[
    {
        "id": 214799,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1999",
        "page_number": 214,
        "title": "RAS-1999",
        "content_text": "179\n\nor blanket answers to questions posed in such a general way, but although the post-moderns have denied their validity ('Is the simulator sick or not, given that he produces the 'real' symptoms?' asked Baudrillard, 1994), yet it is important I think to consider them. For these questions go to the heart of the relationships between culture and the polity, between modernism and modernity, between culture and society, between even the ethos's of the romantic and the puritan, the romantic and the rationalist - that is, to the analysis of modern culture and its relation with the social polity, addressed in such different ways by Daniel Bell (1976), Colin Campbell (1987) and Daniel Miller (1987).\n\nBut what I should like to do in Conclusion is to trace a little further some of these questions about the nature of communities, and nations, which the foregoing reflections and materials must inevitably provoke.\n\nFor in a sense it is with notions of the community that anthropology starts.\n\nAnd here our models of what the Imagination is and how it works prove crucial.\n\nThe primal community, you will remember, was seen by Morgan, Maine and others as a body of people related to each other by bonds of blood who lived in one place and met daily, on a face-to-face basis. There was no occupational specialisation or division of labour (of the kind later emphasised by Durkheim) in this kind of community because everyone produced, no rationalisation of common goals. This kind of, familiar, community was contrasted by Tonnies (1887) to a society, or association (Gesellschaft); in the latter you might not know personally other members of your group; occupational specialisation had occurred and people came together on the basis of common interests;\n\nyou related to a man as a baker or candlestick-maker rather than as your MB, and one baker or candlestick-maker could be substituted for by another. On that simple binary transition from 'status' to 'contract', to use Maine's (1861) terms, which also contrasted ties based on blood to those of territory, a whole edifice of social science was constructed. The isolation of anthropology from both history and psychology during the middle years of the last century perhaps accounted for why rethinkings of this paradigm did not occur much earlier. Indeed, while",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 214805,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1999",
        "page_number": 220,
        "title": "RAS-1999",
        "content_text": "185\n\nMathews, Gordon 2000 Global Culture/Individual Identity Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket London and New York. Routledge.\n\n1997 'Heunggongyahn: On the past, present and future of Hong Kong Identity', Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 29(3) 3-13\n\nMiller, Daniel 1987 Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford. Basil Blackwell.\n\nMitchell, Jon P 1998 'Nostalgic Constructions of Community Memory and Social Identity in Urban Malta', Ethnos 63,1,\n\nMitchell, Katharyne 1995 'The Hong Kong Immigrant and the Urban Landscape: Shaping the Transnational Cosmopolitan in the Era of Pacific Rim Capital' (Canada)' in Asia/Pacific as Space of Cultural Production (ed.) Bob Wilson and Arif Dirlik. Durham. Duke University Press.\n\nMorgan, Lewis H 1877 Ancient Society: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilisation. London. Longman.\n\nOkely, Judith 1978 'Privileged, Schooled and Finished: Boarding Education for Girls', Defining Females: the Nature of Women in Society, ed. Shirley Ardener. Croom Helm. London.\n\nOlwig, Karen Fog, and Kirsten Hastrup (ed.) 1997 'Introduction' to Siting Culture: The shifting anthropological object, ed. Olwig and Hastrup. London and New York. Routledge.\n\nOng, Aihwa 1999 Flexible Citizenship: the Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham. Duke University Press.\n\nPaerregard, Karsten 1997 'Imagining a place in the Andes: in the borderland of lived, invented, and analyzed culture', Siting Culture : The shifting anthropological object, ed. Karen Fog Olwig and Kirsten Hastrup, London and New York. Routledge,\n\nParkin, David 1998 'Foreword' to Locality and Belonging, ed.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x",
        "rank": 0
    }
]