Search results

The purpose of this paper is to give a critical review of the City-State Theory by Wan Chin of Hong Kong. Chin is referred to as the “Father of Hong Kong Independence,” and his two books about the City-State Theory of Hong Kong are popular among the netizens in Hong Kong as a new model of Hong Kong-China (People’s Republic of China (PRC)), in which Hong Kong is considered a city-state and should be fully segregated from the PRC other than in seeking its help in military and diplomatic functions. This paper will aim to review his works with the view of nationalism and nativism theories.

This paper uses nationalism theories with particular focus on Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities and theories on American nativism. Then an effort is made to compare these theories against Chin’s arguments on his City-State Theory. This paper also compares his theories against China’s state-nationalism raised by Professors He and Guo.

This paper concludes that Chin advocates a “Hong Kong Nationalism,” a blend of traditional Chinese culture and moral values (he used the term Huaxia), but with a Western influence, into a typical Hong Kong culture. His theory fits into Anderson’s arguments of allowing Hong Kong citizens to imagine Hong Kong as a nation, through the “ramparts” of the city-state. His nativist advocacies also have shown strong nationalistic sentiments. He argues that China should be built in the Hong Kong model before the PRC intervention.

Despite his fame, this paper is the first comprehensive academic paper to review Chin’s theories. This paper introduced the notion of “ramparts” and how this has become the backbone of Chin’s nationalism advocacies.

This paper examines four questions: Was the US workforce diverse in previous times? What were the origins of its diversity? How did management scholars of the past view the diversity of the US workforce? Why did they view diversity as they did? While the workforce was diverse, particularly in the era 1880‐1930, the diversity was addressed exclusively in the early practitioner literature, not in theoretical literature. Five intellectual trends contributed to the “invisibility” of diversity in theoretical literature: ethnocentrism, the USA’s vision of itself, nativism (especially racial nativism), assimilationism and convergence theory.

The purpose of this paper is to describe an in‐depth study of indigenous Samoan economic systems, to ascertain what aspects of the systems enable community values and innovation; what are the effects of neo‐colonial globalisation on the functionality of the systems, and what can be deduced about the best ways to ensure sustainable economic development of Samoan villages in face of globalisation.

Participatory action research has been carried out continuously within two Samoan villages between 1995 and 2006. Grounded theoretical approaches have been critically utilised, based on primary data from within the villages, local Samoan literature and academic literature from multiple disciplines, including human ecology, postcolonial literature; indigenous knowledge (IK); entrepreneurship, and post‐Keynesian and development economics. Ethnographic detail is included in the presentation of grounded theoretical constructs.

Community values are incorporated into business activities within the Samoan villages researched. Community values operate at two levels: that of an extended family and of the village comprising of extended families. Different sets of resources are available and managed by extended families and villages. The chief of each extended family is an entrepreneur as well as manager to ensure the economic viability and independence of their family, and that their capital base is enhanced. The chiefs of extended families form a village council which determines how village resources are utilised. The systems, based on IK, are functional to fulfil community values of equity and lack of poverty. Samoan indigenous entrepreneurship operates to ensure the independence of all extended families, including their capacity to be innovative. This appears to be possible because of the customary land tenure system that does not allow alienation of natural capital. Such a conclusion contradicts the commonly expressed view that economic development requires the creation of tradable property rights.

Only two Samoan villages were researched in depth. They are both traditional and from the same district. Even though this enables high‐quality data to be obtained about indigenous economic systems in Samoan village, it did into provide data about what may be more generally occurring among Samoan villages. Notwithstanding this, data were gained about what are the deep cultural pressures and challenges as Samoan indigenous economic systems face neo‐colonial globalisation.

