating their position,”

by capturing “cultural capital,” which is “composed of both the accumulated cultural

productivity of society and also the criteria of taste for the selection and valuation” of such

cultural products.89 Brian Graham also presented similar views in “Heritage as Knowledge:

Capital or Culture?,” but he urges for a deeper understanding in the variety of forms that

heritage takes, official and unofficial, as heritage is being produced and reproduced through

time.90

Dennis Hardy points out that heritage is a “value-loaded concept,” “embracing (and often

obscuring) differences of interpretation,” he categorizes heritage into two different uses based

on the “differences of interpretation,” i.e. “the heritage used in a conservative sense” and

“heritage as a radical concept.” The former refers to the heritage that strikes the chords of the

dominant class or interest, whilst the latter refers to the heritage interpretation that challenges

the status quo or the socially powerful.91 If heritage interpretation that upholds the value of

the upper and middle class is conservative, then the heritage that dissents is radical.

The idea of Dissonant, Dissent and Subaltern Heritage

88 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A social critique of the Judgement of Taste (London and New York: Routledge, 1984), 27. 89 G.J. Ashworth, “From History to Heritage – from heritage to history: in search of concepts and models,” in Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity, eds. Gregory J. Ashworth and Peter J. Larkhams (London: Routledge 1994), 20. 90 Brian Graham, “Heritage as Knowledge: Capital or Culture?” Urban Studies, 39(5/6) (2002): 1004, doi:10.1080/00420980220128426. 91 Dennis Hardy, “Historical geography and Heritage Studies,” The Royal Geographical Society 20:4(1998):333-338, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002646.

26

Riding on the Stuart Hall’s theory on representation, Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge argue

that heritage is, like language, produced and reproduced. 92 Graham et.al. use the word

“dissonance” to refer to the contestation in heritage — “one person’s heritage is the

disinheritance of another,” which they believe is intrinsic to heritage. 93 “Dissonance” is

defined as “mis-match between heritage and people, in space and time”;94 “the probability of

shifts in population groups, political and social power structures and ideological allegiances

leaving behind cultural and material relics that no longer reflect relevant or desirable

contemporary place symbolisms is extremely high. Such diffusions … can be described as …

heritage dissonance.”95 The word “dissonant” literally means discordant sound, the root –

sonance means sound in Latin. Dissonant heritage refers to the idea that heritage is inevitably

multi-vocal, not singular.

When introducing the alternative discourse, Smith refers to the idea of dissonance but

disagrees with Ashworth and Tunbridge that dissonance could be actively managed and

“overcome.”96 Ashworth and Tunbridge propose, in The Tourist –Historic City, a model of

heritage dissonance could be developed for sustainable growth, to identify new heritage

resources with “sensitive appropriation” for a segmented markets. 97 Smith agrees that

heritage is dissonant, but argues that Ashworth and Tunbridge are reducing the idea of

dissonance to a site-specific management problem. Instead, Smith believes that heritage is a

constitutive social process in which the role of regulation and governance are equally

important in the contestation of heritage. On top of that, rather than using the term

“dissonance,” Smith uses the word “dissenting” to represent the alternatives to the dominant

ideological discourse. The word “dissent,” according to Oxford English Dictionary, is defined

as “the holding or expression of opinions at variance with those commonly or officially

92 Brian Graham, Gregory Ashworth, John E. Tunbridge, A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy (London: Arnold; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2-3. 93 Ibid.,6, 93; See also Tunbridge and Ashworth, Dissonant Heritage, 21. 94 Brian Graham, Gregory Ashworth, John E. Tunbridge. A Geography of Heritage, 93. 95 Tunbridge and Ashworth, Dissonant Heritage, 32. 96 Smith, Uses of Heritage, 82. 97 Tunbridge and Ashworth, Dissonant Heritage, 274.

27

held.” 98 The word “dissent” is highly charged by its connotation to power relations, i.e.

resistance to an authority or “official view,” whereas dissonance is more neutral. She

identifies two strands of dissenting discourse; the first is “subaltern” discourse — the

community participation in conservation processes which is not addressed in the AHD, the

second is the critique developed around heritage tourism and industry.99

As a result of the dissonant nature of heritage and the likely existence of dissenting discourses

against the orthodox discourse, many scholars have identified heritage as a site of contest.100

Heritage and identity

Heritage is psychologically important in constructing individual and collective identities. This

point is well cited in heritage literature, for example, Graham et.al writes, “acting as one

means of representing the past, heritage provides meaning to human existence by conveying

the ideas of timeless values and unbroken lineages that underpin identity.”101 From the point

of view of environmental perception study, Tuan also confirms that the past and familiar

places are important in identity construction, as cultural experience is pertinent to the physical

setting. 102 It is equally valid for collective identity construction because of the built

environment that we collectively shared.

98 Oxford Dictionary Online, s.v. “dissent,” accessed Nov 25, 2016, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dissent. 99 Smith, Uses of Heritage, 35. 100 Literature seeing heritage as a site of contest include, but not limit to: Barbara Bender, Stonehenge: Making Space (Oxford, New York: Berg., 1998); Barbara Bender and Margot Winer, ed., Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place (Oxford, New York: Berg, 2001); Stuart Hall, “Whose Heritage? Unsettling the Heritage, Re-imagining the Post-Nation,” in The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of “Race”, eds. Jo Littler and Roshi Naidoo (London, New York: Routledge, 2005), 23-35; Niamh Moore and Yvonne Whelan, eds., Heritage, Memory and the Politics of Identity: New Perspectives on the Cultural Landscape (Aldershot Hants, Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2007); Helaine Silverman, ed. Contested Cultural Heritage: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World (New York, London: Springer, 2011) 101 Graham, Gregory Ashworth, John E. Tunbridge, A Geography of Heritage, 41. 102 Tuan Yi Fu, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values (Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1974), 59.

28

Stuart Hall further argues that there is no identity that is not collective, as he puts it,

“identification is constructed on the back of a recognition of some common origin or shared

characteristics with another person or group, or with an ideal, and with the natural closure of

solidarity and allegiance established on this foundation.”103However, Hall also stresses on the

fluidity of the concept of identity by referring to Derrida’s différance in seeing identity as a

sort of double writing, thinking in interval of the difference of two concepts, e.g. what bring

low was high. Thus, identity is operating “under erasure” in the interval between reversal and

emergence.104 The concept of identity is inherently discursive, even when being sustained by

“its determinate conditions of existence” such as “material and symbolic resources,” it is

always “conditional” and in the state of “contingency,” as Hall presents.105

From this point of view, built environment serves as the material or symbolic resources that

sustained identities, and identities are emergent contingent to social changes. Lowenthal also

observes that conservation is a reaction to anxieties generated by modernist amnesia. We

preserve because the pace of changes and development has attenuated a legacy integral to our

identity and well-being.106

Collective Memory

Maurice Halbwachs’ On Collective memory is important for understanding the idea of

collective memory. In Halbwachs’ term, collective memory is a social framework, and

“individual always use social frameworks when they remember. It is necessary to place

oneself in the perspective of the group or groups.” 107 Therefore it is “in society that they

103 Stuart Hall, “Who needs ‘identity’?” in Identity: a reader, ed. Paul du Gay, Jessica Evans and Peter Redman. (London, California, New Dehli: Sage, 2000), 16. 104 Ibid. 105 Ibid., 17. 106 David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), xxiv. 107 Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, ed. and trans. Lewis A. Coser (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 40.

29

recall, reorganize, and localize their memories.”108 Halbwachs uses aphasia to illustrate the

idea of collective memory, external memory insufficiently internalized due to the lack of

words. Therefore, “verbal conventions” constitute “the most elementary and the most stable

framework of collective memory.”109 Hablbwachs’ work is insightful in two senses, first,

memory is always social and collective; second, discursive practice is a constituting device to

construct the collective memory.

iv. HERITAGE VALUE

As early as in 1903, Alois Riegl, the Austrian state-appointed “General Conservator” tries to

put forward the typology of heritage values. After a historical review of the development of

the restoration principles, Riegl divided values of modern conservation into two groups: the

memorial values—age value, historical value and intended memorial value; and the present-

day values—use value, art value, newness vale and relative art value.110 Jokilehto says that

Riegl’s theory takes an abstract and condensed form and is not easy to translate, therefore his

influence the influence is largely limited to German-speaking countries. 111 Gibson,

Pendlebury and Smith however, follow similar line of division by acknowledging the schism

of instrumental value or use value vis-à-vis intrinsic or inherent values.

