'Murica!

A developed city should also have a developed culture. Hong Kong does not have one. In In Search of Hong Kong Culture, Lee Oufan, a renowned Chinese academic, described how academics from mainland China marveled upon visiting the Central Library, Hong Kong’s biggest library. And yet all the books were only for show.

To support a diversified culture, we need to embrace plurality.

Hong Kong’s culture is monolithic: intolerant of alternative choices and differences. Our TV is oligopolized by two TV channels. Mainstream journalism is dominated by tabloid and sensational journalism. Culture thrives in a society that allows different perspectives to collide. Yet, as the recent influx of mainland immigrants has strengthened our notion of local identity  has strengthened, causing our society to be more polemic.

If a culture doesn’t allow for plurality, then how is it different from the politicized culture of Mao’s time? If there were no opinions exchanged in a rational manner, how can we be provoked into thinking or be comfortable in expressing our opinions?

According to the commentator Leung Man To, because of the emphasis of financial returns, the culture of Hong Kong has been polemicized: on one end, there are the experimental and avante garde arts, which thrive because of those who insist on these ventures. On the other end, mainstream soaps and movies monopolize media, which can be predictable and crudely made. Despite alternative medias blossoming due to government crackdowns in mainstream media, they are not financially well-endowed enough to glean a large audience. Not only does the lack of choice render our thinking unsophisticated, it is also stifling to dissidents.
In pursuit of a more pluralistic culture, Man To suggests that we should place ourselves in a larger and more worldly context —­ such as becoming a part of mainland China — in order to develop diversity of perspectives.

In my opinion, a liberal education would be an effective solution as it teaches us how to be reasonable and take on nuanced perspectives, despite the prevalence of sensationalism.

I believe my humanities education would provide me with the ability to look at the world rationally and critically and add to the plurality of my culture. And yet, ironically, I don’t feel that our liberal education allows me to see the plurality of culture at Middlebury.

There are many passionate individuals, yet I don’t feel like there is much room for us to contest our opinions and perspectives outside of the classroom, despite our relative diversity. Although there are many talks, debates and opinion blogs, opinions are rarely openly exchanged in an informal manner.

It is important because we live separate lives outside of classrooms and formal debates. If these conversations are not carried into real life, they become trivial, unreal and meaningless. Maybe it’s awkward to talk about sensitive topics in person. There should be more communal spaces devoted to the sole purpose of providing room for comfortable conversation. While the indoors can feel quite forbidding, the outdoors would be a good location, if we did not need to humor the whims of nature.

The Middlebury stereotype is that there is no stereotypical Middkid. Is that because we are too diverse, or is it because of our geographical location? Or that we are too involved in our own activities to look for a sense of communal identity that would make us identify with this place? I guess we are like Hong Kong in a sense. To put it in economics jargon — we have a lot of human capital, but not enough entrepreneurship. Will we always be separate individuals, not a diverse but collective whole?