A good real life example for hermeneutics, culture, and politics
August 2023, a rather small news item in HK brought about pretty wide coverage.
Comical, as it reflects HK’s culture under current government.
A wall mural of a private building was removed through government involvement, let’s be kind and not call it coercion.
It has two paintings, showing two labourers wearing yellow hard hat having a meal.
The mural was on the exterior of a restaurant at a side street (Ladder Street) in mid level.
Why?
News reports quoted the high official, Bureau Secretary Madame Mak, confirming that her colleagues were merely giving advice to the owner of the restaurant with the wall, and not meant as a ruling.
Idea being that the owner needed not remove it and since he did it was his own responsibility.
Clearly a century old tactics of shirking responsibility.
On top of that, she said that it was given based on the feeling of common people that it could constitute an offence under the HK National Security Law.
Idea being that it was other citizens’ view, not her bureau of course.
Century old again.
But what’s the offence?
That the mural might evoke in viewers the Anti Extradition protests in 2019-2020, labelled by hk government as “black mob”.
So it was removed.
What’s the fuss?
Well, news reports confirmed with Google Map searches that the two paintings on the mural predated 2019-2020, with one of them at least there by 2011!
News reports also cited the intent of the artist was just to reflect the many construction workers in the rather affluent area then.
Well before the HK National Security Law came into effect!
Set aside how government would recast their story though it is suspected it could take this line:
The importance is the evoked feeling now, under the HK National Security Law, not the intended meaning at time of creation!
Consider.
Hermeneutics argues between two poles: author’s intent vs reader’s response.
Is it like the umbilical cord being cut and the baby has its own life, free to create meaning?
Similar debates occur in arena outside the Bible.
In US Constitution.
In CCP interpretation of history and patriarchs writings.
In history.
More relevantly in treatment of names and statues having a historical context for understanding.
But did society care?
No.
Anything to do with US Confederate was target for removal!
Statues of historical figures related to the Confederate torn down!
Those associated with slave ownership too!
Even the age old name of the USA Washington Football team, the Redskins, was replaced to avoid evocation of a disrespect of the indigenous people!
And no less the holiday of Columbus Day is now too shamed to be evoking Christopher Columbus whose discovery is now synonymous with ill treatment of indigenous people.
The idea is the effect now.
Not then.
The line of argument is like a thin end of a wedge.
And in HK if employed to protect an embarrassed Madame Secretary Mak, will be like a warm edge cutting through butter.
No need to wait long.
Victoria Park.
Queen’s Road Central.
Maclehose Trail.
People’s Park?
Liberation Road?
Tang Pok Fong Trail?
Any other?
Comical isn’t it?