With regard to the instrumental value, literature recognizes the importance of preserving

historic buildings in creating lively urban environment,112 and hence, livable cities.113 There

are also other researches demonstrating that heritage can regenerate the city;114 provide a

108 Ibid., 38. 109 Ibid., 45. 110 Alois Riegl, “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and its origin,” trans. Kurt W. Foster and Diane Ghirardo, Oppositions 25 (1982)21-51. Reprinted in Laurajane Smith, ed., Cultural Heritage: critical concepts in media and cultural studies (London, New York: Routledge, 2006) 111 Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, 217. 112 Jane Jacobs, “The need for aged buildings,” in The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961), 187-99. 113 Eric Allison and Lauren Peters, Historic Preservation and the Livable City (Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011), 9. 114 Graeme Evans, Cultural Planning: An Urban Renaissance? (London, New York: Routledge, 2001), 212-58; Deborah Stevenson, Cities and Urban Cultures (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2003), 94-113; Massimo

30

conducive environment for the development of creative industries;115 and play an important

role in place-making, 116 or boosting tourism. 117 Much of these literature emphasizes the

benefits of preservation for something else, hence, the instrumental value of heritage over

intrinsic value. This thinking produces what Pendlebury called the “opportunity space,” while

the intrinsic value presents heritage as “historic space.”118

John Pendlebury’s Conservation in the Age of Consensus explores the evolution of the policy

rationale behind conservation and, in particular, the trend of instrumentalization of

conservation in the UK. As Pendlebury describes, the conservation in the UK started off with

protection of ancient monuments in late 19th Century and evolved to concern about the

reconciliation between conservation and planning for development after the Second World

War, until it arrived at what Pendlebury called the “Age of Consensus” when the socio-

cultural and economic benefits of conservation were conceived of greater importance, and

sometimes provided justification for the conservation, i.e. when instrumental values override

intrinsic values of conservation.119

Heritage values embedded in urban fabric: From Monuments to Landscape

As elaborated by Gibson and Pendlebury, the heritage value “is not an intrinsic quality but

rather the fabric, object or environment is the bearer of an externally imposed culturally and

Preite, “Urban Regeneration and Planning,”in Industrial Heritage Re-tooled, ed. James Douet (Lancaster: Carnegie, 2012), 101-9. 115 Sharon Zukin, Loft Living: culture and capital in urban change (London: Radius, 1988); Franco Bianchini and Michael Parkinson, Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience (Manchester: University Press, 1993). 116 Stephen V. Ward, Selling Places: The Marketing and Promotion of Towns and Cities 1850-2000 (London: E& FN Spon, 1998). 117 Xie Philip Feifan, “Developing Industrial Heritage Tourism: A case study of the proposed jeep museum in Toledo, Ohio,” Tourism Management 27(6):1321, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.010; Arwel, J. Edwards, and Joan Carles Lurdes I Coit, “Mines and Quarries: Industrial Heritage Tousim,” Annals of Tourism Research 23(2)(1996):341-63, doi:10.1016/0160-7383(95)00067-4. 118 John Pendlebury, Tim Townshend, Rose Gilroy, “The Conservation of English Cultural Built Heritage: A Force for Social Inclusion?” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(1)(2004):12, doi:10.1080/1352725032000194222. 119 Pendlebury, Conservation in The Age of Consensus, 81-102.

31

historically specific meaning, that attracts a value status depending on the dominant

framework of value of the time and space.”120 This description explains the adoption of the

term “historic environment” in the British, as well as the UNESCO discourse. The UNESCO

World Heritage Cities Programme was an initiative to coordinate an integrated, dynamic

approach to the management of historic sites.121 It led to the adoption of a new standard-

setting instrument, the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, which defines

historic urban landscape as “the urban area understood as the result of a historic layering of

cultural and natural values and attributes, extending beyond the notion of a “historic centre”

or “ensemble” to include the broader urban context and its geographical setting.”122 Such

policy tools are useful for expanding the heritage concept from historic buildings to urban

fabrics and even spatial organization that carries specific meaning. The introduction of the

term “historic urban landscape” suggests the recognition of heritage values of a holistic

environment, rather than individual monument, as Pozo and Gonzāles points out the need to

focus on the “territorial value” of heritage sites in order to break the vicious cycle of

rendering individual monuments irrelevant to the place identity and memory.123

Therefore, the challenge for the field of practice is to respect the citizens’ rights to heritage

and assimilate the increasingly pluralistic interpretation of heritage. From the academic point

of view, however, there is an imminent need to critically reflect on the trend of pluralization

of heritage interpretation and assessment.

v. CONSERVATION OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE

120 Lisanne Gibson and John Pendlebury, Valuing Historic Environments (Surrey, VT: Ashgate, 2012), 1. 121 Francesco Bandarin and Ron van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing heritage in an urban century. (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), xiii-xvi. 122 UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.” 10 November, 2011. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 25 November, 2016. 123 Paz Benito Del Pozo and Pablo Alonso Gonzalez, “Industrial Heritage and Place Identity in Spain: From Monument to Landscape,” The Geographical Review 10:4 (2012): 461, doi:10.1111/j/1931-0846.2012.00169.x

32

There are international networks or organizations concerning demolition of the built

inheritance that are not considered heritage, such as DOCOMOMO International which cares

about sites from the modern movement. A DOCOMOMO Hong Kong Chapter was

established in 2012 with a mission to enhance public’s knowledge about modern architecture

while promoting the protection of “notable examples of modern architecture” in Hong

Kong.124

Is heritage a non-renewable / irreplaceable resource?

John Carman acknowledges the view that heritage and archaeological sites are perceived as

finite and non-renewable resources because they are materials things, once destroyed is lost

forever, unlike Flora and fauna that can reproduce itself.125 Carman identifies, however, there

are possible ways to render heritage renewable: first, the deposition of new “rubbish”

materials to become the archaeology of the future; second, the discovery of new

archaeological sites; and third, the discovery, recognition or identification of entirely new

classes of archaeological remains.126 He explains the third point with his investigation into the

relationship between legislation and archaeology.

Similarly, Robert Hewison notes that list of heritage buildings and historical sites have only

been growing:

Since the principle of listing buildings in order to inhibit their demolition or

alteration was first introduced in 1947, the number has steadily grown, and is

expected to reach half a million in 1988, double the number in 1982. But the latest

changes to the system mean that the potential number is infinite. The cut-off date

124 DOCOMOMO Hong Kong Website, accessed 25 November 2016. http://docomomo.hk/. 125 Carman, Valuing Ancient Things, 7. 126 Ibid.

33

will no longer be 1939, but a rolling period by which any building more than thirty

years old may qualify for protection.127

Other than historical buildings, the conservation areas and historical sites were also increasing

as noted by Hewison. Ultimately, Hewison quoted Lord Charteris, the Chairman of the

National Heritage Memorial Fund and former private secretary to the Queen, the heritage

means “anything you want.”128 Views alike have been taken by Rem Koolhaas. He says, the

preservation law revisions have rendered more recent buildings become “historical buildings”

and thus, claims that “preservation is overtaking us.”129 If we take into account the pace of

urban changes, it is not surprising to see the revision of preservation law as a logical

consequence to protect the material remains of what was quickly out-fashioned in the modern

development.

The question of monumentality

In heritage literature, scholars have discussed the idea of “monumentality” of heritage and

explained why some built form with more monumentality is often preferred over the

vernacular and the mundane. Choay details the evolution of the word “monument” in French,

with a root in the Latin word monumentum, it is derived from monere — to warn or recall —

calls upon the “faculty of memory.” It is about its power to call upon the present. The word

only gradually assumes more meaning of the “grandeur,” “magnificent” and “glorious” in

17th Century.130 From Choay’s work, one can see it is important to go back to the root of the

keywords and see how the social changes have been reflected in the understanding of the

language, seeing the signified beyond the signifier, rather than assuming lexicons are static

and unchangeable.

127 Hewison, The Heritage Industry, 24. 128 Ibid., 32. 129 Rem Koolhaas, and Jorge Otero-Pailos, Preservation is Overtaking us. GSAPP Transcripts, ed. Jordan Carver (New York: GSAPP Books, 2014), 15. 130 Choay, The Invention of the Historic Monument, 7.

34

The question of aesthetics

At one point, the inclusion of more and more modern architecture as historic buildings

becomes controversial as it requires different set of language for the aesthetics, and more

often than not, it is subjective. In the 1980s, Hewison noted that there was “a crisis of

confidence” within the architectural profession when modern architecture was considered as

ugly. For example, during the RIBA’s 150th anniversary celebration banquet, the Prince of

Wales attacked the proposed modernist design of the National Gallery extension as a

“monstrous carbuncle,” subsequently the current design of what is called a “sympathetic

pastiche” is adopted.131

The aesthetic judgement is not only subjective, but is also influenced by political stance. For

example, the right wing aesthetician Roger Scruton has attacked modernist architecture as

“the architecture of Leninism.”132 On the other hand, Aslet believes that there is a political

agenda behind the classical revivalism.133

Amongst the family of modern buildings, industrial architecture was usually considered as

unaesthetic, as it is made for functions and material efficiency. However, Harbinson argues

that it is exactly the taste of industrial architecture, “the taste of industrial architecture is

paradoxically discovered as elements without aesthetic intent.”134 Despite the aesthetically

unpleasing appearance of industrial architecture, there are arguments supporting the

preservation because of its peculiar aesthetic quality of what Okada believes to be the quality

of Wabi-sabi (of Japanese origin). The term “Wabi” is understood as “enjoyment of a quiet,

leisurely life free from worldly concerns,” while Sabi as “quiet simplicity, lonely, austere

beauty,” etc. Okada quoted Japanese aesthetician Atsushi Tanigawa’s view on the Sachlich

131 Hewison, The Heritage Industry, 43. 132 Ibid.,76. 133 Ibid. 134 Harbinson, quoted in Okada’s “Industrial Ruins”, 152.

35

(factual) beauty that ruined landscape can offer which is often characterized by irregularity,

diversity, chaos or coarseness, to argue that something not beautiful has a special value to

offer in the modernity.

Okada opposes to measures mitigating the deterioration of industrial architecture and believes

that the industrial ruins should remain as it is as “passage of time” is another important

element possessed by heritage.135 As Huyssen puts it, “the chance for things to age and to

become ruin has diminished in the aged of turbo capitalism.”136 The encounter of the hidden,

rundown space sharpens the experience of the city and offers authenticity.137 Derelict sites are

increasingly marginalized in the modern heritage discourse, or could only survive by

reconfiguring itself into either “historic space” or the “opportunity space,” as Pendlebury

labels, under the capitalist and highly gentrified society.

vi. HERITAGE IN HONG KONG

In Hong Kong, the protection of heritage came with the implementation of the Antiquities and

Monument Ordinance in 1976. Before that, the government has set up a temporary committee

in 1946, the Public Monuments Committee, to discuss various issues regarding monuments

within the territory of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, such establishment was temporary and the

primary aim was to discuss the removal of any physical remains after the Japanese occupation

during the Second World War and to restore the monuments of the colonial government

which were demolished by the Japanese army.138 Indeed, the Antiquities and Monuments Bill

was enacted in 1971, five years earlier before its implementation. It was because of the

135 Masaaki Okada, “Industrial Ruins,” in Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation, ed. James Douet (Lancaster: Carnegie, 2012), 154. 136 Andreas Huyssen, “Nostalgia for Ruins,” Grey Room, 23(2006): 10. 137 Steve Pile, “’The problem of London’ or How to explore moods in the city,” in The Hieroglyphics of space: Reading and experiencing the modern metropolis, ed. Neil Leach (London: Routledge, 2005), 205; Phil Baker, “Secret City, Psychogeography and the end of London,” in London from Punk to Blair, eds. Joe Kerr and Andrew Gibson (London: Reaktion, 2013), 212-14. 138 Related documents could be found in HKRS337- 3-1, Archival Series, Public Record Office, Hong Kong.