In contradiction to what is commonly argued in development economics literature, the research has found that the instituting of tradable property rights is likely to degrade economic development. The reason is because the IK constituting the Samoan indigenous economic systems implicates inalienable property rights for extended families and villages. Even though access to development capital through the opportunity to mortgage property may bring initial increase in economic development, community values to ensure equity and lack of poverty are likely to be compromised. The research concludes that the best option for the sustainable development of Samoan rural villages is to maintain customary land tenure, but to ensure there remains an ongoing emphasis on education, comprising of both IK and all knowledge pertaining to the new global economy and the opportunities it provides.

All aspects of the research are original. All data were collected by the author, and all grounded theoretical development was carried out by the author.

Through an ethnographic content analysis of 936 letters to the editor, op-eds, and editorials and 1,195 online comments, this chapter examines how participants in the public sphere neutralized accusations of racism leveled against Donald Trump in the early phase of his presidential campaign. The study shows that both supporters and opponents effectively (if not purposefully) neutralized racism through a number of techniques. Trump’s opponents neutralized racism by calling attention to a number of other perceived flaws in his candidacy. Trump’s supporters obscured the charges of racism by endorsing him and calling attention to positive qualities. Others neutralized racism by changing the subject or making neutral observations. Supporters neutralized charges of racism in three additional ways. Most commonly, they framed Trump’s comments as accurate. Some defensively drew a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. A relative few claimed that others were also racist or xenophobic. That there were a number of ways of defining Trump’s stance toward Mexican immigrants demonstrates the role of human agency in producing social structures. Structural factors in the discursive field such as the stock of existing conservative frames, Trump’s absurdity shield, and political partisanship also facilitated the neutralization of accusations of racism.

My main point is that the 1920s Chicago School got its scholastic or school-like quality primarily from its notion of what a human being is, from its social psychology, and only secondarily from its sociology. These sociologists developed the novel idea that humans are constituted by symbolic or cultural elements, not biological forces or instincts. They applied Franz Boas's discovery of culture to human nature and the self. In particular, they showed that ethnic groups and their subcultures are not biologically determined or driven by fixed instincts. In the 1910s and 1920s, the Americanization movement held that ethnic groups could be ranked on how intelligent, how criminal, and therefore how fit for democracy they were. This powerful movement, the extreme wing of which was lead by the Northern Ku Klux Klan, advocated different levels of citizenship for different ethnic groups. The Chicago sociologists spear-headed the idea that humans have a universal nature, are all the same ontologically, and therefore all the same morally and legally. In this way, they strengthened the foundations of civil liberties. The Chicago professors advanced their position in a quiet, low-keyed manner, the avoidance of open political controversy being the academic style of the time. Their position was nevertheless quite potent and effective. The actual sociology of the school, also quite important, was largely an expression of the democratic social psychology. In addition, the sociology was dignified and elevated by the moral capital of their theory of human nature.

This article examines the framing of immigrants in nineteenth-century New York City. A content analysis of local and national newspapers on the Lower East Side of the borough of Manhattan that included the infamous Five Points neighborhood demonstrates that the contemporaneous media narratives constructed a discourse of fear and contempt about residents of the area by emphasizing their alleged vice-ridden lifestyle. This discourse framed immigrants as a threat to the existing social order and diagnosed their moral failings on their cultural alienation. We argue that this process can be seen as an example of the exercise of symbolic power that sought to maintain existing social and cultural hierarchies by denigrating the disadvantaged sections of the population.

Until Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty‐First Century (Johnston & Packer, 1987), diversity in organizations was largely ignored. Cultural diversity did not appear in the management literature until the civil rights movement of the 1960s brought about an increased awareness of African‐Americans in the workforce. However, the U.S. has been culturally diverse for several hundreds of years. What took us so long to take advantage of this diversity in the workforce? This is a basic question of this manuscript. Therefore, this paper examines workforce diversity dating back to the colonization of the Americas. I will address the origins of cultural diversity and discuss the political, economical, and cultural contexts that impacted the lack of research regarding diversity’s influence on organizations. Finally, I will examine how scholars have viewed cultural diversity and discuss the current status of diversity research.