254
However, changing fortunes or circumstances later led two of the other surname groups to move away altogether. The other remaining surname group continued to reside in the village until 40 years ago when they too moved away, leaving behind an ancestral hall and several plots of land which still remain untouched. More importantly, outside of how insiders and outsiders were defined and accepted, which is the petty substance of membership criteria (and rights of settlement), lies the more relevant issue of how any village or village cluster is understood as a particular kind of moral community. Why does Faure not talk about rights of settlements in the context of a market town or an urban flat? As it is only in the context of the rural Chinese village that the newcomer (as "non-agnate") becomes a problem (in terms of rights of settlement). Are we not suggesting in other words that there is something special about the nature of the village as a moral community which transcends the hard and fast rules of settled residence? That something special, I would argue, ultimately lies at the core of that principle of locality which constitutes the village.
To a villager, his village is not a chuen (C) (= ts'un (M)), which is the literal dictionary translation, but instead his heung-ha (C) (– hsiang-hsia (M)) or his "country". That villager might not necessarily be an actual resident of the village; he could be a person living and working in Hong Kong, or even an overseas Chinese born and raised overseas, several generations removed. Everyone has his heung-ha, unless of course he has moved his roots to a new heung-ha (as in the idea of hoi-kei (C), "to open up one's base"). I would argue, moreover, that one's definition of one's heung-ha is a highly intangible one variable to change and not necessarily reducible to the hard and fast rights to territory that are indicative of Faure's rights of settlement. To cite a personal example, I was recently instructed by my father to inspect the sites of our ancestral graves to assess the feasibility of re-burying them at a central site. As my father had lived overseas most of his life, the task of providing sacrifices every year on Ching Ming had always been in the hands of a close relative living there. Our 13th generation ancestor moved away from Cha Sai village to settle in the village of Tso Po several kilometers away, which had been inhabited by another Chun segment (fong) from Cha Sai descended from a 4th generation ancestor as well as members of the surname Ou. After having lived in Tso Po for four generations, our 17th generation ancestor moved to the market town of
254
However, changing fortunes or circumstances later led two of the other surname groups to move away altogether. The other remaining surname group continued to reside in the village until 40 years ago when they too moved away, leaving behind an ancestral hall and several plots of land which still remain untouched. More importantly, outside of how insiders and outsiders were defined and accepted, which is the petty substance of membership criteria (and rights of settlement), lies the more relevant issue of how any village or village cluster is understood as a particular kind of moral community. Why does Faure not talk about rights of settlements in the context of a market town or an urban flat? As it is only in the context of the rural Chinese village that the newcomer (as "non-agnate") becomes a problem (in terms of rights of settlement). are we not suggesting in other words that there is something special about the nature of the village as a moral community which transcends the hard and fast rules of settled residence? That something special, I would argue, ultimately lies at the core of that principle of locality which is constitute of the village.
To a villager, his village is not a chuen (C) (= ts'un (M)), which is the literal dictionary translation, but instead his heung-ha (C) (– hsiang-hsia (M)) or his "country". That villager might not necessarily be an actual resident of the village; he could be a person living and working in Hong Kong, or even an overseas Chinese born and raised overseas, several generations removed. Everyone has his heung-ha, unless of course he has moved his roots to a new heung-ha (as in the idea of hoi-kei (C), "to open up one's base'). I would argue, moreover, that one's definition of one's heung-ha is a highly intangible one variable to change and not necessarily reductible to the hard and fast rights to territory that are indicative of Faure's rights of settlement. To cite a personal example, I was recently instructed by my father to inspect the sites of our ancestral graves to assess the feasibility of re-burying them at a central site. As my father had lived overseas most of his life, the task of providing sacrifices every year on Ching Ming had always been in the hands of a close relative living there. Our 13th generation ancestor moved away from Cha Sai village to settle in the village of Tso Po several kilometers away, which had been inhabited by another Chun segment (fong) from Cha Sai descended from a 4th generation ancestor as well as members of the surname Ou. After having lived in Tso Po for four generations, our 17th generation ancestor moved to the market town of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.