36

“inability” to locate suitable candidates to occupy the position of the Secretary, the ordinance

was not effective until 1976.139

As of 20 May, 2016, there were 114 declared monuments in Hong Kong.140 They are evenly

spread out on Hong Kong Island, New Territories and the outlying islands. The Antiquities

and Monuments Board (AAB) has also graded 1,444 historic buildings. Grade 1 means that

the building has outstanding merit and every effort should be made to preserve if possible;

Grade 2 means building has special merit, efforts should be made to selectively preserve;

Grade 3 means that building is of some merit, preservation of some form would be desirable

and alternative means should be considered if preservation is not practicable.141 However, the

graded buildings are not protected from demolition and are not covered by the Antiquities and

Monuments Ordinance.

Some research on heritage policy in Hong Kong has been done so far from a myriad of

perspectives, from policy studies, colonial studies, anthropological studies, human geography,

and urban planning.

Extrospective/ Introspective Policy?

Lachlan Barber analyzes in “(Re)Making Heritage Policy in Hong Kong: A Relational

Politics of Global Knowledge and Local Innovation” from the perspective of urban policy

mobilities. The author argues that heritage policy in Hong Kong is largely an “extrospective”

(outward looking) process; the policy is largely an outcome of learning and adoption.142

Barber sees the heritage policy in Hong Kong as “a product of colonial governance” and

139 Related documents could be found in HKRS310-2-6, Archival Series, Public Record Office, Hong Kong. 140 Antiquities and Monuments Office, HKSAR Government. “Declared Monuments,” accessed 25 November 2016. http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/monuments.php. 141 Antiquities and Monuments Advisory Board. “1,444 Historic Buildings and New Items in addition to 1,444 Historic Building,” accessed 25 November 2016. http://www.aab.gov.hk/en/built3.php. 142 Lachlan Barbar, “(Re)Making Heritage Policy in Hong Kong: A Relational Politics of Global Knowledge and Local Innovation,” Urban Studies 51:6 (2014) :1181, doi: 10.1177/0042098013495576.

37

“reflects Eurocentric biases concerning monumentality, antiquity and expertise.”143 One of

the evidence that Barber puts forward to support the “colonial traits” of the heritage policy is

a letter that Eddie from the Public Works Department wrote to Noel in 1971 to inquire

whether any of the graduates of the Oriental Studies Programme at the Australian National

University might be educated to know enough of Chinese archaeology to be able to recognize

a relic. Barber interprets this act, to source talents from overseas rather than from local, as

“illustrative of the workings of the colonial administration” and quoting Chan in arguing that

the upper echelons of the civil service in Hong Kong were dominated by expatriates, as they

think locals are not up to par in running the government.144 However, I have doubt over this

interpretation and have conducted follow up research to find out that Dr. Noel Barnard was a

teacher in the Department of Oriental Studies in Australian National University and he was a

personal acquaintance of Eddie, i.e. Edwin Wong, Chief architect of the Public Works

Department at the 70s. Question arises as to whether Edwin Wong should be considered as

expatriate. Although Edwin Wong was born in New Zealand and received university

education there, he was raised in Guangzhou from 11 months-old until he entered university

in New Zealand.145 The division between local and expatriate is never as clear cut as in

theoretical discourse, such generalization could not lead to insightful remarks without

defining and delineating the concept of “local.” Quite the contrary of what Barber expects, the

result of this exchange of mail correspondence was the recommendation of a candidate called

Wong Yin-wai who was born in Canton, educated in Taiwan and Australia. 146 Having

mentioned that, Mr. Wong did not take up the post of the Secretary at the end and no record

further explains the reason. Therefore, it is not the talent search that shows that “colonial

administration” was at work. Instead, an examination of the people who had taken up senior

offices would reveal so.

143 Ibid., 1186. 144 Ibid.; Chan Ming K. “The Legacy of the British Administration of Hong Kong: a view from Hong Kong,” The China Quarterly, 151(1997):570-71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/655254. 145 Hong Kong Institute of Architects. 2006. In love with architecture 熱戀建築 : 與拾伍香港資深建築師的對話(Hong Kong : HKIA), 42-43. 146 HKRS310-2-6, Archival Series, Public Record Office, Hong Kong.

38

Barber also argues that, the Ordinance “celebrates monumental heritage over its more

everyday forms” due to its “European origins.”147 Therefore, Barber cites, from 1976-1990,

only 39 sites in the entire Hong Kong territory were awarded monument status, many of them

were archaeological sites, including rock carving and inscriptions. 148 Despite a few

“innovations” in the heritage administrative endeavors, such as the creation of a new

Commissioner for Heritage post and office under a newly formed Development Bureau in

2008, “the policy itself has not changed, largely due to the importance of redevelopment to

Hong Kong governance.”149

Barber’s research provides insights on how the policy ideas are “mobilizes” across different

political territories and is quite accurate at pointing out the heritage policy in Hong Kong had

remained rather fixated towards the “monumentality” quality of the historic environment

despite international trends has evolved to value more of the social and cultural value over

material value.150

David Lung’s article also addresses similar concerns arguing the heritage legal and

administrative framework in Hong Kong was insufficient in meeting social aspiration.151

Lung argues that firstly, the definition of heritage is too narrow under the Antiquities and

Monuments Ordinance; secondly, the current practice provides no authoritative measures in

heritage grading and assessment. The process of grading is “somewhat obscure” to the public

and there was question as to the statutory basis of the grading exercise; thirdly, the respect for

private ownership was too strong to render any privately-owned property as declared

monuments; thus, fourthly, the mechanism of compensating the private property owners in

exchange for the preservation, whether in situ land exchange or transfer of development rights

147 Barbar, “(Re)making Heritage Policy,” 1187. 148 South China Morning Post, “39 sites safe from destruction,” South China Morning Post, 3rd February 1990, 27. 149 Barbar, “(Re)making Heritage Policy,” 1187-9. 150 Ibid. 151 David Lung, “Built Heritage in Transition: A critique of Hong Kong’s Conservation Movement and the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance,” Hong Kong Law Journal 42(2012): 134, http://hdl.handle.net/10722/169153. See appendix A.

39

(TDR), or bonus plot ratio, is a sign showing that there is “not a single genuine case of

protection.”152

Jeff Cody’s article challenges the “extrospective” aspect of the heritage law in Hong Kong.

The Ordinance in 1971, by adopting a restrictive definition of “antiquities” and “monuments,”

it “ignored precedents from France‘s secteurs sauvegardes (1962), the United Kingdom’s

“conservation areas” (1965), and the “historic districts” of the US national Historic

Preservation Act (1966). When [the government] amended the Ordinance in the 1980s, the

government did not incorporate aspects of either UNESCO’s Recommendation Concerning

the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (1976) or Australia’s Burra

Charter (1979).”153

My question would be, extended from the discussion of local vis-à-vis expatriate, at what

level could one conclude that the heritage policy is a result of the colonial administration? As

the international heritage discourse develops, and the heritage policy in the United Kingdom

underwent a great leap after the Second World War, has Hong Kong stopped learning from

international counterparts and her colonizer? Why so? Is the fixation of heritage policy

towards the monumental heritage a succession of the colonizer’s orthodox heritage discourse,

as what Smith argues, or a response to the local constraints? How the society perceives the

innate material value vis-à-vis the social and cultural value of heritage policy at large?

Heritage as a site of contest and negotiation

Sidney Cheung’s paper about “The Meanings of a Heritage Trail in Hong Kong” is insightful

in revealing that heritage policy or heritage sites was hardly an act out of pure conservationist

concerns, and it could become the battle ground between the colonizer and the colonized. The

152 Ibid., 134-7. 153 Jeffrey W. Cody, “Heritage as Hologram: Hong Kong after a change in Sovereignty, 1997-2001,” in The Disappearing “Asian City”: Protecting Asia’s Urban Heritage in a Globalized World, ed. William Logan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 199.

40

case study on heritage trail shows the contested interest of various stakeholders, i.e. the

government, the site’s owner, the agency and local organizations, concerning a heritage

site.154 It has also provided copious details about the history of struggle between the Tang

Clan and the colonial government, especially the 1898 rebellion of the Ping Shan villagers

and the subsequent feng shui debates. From the paper, a few points are noted and will be of

interest to my research. First, the villagers closed down some sites along the heritage trail as a

reaction to the government’s initiation for removing the graves. The heritage sites as private

properties could serve as a bargaining chip in power struggle or negotiation between the

villagers and the government. The villagers concerned about the feng shui of their own clan

rather than the publicness of the heritage values reflected in their heritage. Second, the author

argues that Government’s creation of the heritage trail before the handover is a search for the

distinctiveness of Hong Kong culture and identity. This part will be further elaborated under

the section of “Hong Kong Identity.”

