75
through the lineage membership. But interestingly, the above sections clearly show that the transfer of zu wu but not ding wu should abide by the patrilineal descent principle. If the Pangs can manipulate the lineage membership to sell their ding wu, then why do they not apply it to the zu wu? And, in so doing, how do they justify these different transfer practices? It reveals that space but not membership is being manipulated in the transfer of different housing property to hold the balance of the Pangs' self and group interests.
Conclusion
This article depicts how the villagers of the Pang lineage redefine or negotiate the transfer practice of housing property when the local society undergoes modernisation and industrialisation at a rapid pace. The Pangs' strategy, I would argue, is also commonly adopted by other villagers to gratify their material desires and to preserve traditional identity in the modern and capitalistic society of Hong Kong. This is because most patrilineal lineages in the New Territories are the kinship-cum-territorial social groups, and villagers are conscious of the territorial boundaries of the inside and outside of their lineage village, which thereby affects or shapes the transfer of housing. This common structural characteristic conditionally provides the villagers with a common and unifying strategy of manipulating spatial difference in the transfer of different types of housing property to preserve tradition and to gratify personal material desires.
+
NOTES
An earlier version of this paper, which is extracted from my master thesis, was presented in The Symposium of The Current Post-graduate Research on Hong Kong Society held in the Hong Kong University in March 1997. I thank Drs. Choi Chi-cheung, Cheung Siu-woo, and Lum Tik-sang for their theoretical guidance and constructive comments. Thanks are also due to Drs. David Faure and Ngo Tak-wing for their careful reading of and useful comments on this revised paper. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for errors and poor expression.
Personal names cited in this paper are pseudonymous, except those of villagers who passed away before the lease of the New Territories in 1898. Cantonese terms, in italics, are romanized in pinyin. Hong Kong place names are spelt according to A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories (Hong Kong Government, 1960). It should be noted that though each male indigenous villager is entitled to this building...
75
through the lineage membership. But interestingly, the above sections clearly show that the transfer of zu wu but not ding wu should abide by the patrilineal descent principle. If the Pangs can manipulate the lineage membership to sell their ding wu, then why do they not apply it to the zu wu? And, in so doing, how do they justify these different transfer practices? It reveals that space but not membership is being manipulated in the transfer of different housing property to hold the balance of the Pangs* self and group interests
Conclusion
This article depicts how the villagers of the Pang lineage redefine or negotiate the transfer practice of housing property when the local society undergoes modernisation and industrialisation at a rapid pace. The Pangs' strategy, I would argue, is also commonly adopted by other villagers to gratify their material desires and to preserve traditional identity in the modern and capitalistic society of Hong Kong. This is because most patrilineal lineages in the New Territories are the kinship- cum-territorial social groups, and villagers are conscious of the territorial boundaries of the inside and outside of their lineage village, which thereby affects or shapes the transfer of housing. This common structural characteristic conditionally provides the villagers with a common and unifying strategy of manipulating spatial difference in the transfer of different types of housing property to preserve tradition and to gratify personal material desires.
+
NOTES
An earlier version of this paper, which is extracted from my master thesis, was presented m The Symposium of The Current Post-graduate Research on Hong Kong Society held in the Hong Kong University in March 1997. 1 thank Drs. Choi Chi-cheung, Cheung Siu- wno and Lum Tik-sang for then theoretical guidance and constructive comments Thanks are also due to Dis. David Faure and Ngo Tak-wing for their careful reading of and useful comments on this revised paper. Needless to say, I alone am responsible for erros and
poor expresSION
Personal narnes erted in this paper are pseudonymous, except those of villagers who passed away before the lease of the New Territories in 1898. Cantonese terms, in italics, are romanized in pinym. Hong Kong place names are spelt according to A Gazetteer of Place Names in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories (Hong Kong Government, 1960) It should be noted that though each male indigenous villager is entitled to this building
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.