An Anthropology of 'Applied Anthropology' in Postwar Hong Kong

This article is an anthropological attempt to review the development of applied anthropology in postwar Hong Kong. Arguing that the relevance of anthropology is determined by the socio-historical order in the sense that the utility of anthropological knowledge is socially and historically specific, we have chosen to reframe the review as the study of the social “relevance” of major anthropological studies and the “utility” of anthropological knowledge these “applied” anthropological researches produced in Hong Kong. We first examine how the socio-political settings of post-war Hong Kong have given rise to a specific character and form of applied anthropology in Hong Kong. But this examination also reveals that “applied” anthropological work has never been popular among anthropologists nor considered as mainstream anthropological research in post-war Hong Kong. This is due not only to the institutional constraints in Hong Kong but also what Kuwayama (2004) calls “the world system of anthropology,” in which there is a power inequality between the anthropological practitioners in the center (US, UK, and France) and their colleagues in the periphery. This power inequality not only accounts for the lack of enthusiasm among anthropologist in Hong Kong but also has profound impact on their research agenda. However, the development of applied anthropology in Hong Kong is not just the reproduction of the anthropology of the center. There is always a gap between the anthropology of the center and its counterpart in Hong Kong. This gap is created by the intervention of the legacy of the Taiwanese anthropological traditions in Hong Kong. To push this argument further, we shall argue that individual practitioners are not just bearers of the Taiwanese anthropological tradition either. Their anthropological enterprises would also deviate from the traditions, as a result of their biographical experiences