Politics of disappearance: Heritage under the colonial and post-colonial era

Old photos showing the Central and Wanchai district during the early colonial time was full

of European-style buildings, but only a few remained standing nowadays. Despite the

enactment of the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in 1971, and some occurrence of

government’s initiative over the heritage in Hong Kong, as shown in the Ping Shan Heritage

Trail, Hong Kong built environment was undergoing a drastic change, to a state of what

Ackbar Abbas termed as a “reverse hallucination,” i.e. “not seeing what is there,” and the

resultant built environment is a state of “disappearance.”155

154 Sidney C.H. Cheung, “The Meanings of a Heritage Trail in Hong Kong,” Annals of Tourism Research, 26:3 (1999): 570-588, doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00006-7. 155 Ackbar Abbas, Hong Kong: Culture and Politics of Disappearance (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997), 6.

41

Several scholars have considered heritage policy in Hong Kong from a post-colonial

perspective. Tracey L.D. Lu claims in “Heritage Conservation in Post-colonial Hong Kong”

that the community starts to show interest in heritage conservation only after the handover, as

a gesture to articulate their Hong Kong identity, and to resist “Sinicization.”156 Lu follows on

to write about the Lee Tung Street Preservation movement, as it marks the beginning of a

heritage conservation movement in Hong Kong. Lu argues it is a kind community

empowerment in the urban heritage discourse. 157 I agree with Lu that community

participation in conservation was quite different before and after the handover. However, I do

not think that the public interest in heritage conservation prior 1997 was entirely non-existent.

Public discourse that argues for conservation had surfaced via various channels, especially on

various news media. Oppositions and protests were also noted against the knock-down of the

former Kowloon-Canton Railway Station (KCR), Hong Kong Club and the General Police

Office in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Henderson’s work “Conserving Hong Kong’s Heritage: The case of Queen’s Pier” gives a

detailed account on the controversy of the demolition of the Queen’s Pier in Hong Kong.

Henderson argues that under the pro-development rationale, heritage selection assumes a de-

colonialization agenda. Heritage of the colonial history, such as the Queen’s pier are much

less preferred than heritage showing the Chinese roots.158 Desmond Sham’s PhD Thesis also

discussed the preservation movement of the Queen’s Pier, but from the protestors’ point of

view. He argues that the protestors started to bring in the socio-political perspective in the

heritage preservation movement, by re-staging what had happened in 1966 — the hunger-

strike of So Sau Chung against the colonial government’s approval of raising the star-ferry

fare. Through such action, the protestors presented a radicalized collective memory to argue

156 Tracey L.D. Lu, “Heritage Conservation in Post Colonial Hong Kong,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 15(2-3) (2009): 265, doi:10.1080/13527250902890969. 157 Tracey L.D. Lu, “Empowerment, transformation and the construction of ‘urban heritage’ in post-colonial Hong Kong,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 22:4(2016): 325-335, doi:10.1080/13527250902890969. 158 Joan Henderson, “Conserving Hong Kong’s Heritage: The Case of Queen’s Pier,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 14:6 (2008): 549, doi: 10.1090/1357250802503282.

42

for the significance of the place.159 Therefore, Sham argues that heritage preservation can

become the resistance to colonization, national identity and urban colonialism in the guise of

gentrification, 160 and be integral to the wider decolonization process. Maggi Leung

consolidates such views by arguing that the demolition of the Queen’s Pier, as well as the Star

Ferry Pier, showed government’s attempt in trying to “uproot the people’s struggle in their

identity search and creation” and concludes that “Hong Kong government is less haunted by

the city’s colonial past than the increasingly vocal and conscious citizenry, especially because

it is not yet ready to shed its colonial governmentality.”161 Therefore, from Leung’s point of

view, the politics of forgetting and erasure has pretty much continued from the colonial era to

the post-colonial era, despite the increasing uproar from the citizens.162

Land value and heritage conservation

Esther Yung Hiu Kwan’s PhD thesis “Architectural Heritage conservation in Hong Kong: An

Empirical Analysis” mainly study heritage conservation from a real estate point of view. It is

a fact-finding quantitative study on the relationship between land value and heritage

conservation. The thesis evaluates a total of 155 sites and finds out that a site is more likely to

be declared a monument or with a higher grading if, i. the age is older; ii. the gross site area is

smaller; iii. it is a Chinese design; iv. it has a higher land value. The study also shows that the

ownership of a building and the zoning has no correlation with the conservation decision.163

This study is interesting as it is the first quantitative study on the heritage conservation and

has proven some misconceptions wrong. For example, people tend to believe that a site with

higher land value, or located in private development, would be less likely to be receive higher

159 Desmond Sham, “Heritage as Resistance: Preservation and Decolonization in Southeast Asian Cities” (PhD diss., University of London, 2015), 111. 160 Atkinson and Bridge, Gentrification in a Global Context, 2. 161 Maggi W.H. Leung, “Fates of European Heritage in Post-colonial Context: Political Economy of Memory and Forgetting in Hong Kong,” Geographische Zeitschrift, 97:1(2009):39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25758631. 162 Ibid., 37. 163 Yung Hiu Kwan Esther, “Architectural heritage conservation in Hong Kong: an empirical analysis” (PhD diss., University of Hong Kong, 2007)

43

grades or listed as a monument. However, the limitation of this study is that it does not factor

in the historic aspect of the site, i.e. land with higher land value, e.g. Central or Wanchai,

usually has a longer development history, or is the focal point of major historical events.

Therefore, it is very logical to have more sites with higher land value being listed as

monument or receiving a higher grade.

Subsequent investigations by Yung could be divided into two strands, one concerns about the

growth ideology and conservation; another concerns the public participation in conservation

practice. In the article “Re-examining the Growth Machine Ideology of Cities: Conservation

of Historic Properties in Hong Kong,” Yung and Chan examine the impact of growth machine

ideology on heritage conservation. The article discusses the reasons and dynamics behind the

conservation of two cases, the Central Police Compound and the Marine Police Quarters,

despite their land value.164 Major findings include, firstly, heritage conservation fits in the

growth machine model in the sense of place-marketing, tourism and consumerism; secondly,

the institutional arrangements (government and property developer vis-à-vis government vis-

à-vis Non-Profit Organization) have informed the growth machine model; thirdly, public

concerns is contributing/preventing the growth machine. 165 This article is more like a

continuation of Yung’s PhD thesis on examining why heritage with a high land value could

be conserved in such a pro-growth environment. This strand of Yung and Chan’s

investigation enriches the discussion of heritage policy from the real estate development point

of view, which mainly sees heritage as a kind of resource or instrument for something else. It

does not concern the intrinsic heritage value. Discussion of the media and community

initiative is also limited to pro-development or anti-development.

Public participation in heritage conservation

164 Esther Yung and Edwin Chan, “Re-examining the Growth Machine Ideology of Cities: Conservation of Historic Properties in Hong Kong,” Urban Affairs Review, 52:2(2015):182-210, doi:10.1177/1078087415589040. 165 Ibid., 197-204.

44

Another strand of investigation by Yung and Chan concerns public participation in

conservation practice. In “Critical Social Sustainability factors in urban conservation,” Yung

and Chan examines the critical factors for enhancing social sustainability of the conservation

of built heritage projects and argues that education, local cultural promotion, meanings of

places, social inclusion and public participations as factors of social sustainability should be

considered in urban heritage conservation.166 Another article by Yung and Chan, “Problem

Issues of public participation in built-heritage conservation: Two Controversial cases in Hong

Kong,” discusses major factors that hinder public participation in heritage conservation,

which include, the lack of effective public participation mechanism and integrated

conservation approach in decision making process; the different and conflicting interest of

various stakeholders; power disparity; propaganda and mobilization of interest groups; and

the lack of knowledge on heritage conservation.167 This study is insightful in pointing out that

the professionals, town planners and architects, considered the community incapable in

comprehending “heritage values.”168 Taking this comment uncritically, Yung and Chan have

not gone further in the query of “heritage value,” and provided no account for the discrepancy

in understanding the “heritage value” given. This point of view reflects what Smith identifies

as the consequence of the AHD — the community has difficulty in learning the language of

the conservation experts, or they possess a very different set of heritage values.

Modern built heritage in Hong Kong

Discussion on modern architecture or non-European style of heritage is rather limited. Apart

from occasional case studies such as the Queen’s Pier, Star Ferry Pier, Lee Tung Street and

Blue House. These case studies usually concern the approach of public participation rather

166 Esther Yung and Edwin Chan. "Critical Social Sustainability Factors in Urban Conservation: The Case of the Central Police Station Compound in Hong Kong," Facilities, 30(9) (2012): 408-410, doi: 10.1108/02632771211235224. 167 Esther Yung and Edwin Chan, “Problem issues of public participation in built-heritage conservation: two controversial cases in Hong Kong,” Habitat International 35(2011):457-466, doi:10.1016//j.habitatint.2010.12.004. 168 Ibid., 461.

45

considering the valorisation of these heritage sites. Maggie Leung and Dietrich Soyez ware

amongst the earliest to write about the industrial heritage in Hong Kong. They argue that

perspectives of heritage in Hong Kong was based on the dichotomy of traditional Chineseness

vis-à-vis post-colonial romanticism, industrial heritage, alongside with other modern

buildings, were therefore undervalued, if not totally neglected.169 Leung and Soyez argues for

the significance of industrial heritage in Hong Kong by positioning Hong Kong as a Newly

industrializing economies (NIEs) within the global context. The compressed time-space

nature of Hong Kong industrial development, i.e. the volatility of Hong Kong’s industrial

path and the trans-boundary context of rapid de-/industrialization, demands a renewed

perspective in valorizing industrial heritage of the NIEs. On one hand, the authors challenge

the international discourse of industrial heritage by ignoring the NIEs, one the other hand,

nonetheless, the significance of industrial heritage was argued from within the “universalized”

heritage perspective. The valorization of industrial heritage as a subaltern discourse

demonstrates the consequence of the AHD — one hardly think outside the AHD framework.

