Dual-Identity Incompatibility as a Cause of Radicalization: A Case Study of Hong Kong

IF 0.8 Q2 AREA STUDIES
V. Ng
{"title":"Dual-Identity Incompatibility as a Cause of Radicalization: A Case Study of Hong Kong","authors":"V. Ng","doi":"10.1142/S1013251121500041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on increasing support for radical means among the Hong Kong youth. Previous studies have suggested the incompatibility between two components of a dual identity as a cause of radicalization, yet few have explored the mechanics of this process in detail. This study employs qualitative methods to investigate how the growing incompatibility between the identity of Hong Kong citizens as Hongkongers and as Chinese may contribute to radicalization among tertiary students. This study first conducted quantitative analyses to confirm the positive relationship between identity incompatibility and support for radical means. Past research has argued that nested identities should not be perceived as mutually exclusive. However, qualitative interviews revealed that some respondents did perceive the two identities in zero-sum terms and saw mainland China as a “cultural other.” Our study distinguished these two types of identity incompatibilities as either an “ambiguous incompatibility” or a “manifest incompatibility.” We propose that a “manifest incompatibility” has contributed to radicalization through three pathways: (1) pathways defined by the need for an identity, (2) emotional pathways, and (3) ideological pathways. Support for radical means is likely driven by a variety of factors that include perceived threats to a local identity, the negative emotions that accompany identity incompatibility, and the adoption of a new ideology that involves the rejection of previously accepted moral principles. By illuminating the possible mechanisms that explain how identity incompatibility may lead to a rise in support for the use of radical means, this study not only contributes to the theoretical discussion on radicalization but also sheds light on the widespread participation in recent protests in Hong Kong.","PeriodicalId":53213,"journal":{"name":"ISSUES & STUDIES","volume":"139 1","pages":"2150004"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISSUES & STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/S1013251121500041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study focuses on increasing support for radical means among the Hong Kong youth. Previous studies have suggested the incompatibility between two components of a dual identity as a cause of radicalization, yet few have explored the mechanics of this process in detail. This study employs qualitative methods to investigate how the growing incompatibility between the identity of Hong Kong citizens as Hongkongers and as Chinese may contribute to radicalization among tertiary students. This study first conducted quantitative analyses to confirm the positive relationship between identity incompatibility and support for radical means. Past research has argued that nested identities should not be perceived as mutually exclusive. However, qualitative interviews revealed that some respondents did perceive the two identities in zero-sum terms and saw mainland China as a “cultural other.” Our study distinguished these two types of identity incompatibilities as either an “ambiguous incompatibility” or a “manifest incompatibility.” We propose that a “manifest incompatibility” has contributed to radicalization through three pathways: (1) pathways defined by the need for an identity, (2) emotional pathways, and (3) ideological pathways. Support for radical means is likely driven by a variety of factors that include perceived threats to a local identity, the negative emotions that accompany identity incompatibility, and the adoption of a new ideology that involves the rejection of previously accepted moral principles. By illuminating the possible mechanisms that explain how identity incompatibility may lead to a rise in support for the use of radical means, this study not only contributes to the theoretical discussion on radicalization but also sheds light on the widespread participation in recent protests in Hong Kong.
双重身份不相容导致激进化:以香港为例
这项研究的重点是增加香港青年对激进手段的支持。先前的研究表明,双重身份的两个组成部分之间的不相容是激进化的原因,但很少有人详细探讨这一过程的机制。本研究采用定性方法,探讨香港公民作为香港人的身份与作为中国人的身份之间日益增长的不相容如何导致大学生的激进化。本研究首先进行了定量分析,以证实认同不相容与激进手段支持之间的正相关关系。过去的研究认为,嵌套的身份不应该被认为是相互排斥的。然而,定性访谈显示,一些受访者确实以零和的方式看待这两种身份,并将中国大陆视为“文化他者”。我们的研究将这两种类型的身份不相容区分为“模棱两可的不相容”或“明显的不相容”。我们认为,“明显的不相容”通过三种途径促成了激进化:(1)由身份需求定义的途径,(2)情感途径,(3)意识形态途径。对激进手段的支持可能受到多种因素的驱动,包括对当地身份的感知威胁,伴随着身份不相容的负面情绪,以及采用一种新的意识形态,包括拒绝先前接受的道德原则。通过阐明身份不相容如何导致激进手段支持度上升的可能机制,本研究不仅有助于激进化的理论讨论,也有助于揭示近期香港抗议活动的广泛参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ISSUES & STUDIES
ISSUES & STUDIES Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: ISSUES & STUDIES (ISSN 1013-2511) is published quarterly by the Institute of International Relations, National Chengchi University, Taipei. IS is an internationally peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing quality social science research on issues ¨C mainly of a political nature ¨C related to the domestic and international affairs of contemporary China, Taiwan, and East Asia, as well as other closely related topics. The editors particularly welcome manuscripts related to China and Taiwan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信