summary for anthropology 4/20

In this chapter, what Newendrop focuses on is despite of different view of raising children in Chinese-Hong Kong family, social workers and Chinese immigrants share and emphasize the importance of "family union", which is considered an indispensable virtue of Chinese tradition and also a symbol of being a Chinese. 

The traditional shape and concept of Chinese Family with Confucian and obedience has faced intention overthrowing it to achieve modernization or to fulfill socialist reform since late 19th century. In mainland China there were several continuous changing of ideal of family by reformists or administrations, while in Hong Kong people chose to embrace western model of family. Although there is different expectation of socializing child between Chinese immigrants and Hong Kong social worker, they do anticipate an idealized family value, which is, "family union". A ideal of "family union" is not just an ideology shared by Chinese immigrants and social workers, but also a reason for those immigrants separated by Hong Kong immigration policies to believe that it's worthy to sacrifice themselves waiting, commuting back and forth frequently. Being with family as an whole in Hong Kong has become a central part of desire to immigrants as an individual, while letting children be raised and educated in Hong Kong has become another part of desire to them as parents.

Those immigrants project their success which they couldn't achieve onto their children. However, the fact is insufficient capitol or information about reality in Hong Kong society make a bias on their plan to success. Lau (1997) argues that immigrants are so desperately to move in to let their children can grow up in a circumstance full of English. However, the usage of English in Hong Kong is not as good as expected. The ability of English means a local identity to old Hong Kong Chinese, but means the key to the wester-influenced world to immigrants. Eventually, Hong Kong is a terminal to a more well-developed world than mainland China. 

Though there was a time Chinese advocated to erase the tradition value, which is about what a family should be, through the desperation immigrant parents to reunite their children. Thus I argue that even though immigrants wants to westernize or modernize themselves and their children as much as possible, there still remains traditional thought of being a Chinese inside them. They selectively pick up some of western ideology such as speaking English, combining with their own Chinese ideology such as parenting, which may cause potential conflict with their children adapting faster in Hong Kong society.

The burden of being an appropriate mother is placed on immigrants owing to social workers' anticipation that mother's presence would help children become a standard Hong Kong citizen. The immigrants identification concerns social workers that their backward thoughts about rearing does not fit in contemporary Hong Kong society. This implies that although social workers do not consider mainland immigrants troublemaker or gold digger like other Hong Kong people do. They do subconsciously and superiorly diagnose immigrants' trouble of rearing children because of being not Hong Kong natives.

Comments

1.It is obviously that there is a gap of imagination between old Hong Kong people and mainland immigrants. The usage of languages is a way how local people identify themselves, but immigrants just neglect this reality, which represents the academic life their children take would not be the same as they imagine.

2.I think although the calling of modernization since late 19th century has been stopped being an obvious goal to Chinese. Yet it still rooted inside their conscious, they(or we East Asians) (kind of) worship westernization, particularly Anglo-Saxonian white middle-class people's culture and value. Chinese are still doing self-strengthen movement by moving to places with western legacy.