Hong Kong identity

The idea of collective memory is interesting in the Hong Kong context as emigration became

the major factor of population growth before 1960s. 170 Therefore, David Faure suggests that

there might be a kind of “refugee mentality” shaping the indifference in politics in Hong

Kong people’s mind. Although Faure does not think that Hong Kong people were

169 Hong Kong as a Newly industrializing economies (NIEs), Leung and Soyez identified the compressed time-space nature of Hong Kong industrial development, i.e. the volatility of Hong Kong’s industrial path and the trans-boundary context of rapid de-/industrialization; and calls for a renewed perspective in valorizing industrial heritage of the NIEs that pays more thoughtful evaluation of the time-space context of the urban fabrics. Maggie Leung and Dietrich Soyez, “Industrial Heritage: Valorising the Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Another Hong Kong Story,” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(1)(2009):57-75, doi: 10.1080/13527250902746096. 170 Immigration was recognized as the main factor of population growth from pre-war period to 1961, while illegal immigrants have already contributed 15% of population growth over the same period. Source: Census and Statistics Department, HKSAR Government, “Birth, Death and Marriages, 1970-1973.” http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/hist/1971_1980/B11303051973XXXXE0100.pdf

46

apolitical,171 Hong Kong people were perceived so by the colonizer. In a meeting between Sir

Alexander Grantham, the Governor of Hong Kong and the Colonial Office in 1950, it is noted

that “the population was a collection of self-seeking individuals with no sort of civic

consciousness” and “no centre around…such consciousness might develop— for example

there was not even a Town Hall.”172

Jonathan Grant argues that this identity vacuum may be part of the apolitical agenda of the

colonial government, especially during the cold war, i.e. from post-war era to the end of 70s.

It is argued that the colonial government tries to maintain stability in Hong Kong by asserting

apolitical administration for fear of the encroachment of the communist influence.173 In 1952,

Alexandra Grantham rejected the viability of democracy in Hong Kong for fear to give way

to the “imperum in imperio” (empire within an empire). 174 The Education Ordinance

amendment in 1948 also prohibited any nationalistic content and “being apolitical” has

remained as the major principles in subsequent curriculum revisions.175

However, in another form of representation of identity, Faure identifies that Hong Kong

people under the colonial governance indeed were eager to show their Chineseness by

wearing long gown (Cheong Sam). For the Hong Kong people, the tradition of appearing in

the long gown in front of British colonial officials lasted until 1960, when China itself has

abandoned it, and it has become part of the “British colonial heritage.”176

Most literature identifies that a distinctive Hong Kong identity was formulated around 60-

171 David Faure, Colonialism and the Hong Kong Mentality (Hong Kong: Centre of Asia Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2003), 48. 172 Notes of a meeting with Sir Alexandar Grantham, Governor of Hong Kong, 21.6.50, CO 129/629/8, reproduced in Faure, Colonialism and the Hong Kong Mentality, 112-3. 173 Jonathan S. Grant, “Cultural Formation in Postwar Hong Kong,” in Hong Kong Reintegrating with China, Political, Cultural and Social Dimensions, ed. Lee Pui-tak (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2001), 159-180. 174 Ibid., 160. 175 Ibid., 161. 176 Faure, Colonialism and the Hong Kong Mentality, 25-26.

47

70s,177 which Faure disagrees, but he acknowledges that public affairs has become increasing

localized since the 70s when the colonial secretary was relatively more hands off, after the

1956 Suez Crisis. In fact, the British Colonial Office was subsumed under the Foreign Office

in 1968. In the 70s, there was an enlargement of Hong Kong government; and senior civil

servants, whether Chinese or British, were given more power in the decision-making.178 The

70s also marked the launch of various large scale welfare programmes, e.g. the provision of

public housing and education. Faure argues that “our collective nostalgia is a selective

memory very much coloured by this period,” and it is inaccurate to argue that the two

campaigns, Clean Hong Kong and Fight Violent Crime campaign, were signs of social

awakening.179

In view of the localization process, scholars including Henderson, Ooi, and Cheung have

speculated that the promotion of heritage, or the formulation of larger cultural policy, was

part of the political agenda of the colonial government; to start fostering a sense of cultural

identity after the discussion with China government over Hong Kong’s future commenced180

Abbas argues that constructing a strong cultural identity of the distinctive Hong Kong serves

as a “first line of defense against total political absorption.”181 The colonial government’s

effort culminated in 1997 when that year was dedicated as the heritage year.

Henderson’s article “Heritage, Identity and Tourism in Hong Kong” gives a detailed account

on governments initiatives in heritage and tourism before and after the handover. Henderson

177 Siu Kai Lau and Hsin Chi Kuan, The Ethos of the Hong Kong Chinese (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1988); Shiu Hing Lo, “Hong Kong: Post Colonialism and Political Conflicts,” in The New Rich in Asia: Mobile Phones, McDonalds, and Middle-Class Revolution, eds. Robinson and DSG Goodman (London: Routledge, 1996), 161-181; Gordon Mathews, “Heunggongyahn: On the Past, Present and the Future of Hong Kong Identity,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 29(3)(1997): 3-13; Helen Siu, “Remade in Hong Kong: Weaving into the Chinese Cultural Tapestry,” in Unity and Diversity, local cultures and identities in China, eds. Tao Tao Liu and David Faure (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1996), 183. 178 Faure, Colonialism and the Hong Kong Mentality, 69-70. 179 Ibid., 77-78. 180 Ibid., 232; Joan Henderson, “Heritage, Identity and Tourism in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(3) (2001): 232, doi:10.1080/13527250120019402.; Vicki Ooi, “The Best Cultural Policy is no Cultural Policy: Cultural Policy in Hong Kong,” The European Journal of Cultural Policy 1(2)(1995): 278-279, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286639509357986; Sidney Cheung, “The Meanings of a Heritage Trail in Hong Kong,” 571. 181 Abbas, Culture and the politics of disappearance, 142.

48

describes Hong Kong identity as different from other decolonized territory where

decolonization has not been “accompanied by independence,” as Henderson puts it, “although

the Hong Kong people have acquired Chinese nationality, interest persists in formulating and

asserting a cultural identity that is related to but separated from that of China.”182

Colonial administration and politics: The role of elites

It is perhaps due to the apolitical agenda that the colonial government has carefully

maintained during the colonial times, it is noted that the colonial government were operated

in the situation of what Ambrose King, and subsequently Lau Siu Kai called the

“administrative absorption of politics,” by which he means “a process by which the

government co-opts the political forces, often represented by elite groups, into an

administrative decision-making body, thus achieving some level of elite integration.”183

The elite or elites, as a “loosely integrated political community,”184 form the middle ground

between the colonial government and the “family”— the social unit to solve the “day-to-day

problems.”185 Majority of this group of people “rose to prominence” based on their economic

power, “with a small portion of them grounding their status on the mastery of Western

knowledge.”186 They serve the colonial governance as members of consultative committees.

By doing so, they gained “official recognition of elite status” which would improve their

social status and serve as assets in establishing business connections.187 Imperative to the

investigation in the heritage discourse in Hong Kong, the values or perspectives brought by

these elites should be examined.

182 Henderson, “Heritage, Identity and Tourism in Hong Kong,” 219. 183 Siu Kai Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1983), 157. 184 Ambrose Yeo-chi King, “Administrative absorption of politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the grass roots level,” in Social Life and Development in Hong Kong, eds. Ambrose Yeo-chi King and Rance P.L. Lee (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1981), 130. 185 Faure, Colonialism and the Hong Kong Mentality, 13. 186 Peter. J. Cain and Antony G. Hopkins, British Imperialism: Crisis and Deconstruction, 1914-1900 (London: Longman, 1993), 124. 187 Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong, 129.

49

IV. REINSTATING THE RESEARCH QUESTION

Definition of the key terms

To address the unique geopolitical situation in Hong Kong, as a former British colony, the

characteristics of AHD are defined as follows:

i. The reliance of professionals to determine the value of the historic sites;

ii. The belief of the historical materials as innately valuable;

iii. The application of Eurocentric lens in viewing the indigenous environment;

In my research, I would also address the dissenting and subaltern heritage discourse studied

by Smith. To recap, Smith’s “subaltern discourse” refers to the community participation that

is not addressed in the AHD. 188 Possible subaltern discourse could be found in community’s

effort in stipulating the significance of the historic environment that is not recognized within

the AHD, for example, the industrial heritage in Hong Kong. Regarding the “dissenting

discourse,” Smith refers to the critique developed around heritage tourism and industry.189 I

would, however, expand the term “dissenting discourse,” not only to include the voices that

disagree with the government’s preservation or conservation practice, but also to include the

voices that against the demolition of relics, sites or buildings, against the culture and politics

of “disappearance” in Hong Kong.

Research Questions

The literature review shows that although Smith’s notion of AHD is largely valid in

understanding the heritage discourse, especially within the British context, there is limitation

in its application in understanding the heritage discourse in Hong Kong.

188 Smith, Uses of Heritage, 35. 189 Ibid.

50

First, Smith identifies colonialism was the impetus for AHD to achieve dominance, and

Barber also identifies that Hong Kong government was extrospective in its policy, but the fact

that the colonial government adopted an erasure strategy due to the pressing redevelopment

needs, was incongruent to AHD. Under what circumstances has the government turn from an

extrospective to an introspective policy? How the colonial government perceived the value of

historic environment in Hong Kong?

Second, AHD being heavily influenced by experts over material culture, how it assumes

influence in the colonial setting in Hong Kong when the views of the professionals were

under-valued in the colonial bureaucracy? What roles have the professionals and the elites

played in the heritage valorization process?

Third, how the public, the community organizations and the NGOs perceive heritage values

and how they assess the “innate material value”? What kinds of subaltern discourses and

dissenting discourses have been developed?

Fourth, the discussion of the modern architecture has by large overshadowed by the identity

politics — de– or re– sinicization, de-colonialization or localization. In my opinion, the

heritage discourse does not necessarily have been “pluralized,” but “radicalized.” Were these

kinds of radicalized narratives effective in refuting the AHD? How these narratives have

influenced the valorization of the heritage value of our built environment?

