[
    {
        "id": 209900,
        "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-1983",
        "page_number": 159,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "BUSINESS IDEOLOGY OF CHINESE INDUSTRIALISTS IN HONG KONG*\n\nWONG SIU-LUN\n\nDEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY\n\nUNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG\n\nChinese business ideology is largely an uncharted field. (For the handful of studies that exist, see Ryan 1961: 13-36; King and Leung 1975: 33-50; Olsen 1972; Bergere 1968). The dearth of systematic studies is undoubtedly a reflection of the weakness of the Chinese bourgeoisie. The structural supremacy of the polity in Chinese society has drawn scholarly attention mainly to the ideas and thoughts of political actors. But this neglect of business ideology also exists in other societies in various degrees. As Reinhard Bendix has observed (1959: 615)\n\n'The whole development of industrialization has been accompanied by an intellectual rejection of [managerial] ideologies as unworthy of consideration.'\n\nThis rejection is apparently based on the assumption that the 'real' motives and orientations of the bourgeoisie are already known. Marx and Engel's eloquent indictment of the bourgeois mentality has such a finality that it seems superfluous to investigate further (1967: 82)\n\n'The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his \"natural superiors\", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous \"cash payment\". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of\n\n* The research for this study was supported by a research grant from the Harvard-Yenching Institute. This paper is an outgrowth of my D.Phil. thesis, and I wish to thank Professor J.C. Mitchell, my supervisor, for his guidance. An earlier version has been presented in the seminar on \"Hong Kong: Its People, Traditions and Culture\" organized by the Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong on 15th & 16th April, 1983.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209932,
        "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-1983",
        "page_number": 191,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "169\n\nNOTES\n\n1 The shortcoming of this approach is that it assumes the three statements in a particular area to be mutually exclusive and of roughly equal ideological distance to one another. It is better to ask the respondent to react to each statement and indicate his agreement or disagreement with it along a three-point or five-point scale. This can avoid the problem of unwarranted assumptions, and make possible the application of more sophisticated statistical techniques to extract information from the data. But for the sake of comparability, I follow Nichols' approach in the present study.\n\nNichols' sample includes 65 directors and senior managers in 15 private companies employing over 500 workers in 'Northern City'. These companies were engaged in various lines of manufacture: chemicals, heavy engineering, light engineering, pharmaceutical, flour milling and animal foodstuffs, distribution and allied business, and packaging. See Nichols 1969: 247-248.\n\n* I use an alphabet and a number to denote the respondents. The former indicates whether the respondent is a chairman/managing-director (A) or just one of the directors (B). The latter stands for a particular spinning mill.\n\nA 'can-I-have-more' incident occurred during the 1973 annual general meeting of Mill 16 in which a share-holder protested, to no avail, against what he regarded as meagre dividends after successive profitable years for the company. See South China Morning Post, 31st August, 1973.\n\nList of References\n\nBendix, Reinhard, 1954. \"Industrial Authority and Its Supporting Value System\". In Industrial Conflict, ed. by A. Kornhauser et al., New York, MacGraw-Hill, pp. 170-175.\n\nand Social\n\n1956. Work and Authority in Industry. New York, Wiley.\n\n1959. \"Industrialization, Ideologies, Structure”, American Sociological Review 24, No. 6: 613–623.\n\nBergere, Marie-Claire. 1968. \"The Role of The Bourgeoisie\". In China in Revolution: The First Phase 1900-1913, ed. by Mary Clabaugh Wright, New Haven, Yale University Press, pp. 229-295.\n\nChrist, Thomas. 1970. \"A Thematic Analysis of The American Business Creed\", Social Forces 49, No. 2: 239-245.\n\nChu, T'ung-tsu. 1957. \"Chinese Class Structure and Its Ideology\". In Chinese Thought & Institutions, ed. by John K. Fairbank, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 235-250.\n\nEngland, Joe, and John Rear. 1975. Chinese Labour Under British Rule: A Critical Study of Labour Relations and Law in Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Oxford University Press.\n\nEspy, John L., 1974. \"Hong Kong Textile Ltd.\". In Managerial Policy, Strategy and Planning for Southeast Asia, ed. by L.C. Nehrt, G.S. Evans, and L. Li, Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong Press, pp. 273-282.\n\nFei, Hsiao-tung. 1946. \"Peasantry and Gentry: An Interpretation of Chinese Social Structure and Its Changes\", American Journal of Sociology LII, No. 1: 1-17.\n\nFox, Alan. 1966. “Managerial Ideology and Labour Relations\", British Journal of Industrial Relations 4, No. 3: 366-378,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    }
]