A Psychosocial Perspective into the Radical Nativism in Hong Kong

The Mong Kok Riot at 8 February 2016 startled the whole world with the destructiveness of “nativism.” As a matter of fact, “nativism” is not new to Hong Kong. As early as in the 1970s, there were discussions and consensus about “nativism.” “Nativism” at that time was more of the sense of belonging felt by the immigrants depicted as “Hong Kong, My Home.” After decades of historical changes, discussions and discourses about “nativism” piles up, interpretation of “nativism” vary from person to person. To date, commentators still see “nativism” as “the identification to Hong Kong identity, the affection for Hong Kong history and culture, the sense of pride in being a Hong-Konger” (Chan Tsz-king 2016). Whereas the “nativism” that makes frequent appearances in Hong Kong public discourse is subtly equated to “Hong Kong Independence,” for the “British Resumption Fraction” advocates to “resume British sovereignty over Hong Kong” in the name of “nativism,” the “Polis Fraction” proclaims “separation of Hong Kong from China” on behalf of “nativism,” and the “Self-determination Fraction” asks for “internal self-determination” based on “nativism,” while “pro-independence fraction” agitates for “Hong Kong Independence” by “nativism.” Torn and twisted by “Hong Kong Independence” discourses, “nativism” has been vested connotations that it was not meant to contain.