Significance to Knowledge

Although many scholars have written about the heritage in Hong Kong pertaining to policy

framework, identity issues, colonial and postcolonial identity struggle, land value and

governance, the discourse discussing the various conception and ideological underpinning of

heritage, namely theories of heritage, in Hong Kong is underexplored. This study will re-

position the heritage discourse at the centre of discussion, rather than discussing heritage for

51

something else. Discourse over the discussion of the concept of heritage and its value will be

examined, and distinction will be marked between the discussion over innate material value

and other social and cultural values. This study will contribute to the study of the

development of heritage discourse in Hong Kong from 1970- 2016. Incidents in earlier period

in the colonial era will also be studied in a sporadic manner to understand what values have

the colonial government seen in the indigenous culture and against what background had the

Ordinance been enacted.

V. METHODOLOGY

This research is going to adopt Norman Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as

one of the key methodology. CDA is a three-dimensional discourse analysis. By three-

dimensional, it means that the discourse is viewed as “simultaneously a piece of text, an

instance of discursive practice, and an instance of social practice”; the “text dimension” refers

to the language analysis; the “discursive practice dimension” refers to the interaction between

text production and interpretation; the “social practice dimension” refers to the institutional

and organization circumstances that are shaping the discursive practice.190

This methodology is useful in seeing the interrelationship between language and wider social

changes. Language or discursive practice is reflecting social values; it is at the same time

constituting social perceptions by reproducing, shifting or rejecting discursive frameworks.

Not only wider social changes will be the subject of study, the method aims to be a critical

method. By “critical,” Fairclough means “showing connection and causes which are hidden,”

“it is important to avoid an image of discursive changes as a unilinear, top-down process.”191

Fairclough also explains, “critical approaches differ from non-critical approaches in not just

describing discursive practices, but also showing how discourse is shaped by relations of

190 Norman Fairclough, Discourse and Social Change (Cambridge: Polity Press,1992), 4. 191 Fairclough, Discourse and Social Changes, 9.

52

power and ideologies, and the constructive effects discourse has upon social identities, social

relations and system of knowledge and belief.”192

This method can ride on various traditional methods, such as language analysis, historical

analysis and visual analysis. Other than the language, historical analysis will empower the

analysis of the ordering of texts and the understanding of the text against its social and

institutional background. Visual analysis treating images as a piece of text might sometimes

be integral to support the construction of the language, for example, the study of the magazine

advertisement.

Jeff Cody has once adopted a keyword analysis on the published news article in Hong

Kong.193 Such method is useful in revealing the discursive changes in the society towards the

heritage. However, it requires a more careful delineation in deciding the time frame for

comparison, the source of the text, etc. and further analysis is needed to investigate the

context behind the uses of these keywords.

Topic Jan 1995 to Jun 1997 July 1997 to Jan 2000 Architecture 傳統 (Tradition) 古蹟(Historic Site) 文物(Cultural Relic) 保護文物(Protected Cultural Relic) 社區重建(Community Renewal) Culture Cultural Heritage Heritage Historical Identity Preservation

0 3 20 0 10 4 3 1 8 3 23 2

9 3 30 13 2 7 14 5 26 20 25 3

Total no. of articles 77 157

The research will restrict its source data from published and unpublished text and visual

images. It will also include views and public opinion expressed on various channels of social

media. Historic information and text will be collected from archives and various news

databases. The following enlists some possible materials and source.

192 Ibid, 12. 193 Cody, “Heritage as Hologram,”192.

53

Archive Types of materials Public Record Office (PRO) Government documents, AAB minutes from

1976-1985, survey reports, conference proceedings, photos, news clippings kept by the relevant government departments

Reference Library of Hong Kong Heritage Discovery Centre (HKHDC)

Publication, periodicals, study report and research files on historic buildings194

Legislative Council Papers http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/online/legco.htm

Discussion in Legislative Council on heritage related subjects

The National Archive http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

Correspondence and meeting minutes between the governor and colonial secretary; photos and maps

Database ProQuest Database SCMP Historical Newspapers from 1903-

1997 Chinese Newspapers 1832-1953

Wisenews Newspapers, magazines, journals, and newswires published in China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan since 1998.

Related Organizations and social media

Antiquities and Monuments Organization http://www.amo.gov.hk/

Archaeological research reports, built heritage reports

Royal Asiatic Society Hong Kong195 Newsletters, Journals, AGM reports and Books

The Conservancy Association http://www.cahk.org.hk/ https://www.facebook.com/cache.org.hk/

Articles; public opinion

InMedia Hong Kong http://www.inmediahk.net/

Online news

HK Heritage Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/hkheritage/?fref=nf

Public opinion

“Live in Kwun Tong” (活在觀塘) https://www.facebook.com/yuemansq/?pnref=lhc

Public opinion

Walk in Hong Kong (活現香港)

https://www.facebook.com/WalkInHongKong/?hc_ref=SEARCH Public opinion

Language of both Chinese and English will be consulted. For publications in both languages,

English versions will be analyzed unless major discrepancies are noted between Chinese and

English versions.

194 From 2008 onwards, Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) need to be carried out for all capital work projects involving historic and built heritage, and the project proponents and relevant work departments will be required to consider whether their projects will affect the sites or buildings of historic or archaeological significance. The HIA reports could be found in the reference library of HKHDC. Source: Antiquities and Monuments Office Website, http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/hia_01.php 195 Royal Asiatic Society was first founded in Hong Kong in 1847, but ceased to exist in 1859. It then resuscitated in 1959. The society was set up with an interest to investigate art, science and history of the Asia. The report and journals they published might be of interest for the understanding of how the historic environment in Hong Kong was perceived amongst the English speaking community during the colonial era.

54

VI. INITIAL RESEARCH

The Elite’s participation in heritage valorization?

Records show that a Public Monuments Committee was established in 1947 to discuss issues

of the remnants of the Japanese occupation and to restore monuments being destroyed by the

Japanese army during the Second World War. It is noted that the meaning of “monument” is

different from the “monument” in the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance in the 70s, of

which the shifting discursive meaning will also be examined further. The mechanism of such

consultative committee reveals how the government worked with the elites. Members of the

committee included, Mr. H.S.Rouse (Public Works Department), Mr. J.H. Ruttonjee (Dina

House), Sir Shouson Chow (Bank of East Asia), Mr. Ngai Shing Kwan (China Motor Bus),

Miss Katie Woo (St. Paul Girls College), A.M.J. Wright (Architectural Office, Public Works

Department, also serving as secretary). 196 (Fig.1, left) It is noted that about half of the

members belongs to the “elite” class. However, it is noted that in the 1977, the AAB members

consist mainly of official members or professionals (curators, architects, historians).197 (Fig. 1

right) It shows that, despite the government’s reliance on the elite class, the task to assess

historic environment is still entrusted in the hands of the professionals.

196 HKRS337-3-1, Archival Series, Public Record Office, Hong Kong. 197 AAB Minutes, the 5th meeting, 17 August 1977. HKRS310-2-6, Archival Series, Public Record Office, Hong Kong.

55

Figure 1 (left) Government record showing the names of the members of the Public Monument Committee in 1947; (right) Meeting minutes of 5th AAB meeting held on 17 August, 1977.

The role of architects in colonial bureaucracy

Mr. Edwin Wong, an architect representing the Public Works Department in AAB, played a

role in contributing to the early heritage assessment. The comments he has made were mainly

from the architectural considerations, for example, in the assessment of the heritage value of

University Hall, he suggested “to preserve the chapel only on architectural grounds.”198

Other than giving architectural considerations, architects had also taken up some design work

and technical tasks that deal with materials. The colonial government has designed a

certificate of merit for awarding private entities in the preservation of the antiquities and

monuments. Upon circulation amongst the AAB members, Edwin Wong did not approve the

design and proposed to make drastic changes to improve the design, e.g. quit all borders,

certificate to be “parchment,” etc. A few months later, the Executive Secretary of AAB S.M.

Bard wrote to Edwin sending him the “final English and Chinese version of the Certificate”

198 Ibid.

56

without any substantial changes, however, he asked Edwin to re-design the Certificate with

bold Sung character for the Chinese version. On 29 June 1977, Edwin provided Dr. Bard the

third version, added in many Chinese elements, e.g. as a memo attached explained, “the Sung

incised pattern used in ceramic wares,” “zoomorphic pattern across the page in fine red lines,”

and insisted the certificate to be “parchment” with “torn-off’ pages.”199 (Fig. 2) There was no

further record on whether the version designed by Wong was adopted. The incident of the

design of the certificate of merit reveals that the task of the architects was indeed rather trivial,

if not marginalized, in the heritage valorization bureaucracy.

Figure 2 Design of Certificate of Merit (From left to right, 28 March version, 3 June Version, 29 June version) 1977.

Jason Yuen, also a member of the AAB in 1970s, has published articles on magazines

promoting the importance of historic buildings in Hong Kong.200 (Fig. 3) This article is being

kept by the government. It shed lights on the understanding of the role of architects in

heritage valorization process. Architects might work within and without the government

institution.

199 HKRS310-2-6, Archival Series, Public Record Office, Hong Kong. 200 Ibid.

57

Figure 3 Article by Jason Yuen King Yuk in Asian Building and Construction, February 1977

The dissenting discourse in heritage preservation

The Hong Kong Heritage Society submitted a full text of petition to the Hong Kong Governor

to ask the government to keep the KCR, and the full text was published on the South China

Morning Post on 3 August 1977. Interestingly, the article briefly noted a split amongst the

architectural profession in the assessment of the architectural quality, but followed on with a

lengthy petition on the easy administration procedure if the government could keep the station,

for example, the plans of the new Cultural Centre was still at early stage, there was ample

time for redesigning a scheme which would conserve the building, the land that the KCR

building stand had not yet been allocated to the Urban council and was still remaining as a

bus/ferry terminal concourse, etc.201

201 South China Morning Post, “Strong Public Support to Keep KCR Buildings” South China Morning Post. 3 August, 1977, 6. Collected in HKRS310-2-6, Archival Series, Public Record Office, Hong Kong.

58

Figure 4 News article from South China Morning Post, 3Aug 1977.

In 2015, Yuan Yan published an article on the Economic Journal on the conservation policy

in Hong Kong. He argues that without the large scale protest in 1976-1978 for the

preservation of the KCR buildings, the colonial government would not even have enacted the

Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance. 202 Given the fact that the Ordinance was being

enacted as early as in 1971, such interpretation is inaccurate. However, it reveals the public

sentiment that resent the indifference of the government over conservation and reinforces the

general perception that the public has fought hard against it.

Not all dissenting discourse stands for protection over historic building. In the discussion of

the preservation of Ho Tung Garden, public views were quite diverse. In an article published

by Jake Van Der Kamp, “Ho Tung Garden was an eyesore…not Hong Kong Heritage,” the

author comments, “I have additionally heard the argument that the building is a typical 202 Original text in Chinese: 1976-78 年的紅磡火車站的保育運動，聲勢浩大，給予港英政府壓力，否則當年

《古物及古蹟條例》也難以立法. Yuan yan 原人, “The monument conservation being distorted” 被扭曲的古蹟

保 in Economic Journal, 16th February 2015. http://www.inmediahk.net/node/1031610, accessed 23 November 2016.

59

example of Chinese Renaissance architecture. This is architects’ ‘blather’.” Van Der Kamp

further writes:

The fact of the matter is that we have allowed our decisions on heritage preservation to

be hijacked by architects. The Profession is slowly withering as advances in engineering

overtake it and its members naturally wants to resist the trend. I can see why this

induces them to venerate all structures they conceive but I can’t see why the rest of us

should do so.203

It does not matter whether the author’s judgement on the development of architectural

profession was correct; it shows, however, a disbelief in the architects’ opinion. The

framework of discussion shifted from the discussion of heritage value, to the architectural

value, and finally to the development of the profession. The author argues the decline of the

architectural profession has put the architects in a position to venerate every structures; so to

prove the value of existence of architect or architecture as a profession. This finding shows

that how the public perceives architecture professional also relates to how they value historic

environment.

203 Jake Van Der Kamp, “Ho Tung Garden was an eye sore…not Hong Kong Heritage,” South China Morning Post, 5 December 2012, accessed 24 November 2016, http://www.scmp.com/business/article/1098377/ho-tung-gardens-was-eyesore-not-hong-kong-heritage.

60

VII. THESIS PLAN

The thesis will contain six chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review

The Evolution of the Heritage Concept

The Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) as a theoretical lens

Development of Hong Kong’s heritage policy

Research Question

Methodology

Chapter 2: The Colonial Governance and the Enactment of Antiquities and Monument

Ordinance

Colonial government’s view on monuments and historic environment

Background of legislation

Considerations in the law making process

Chapter 3: The Role of Professionals in Constituting Heritage Value

Background of the Rise of the Professionals in Hong Kong

The architects

The archaeologist and historians

The civil servants

Chapter 4: The Dissenting and Subaltern Heritage Discourse in Heritage Valorization

Dissenting and Subaltern Heritage Discourse on innate material value

Dissenting and Subaltern Heritage Discourse on other heritage values

Chapter 5: The Ontological Politics of Heritage Valorization

Development of AHD in Hong Kong

Radicalism in heritage valorization

Chapter 6: Conclusion

61

VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allison, Eric and Lauren Peters. Historic Preservation and the Livable City. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Ashworth, Gregory J. and Peter J. Larkhams, eds. Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity. London: Routledge, 1994.

Atkinson, Rowland and Gary Bridge. Gentrification in a Global Context: The New Urban Colonialism, edited by Rowland Atkinson and Gary Bridge. London, New York: Routledge, 2005.

Baker, Phil. “Secret City, Psychogeography and the end of London.” In London from Punk to Blair, edited by Joe Kerr and Andrew Gibson, 212-14.London: Reaktion, 2013.

Barbar, Lachlan. “(Re)Making Heritage Policy in Hong Kong: A Relational Politics of Global Knowledge and Local Innovation.” Urban Studies 51:6(2014):1179-1195. doi: 10.1177/0042098013495576.

Barthel, Diane L. Historic Preservation: Collective Memory and Historical Identity, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1996.

Bender, Barbara. “Introduction; landscape- meaning and action.” In Landscape: politics and perspectives, edited by Barbara Bender, 1-18. Oxford: Berg, 1993.

Bender, Barbara. Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford, New York: Berg, 1998.

Bender, Barbara and Margot Winer, eds., Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile and Place. Oxford, New York: Berg, 2001.

Bennett, Tony. The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London, New York: Routledge, 1995.

Bhambra, Gurminder K. Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2007.

Bianchini, Franco and Michael Parkinson. Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration: The West European Experience. Manchester: University Press, 1993.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A social critique of the Judgement of Taste. London and New York: Routledge, 1984, 2010.

Cain, Peter. J. and Antony G. Hopkins, British Imperialism: Crisis and Deconstruction, 1914-1900. London: Longman, 1993.

Carman, John. Valuing Ancient Things: Archaeology and Law. London, New York: Leicester University Press, 1996.

62

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial thought and historical difference. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Chan Ming K. “The Legacy of the British Administration of Hong Kong: a view from Hong Kong.” The China Quarterly, 151(1997): 567-582 http://www.jstor.org/stable/655254.

Cheung Sidney C.H., “The Meanings of a Heritage Trail in Hong Kong.” Annals of Tourism Research, 26:3 (1999): 570-588. doi:10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00006-7.

Chippindale, Christopher “The Making of the first Ancient Monument Act, 1882, and its administration under General Pitt-Rivers.” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 136 (1983): 1-55.

Choay, Francoise. The Invention of the Historic Monument, translated by Lauren M. O’Connell. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Cleere, Henry. “The concept of ‘outstanding universal value’ in the World Heritage Convention.” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 1:4 (1996), 227-233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050396793139042.

Cleere, Henry. “The Uneasy Bedfellows: Universality and Cultural Heritage.” In Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, edited by Robert Layton, Peter G. Stone and Julian Thomas, 22-29. London, New York: Routledge, 2001.

Cody, Jeffrey W. “Heritage as Hologram: Hong Kong after a change in Sovereignty, 1997-2001.” In The Disappearing “Asian City”: Protecting Asia’s Urban Heritage in a Globalized World, edited by William Logan, 185-207. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Cornforth, John. The Inspiration of the Past. Country House Taste in the Twentieth Century. Harmonsworth: Viking, 1985.

Crouch, Marcus. Britain in Trust. London: Constable Young Books, 1963.

Del Pozo, Paz Benito and Pablo Alonso Gonzalez. “Industrial Heritage and Place Identity in Spain: From Monument to Landscape.” The Geographical Review 102:4(2012): 446-464. doi:10.1111/j/1931-0846.2012.00169.x.

Denslagen, Wim. Architectural Restoration in Western Europe: Controversy and Continuity. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Press, 1994.

Edwards, J. Arwel, and I Coit, Joan Carles Llurdes. “Mines and quarries: Industrial heritage tourism.” In Annals of Tourism Research 23:2 (1996.): 341-63. doi:10.1016/0160-7383(95)00067-4.

Evans, Graeme. Cultural planning: An urban renaissance? London, New York: Routledge, 2001.

Fairclough, Norman. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press,1992.

63

Faure, David. Colonialism and the Hong Kong Mentality. Hong Kong: Centre of Asia Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2003.

Gibson, Lisanne and John Pendlebury. Valuing Historic Environments. Surrey, VT: Ashgate, 2012.

Graham, Brian J., Gregory J. Ashworth and John E. Tunbridge. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. London: Arnold; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Graham, Brian J. “Heritage as Knowledge: Capital or Culture?” Urban Studies 39:5-6 (2002):1003-1017. doi:10.1080/00420980220128426.

Grant, Jonathan S. “Cultural Formation in Postwar Hong Kong.” In Hong Kong Reintegrating with China, Political, Cultural and Social Dimensions, edited by Lee Pui-tak, 159-180. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2001.

Halbwachs, Maurice. On Collective Memory, edited and translated by Lewis.A.Coser. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Hall, Stuart. “Who needs ‘identity’?” In Identity: a reader, edited by Paul du Gay, Jessica Evans and Peter Redman. London, California, New Dehli: Sage, 2000.

Hall, Stuart. “Whose Heritage? Unsettling the Heritage, Re-imagining the Post-Nation.” In The Politics of Heritage: The Legacies of “Race”, edited by Jo Littler and Roshi Naidoo, 23-35. London, New York: Routledge, 2005.

Hardy, Dennis. “Historical geography and Heritage Studies.” The Royal Geographical Society 20:4(1998):333-338. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20002646.

Henderson, Joan. “Heritage, Identity and Tourism in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1:3 (2001):219-235. doi:10.1080/13527250720019402.

Henderson, Joan. “Conserving Hong Kong’s Heritage: The Case of Queen’s Pier.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14:6 (2008): 540-554. doi: 10.1090/1357250802503282.

Harvey, David. “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 7:4 (2001): 319-338. doi:10.1080/13581650120105534.

Hewison, Robert. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen, 1987.

Hewison, Robert. “Heritage: an interpretation.” Heritage Interpretation, edited by D.L. Uzzell, Vol. 1, 15-23. London, New York: Belhaven Press, 1989.

Hobsbawn, Eric and Terence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Home, Robert. Of Planting and Planning. London: E & FN Spon, 1997.

64

Hong Kong Institute of Architects. In love with architecture 熱戀建築 : 與拾伍香港資深建築師的

對話. Hong Kong : HKIA, 2006.

Huyssen, Andreas. “Nostalgia for Ruins.” Grey Room 23(2006): 6-21.

Jacobs, Jane. “The Need for Aged Buildings.” In The Death and Life of Great American Cities., 187-199. New York: Random House, 1961.

Jokilehto, Jukka. A History of Architectural Conservation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999.

King, Ambrose Yeo-chi. “Administrative absorption of politics in Hong Kong: Emphasis on the grass roots level.” In Social Life and Development in Hong Kong, edited by Ambrose Yeo-chi King and Rance P.L. Lee, 127-146. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1981.

King, F. Thomas, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg. Anthropology in Historic Preservation: Caring for Culture’s Clutter. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Koolhaas, Rem and Jorge Otero-Pailos, Preservation is Overtaking us. GSAPP Transcripts, edited by Jordan Carver. New York: GSAPP Books, 2014.

Kreps, Christina. Liberating Culture: Cross- cultural perspectives on museum, curation, and heritage preservation. London, New York: Routledge, 2003.

Lau, Siu Kai. Society and Politics in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1983.

Lau, Siu Kai and Hsin Chi Kuan. The Ethos of the Hong Kong Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1988.

Leung, Maggi. “Fates of European Heritage in Post-colonial Context: Political Economy of Memory and Forgetting in Hong Kong.” Geographische Zeitschrift, 97:1(2009): 22-43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25758631.

Leung, Maggie and Dietrich Soyez. “Industrial Heritage: Valorising the Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Another Hong Kong Story.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15:1(2009):57-75. doi: 10.1080/13527250902746096.

Liang Sicheng 梁思成. “Jixian Dule-si Guanyin-ge Shanmen Kao” 薊縣獨樂寺觀音閣山門考. Liang Sicheng Quan Ji 梁思成全集, Vol.1. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 2001.

Lin Zhongwei. Architectural Conservation and Local Culture 建築保育與本土文化. Hong Kong: Chung Wa Book Co., 2015.

Lo Shiu Hing. “Hong Kong: Post Colonialism and Political Conflicts.” In The New Rich in Asia: Mobile Phones, McDonalds, and Middle-Class Revolution, edited by Robinson and DSG Goodman, 161-181. London: Routledge, 1996.

65

Lowenthal, David. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Lowenthal, David. The Past is a Foreign Country Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Lu, Tracey L.D. “Heritage Conservation in Post-Colonial Hong Kong.” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15:2-3 (2009): 258-272. doi:10.1080/13527250902890969.

Lu, Tracey L.D. “Empowerment, transformation and the construction of ‘urban heritage’ in post-colonial Hong Kong.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 22:4 (2016): 325-335. doi:10.1080/13527250902890969.

Lung, David. “Built Heritage in Transition: A critique of Hong Kong’s Conservation Movement and the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance.” Hong Kong Law Journal 42(2012): 121-141. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/169153.

Mandler Peter. The Fall and Rise of the Stately Home. New Haven, C.T: Yale University Press, 1997.

Mathews, Gordon. “Heunggongyahn: On the Past, Present and the Future of Hong Kong Identity.” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 29:3(1997): 3-13.

Menon, AG Krishna. “Conservation in India – a search for direction.” Architecture+Design (1989): 22-27. http://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-21219.

Miele, Chris. “Morris and Conservation.” In From William Morris: Building Conservation and the Arts and Crafts Cult of Authenticity, 1877-1939, edited by Chris Miele, 31-65. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 2005.

Mol, Annemarie. “Ontological Politics. A word and some questions.” The Sociological Review, 47:1 (1999): 75-89. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x.

Moore, Niamh and Yvonne Whelan, eds. Heritage, Memory and the Politics of Identity: New Perspectives on the Cultural Landscape. Aldershot Hants, Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2007.

Ooi, Vicki. “The Best Cultural Policy is no Cultural Policy: Cultural Policy in Hong Kong.” The European Journal of Cultural Policy 1:2 (1995): 273-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286639509357986.

Pendlebury, John. Conservation in the Age of Consensus. London: Routledge, 2009.

Pendlebury, John, Tim Townshend and Rose Gilroy. “The Conservation of English Cultural Built Heritage: A Force for Social Inclusion?” International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10:1(2004):11-31. doi:10.1080/1352725032000194222.

Perkin, Harold James. The Rise of Professional Society: England since 1880. London: Routledge, 1989.

66

Pfafflin, Georg F. “Concern for Tourism: European perspective and response.” Annals of tourism research 14:4 (1987): 576-579.

Pile, Steve “’The problem of London’ or How to explore moods in the city.” in The Hieroglyphics of space: Reading and experiencing the modern metropolis, edited by Neil Leach, 203-216. London: Routledge, 2005.

Preite, Massimo. “Urban regeneration and planning.” In Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH guide to industrial heritage conservation., edited by James Douet , 101-109. Lancaster United Kingdom: Carnegie, 2012.

Riegl, Alois. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and its origin.” Translated by Kurt W. Foster and Diane Ghirardo, Oppositions 25 (1982)21-51, in Cultural Heritage: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies, edited by Laurajane Smith. Vol.1 London, New York: Routledge, 2006.

Ryckmans, Pierre. The Chinese Attitude towards the Past. Canberra: The Australian National University, 1986.

Sham, Desmond “Heritage as Resistance: Preservation and Decolonization in Southeast Asian Cities.” PhD diss., University of London, 2015.

Shannon, Richard. The Crisis of Imperialism 1865-1915. London: Paladin, 1976.

Silverman, Helaine, ed. Contested Cultural Heritage: Religion, Nationalism, Erasure, and Exclusion in a Global World. New York, London: Springer, 2011.

Siu, Helen. “Remade in Hong Kong: Weaving into the Chinese Cultural Tapestry.” In Unity and Diversity, local cultures and identities in China, edited by Tao Tao Liu and David Faure, 177-196. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1996.

Smith, Laurajane. Uses of Heritage. London, New York: Routledge, 2006.

Stevenson, Deborah. Cities and Urban Cultures. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press, 2003.

Thapar, Bel Krishen. “India.” In Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, edited by Henry Cleere, 64-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Thompson, Edward Palmer. William Morris: Romantic to Revolutionary. New York: Pantheon, 1977.

Trigger, Bruce G. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Tuan Yi Fu. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1974.

67

Tunbridge, John E. and Gregory J. Ashworth. Dissonant Heritage: the management of the past as a resource in conflict. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.

Tunbridge, John E., Gregory J. Ashworth, and Brian J. Graham. “Decennial Reflections on A Geography of Heritage (2000).” International Journal of Heritage Studies 19:4 (2013): 365-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.695038.

Waterton, Emma and Steve Watson. “Framing Theory: Towards a Critical Imagination in Heritage Studies.” International Journal in Heritage Studies 19:6 (2013): 546-61. doi:10.1080/13527258.2013.779295.

Waterton, Emma and Steve Watson, eds. The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mcmillan, 2015.

Wright, Patrick. On Living in an Old Country. London: Verso, 1985.

Xie, Philip Feifan. “Developing Industrial Heritage Tourism: A Case Study of the Proposed Jeep Museum in Toledo, Ohio.” Tourism Management 27:6 (2006): 1321-1330. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2005.06.010.

Yeo, Stephan. “Socialism, the State and some oppositional Englishmen.” In Englishness: Politics and Culture 1880-1920, edited by Robert Coll and Philip Dodd, 208-69. London: Croom Helm, 1986.

Yung Esther. “Architectural heritage conservation in Hong Kong: an empirical analysis.” PhD diss., University of Hong Kong, 2007.

Yung Esther and Edwin Chan. “Problem issues of public participation in built-heritage conservation: two controversial cases in Hong Kong.” Habitat International 35(2011):457-466. doi:10.1016//j.habitatint.2010.12.004.

Yung Esther and Edwin Chan. "Critical Social Sustainability Factors in Urban Conservation: The Case of the Central Police Station Compound in Hong Kong." Facilities, 30(9) (2012): 396-416. doi: 10.1108/02632771211235224.

Yung Esther and Edwin Chan. “Re-examining the Growth Machine Ideology of Cities: Conservation of Historic Properties in Hong Kong.” Urban Affairs Review, 52:2(2015):182-210. doi:10.1177/1078087415589040.

Zukin, Sharon. Loft Living: culture and capital in urban change. London: Radius, 1988.

68

APPENDIX A TABLE 1 HERITAGE LEGISLATION AND POLICY MEASURES IN HONG KONG Year Chronology of legislation and

policies Comments

1939 Town Planning Ordinance (Cap 131) Amended 4 of 1991 s2) Vzone: TPOs 4(1) (h) zones or districts set apart for use as village type development, agriculture or other specified rural uses. (Added 4 of 1991 s6)

To promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the community by making provision for the systematic preparation and approval of plans for the layout of areas of Hong Kong as well as for the types of building suitable for erection therein and for the preparation and approval of plans for areas within which permission is required for development.

1956 Buildings Ordinance (Cap 123) Replaced 72 of 1980 s2)

To provide for the planning, design and construction of buildings and associated works; to make provision for rendering safe dangerous buildings and land; and to make provision for matters connected therewith.

1972 Small House Policy It allows an indigenous villager to apply for permission to erect for himself during his lifetime a small house on a suitable sute within his own village.

1971 (enacted) 1976 (implemented)

Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (cap 53)

To provide for the preservation of objects of historical, archaeological and paleontological interest and for matters ancillary thereto or connected therewith.

1998 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499)

To provide for assessing the impact on the environment of certain projects and proposals, for protecting the environment and for incidental matters.

2001 Urban Renewal Authority Ordinance (Cap 563)

To establish the Urban Renewal Authority for the purpose of carrying out urban renewal and for connected purposes.

Table adapted from David Lung, “Built Heritage in Transition: A critique of Hong Kong’s Conservation Movement and the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance,” 130-131.