Professor Lee is currently Sin Wai Kin Professor of Chinese Culture at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, having taken early retirement from teaching at Harvard University to become a long-term Hong Kong resident. Apart from his academic work, he has been an active participant in the Hong Kong cultural scene, having published nearly 20 books of cultural criticism in both Chinese and English, including (in English) City Between Worlds: My Hong Kong (Harvard University Press, 2008). Among his scholarly books are Shanghai Modern: The Flowering of a New Urban Culture in China, 1930–1945 (Harvard University Press, 1999). In addition to literature, his interests include classical music, film, and architecture.

1. My Life at CUHK during the 1970s

When I graduated from Harvard University in 1970, I received from the Harvard-Yenching Institute a scholarship that supported me to visit and teach at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. I also had the chance to stay in America or accept the invitation of Mr Hsu Cho-Yun, head of the Department of History at National Taiwan University, to teach at National Taiwan University. I was very fond of the recently founded university in Hong Kong, and I found it special and meaningful to teach Chinese culture in a British colony, so I came to CUHK in the autumn of 1970 and taught Chinese history at the Chung Chi College. Professor Sun Guodong also invited me to teach modern Chinese literature at the New Asia College, and that was the first time I lectured on Chinese literature based on my own educational background, which was in history. When I taught modern Chinese history at the Chung Chi College, I used text books from mainland China, Hong Kong, and America. I also encouraged students to discuss questions in Cantonese, Mandarin and English. In this way, I tried to help students to study Chinese culture with multiple perspectives and methods. For all those years I studied in the US, I kept up a persistent quest for Chinese culture, and I realised that the more closed the relationship between Western and Chinese culture is in a certain place, the more we need a new perspective and method to study Chinese culture. Though I was not very aware of it back then, I was actually combining my knowledge of both history and literature to study Chinese culture from a cross-disciplinary perspective. My study of Lu Xun is also closely connected with CUHK. As chairman of the student union of Chung Chi College, my student Leung Yuen-sang invited me to give a lecture and I gave a talk on Lu Xun. That led to my study of Lu Xun in later years.

I met a group of great colleagues at CUHK, including Professor Lo Chiu-ching, Professor Lao Sze-Kwang and Dr Raymond M. Lorantas, who taught European history. I still miss them very much today. We had a very good time together. Despite our different personalities and nationalities, we shared the same dream to embrace the CUHK mission of protecting Chinese culture and creating a brand-new future for Chinese culture in a broad sense. We were passionate and idealistic. In our eyes, the spirit of the University was to uphold studies of Chinese culture. The original spirit and culture of the University has been lost as the modern management system has been adopted.

Apart from my colleagues, I was also impressed by the outstanding students I taught in the 1970s. I am so glad to see that some of my students, such as Leung Yuen-sang and Kwan Tze-wan, have celebrated great achievements in their academic careers. I had a great time at CUHK and as I returned here many years later, it felt like a homecoming. I was invited to teach at Princeton University in 1972 and after serious consideration, I decided to leave for America, where I stayed for more than twenty years.

2. Return to CUHK

Thirty-two years later, in 2004, I returned to the University. I planned to teach for two more years and then retire, but unexpectedly I stayed here until today. One year, my office was set up in the Institute of Chinese Studies, and I got to know my colleagues in the ICS well. During a short visit to the University during the 1980s, I also met Professor Chen Fong Ching of the ICS. He was planning the founding of Twenty-First Century at the time and I was invited to be a member of the advisory committee and to publish articles in the journal. After the Tiananmen Square Protests, I and several friends felt an urgent need to keep up the spirit of contemporary Chinese culture, and we all agreed strongly with Professor Chen Fong Ching's ideas. Professor Jin Guantao and his wife joined later to support the founding of Twenty-First Century, which later became one of the most important channels through which Chinse intellectuals abroad could express their ideas and opinions. Its influence was significant. I also deeply admired the famous professors of Chinese classical culture at the ICS, such as Professor Lau Din Cheuk and Professor Jao Tsung-I. As I was trained in the Western educational model with strong theoretical reasoning, I was deeply impressed by the Chinese professors who flexibly combined a variety of methods to study Chinese culture. The ICS has been upholding the University ideal to develop studies of Chinese culture, and it faces a major challenge today to carry forward its mission.

When I returned to CUHK, I felt a deep concern and disappointment about the changes to Chinese studies at the University. During the 1970s, professors of the New Asia College insisted on sticking to traditional and classical methods for the study of Chinese culture. In contrast, professors of the Chung Chi College proposed new and modern perspectives on Chinese culture. I realised the two approaches perfectly represented the spirit of the University to combine tradition and modernity to protect and promote Chinese culture. The University was not institutionalised in the modern bureaucratic system as it is today, nor was it an ivory tower for research. Intellectuals outside universities would join the academic circle frequently, giving lectures at CUHK and communicating closely with professors. Professors also contributed their articles to newspapers. The communication between professors and social intellectuals was close and beneficial. Unfortunately, as academic responsibilities become more and more demanding, professors barely have the energy to participate in cultural activities in wider society nowadays.

3. Suggestions and Expectations for Chinese Studies at CUHK

I served on the Research Grants Council (RGC) in the 1990s, but I left after 5 years when my contract was completed. The RGC was founded to help universities in Hong Kong to promote academic research and enhance international influence; however, it gradually changed into a bureaucratic institution that stipulates top-down academic requirements for universities. As the requirements turn into necessary conditions for the promotion of teachers, they constrain academic research as well as the teachers' development. What is more, as Hong Kong works to enhance the international influence of its local university, the government mistakenly places too much emphasis on the international ranking of universities, which I find disappointing. The best universities in America do not see ranking as important. Globalisation and institutionalisation are the strengths of Hong Kong; however, they are now constraining the development of Chinese culture in Hong Kong.

Over-institutionalisation limits the free space for professors' academic creativity. As I wrote in my book, My Harvard Years, I think the best university is The University of Chicago, from which I received the best education, and I benefited greatly from the close interactions between professors and students. The University of Chicago has a very special rule and custom that allows professors to offer any course or cooperate with other professors to teach the same course together. Students are also allowed to choose any course freely. When I was a professor at The University of Chicago, I myself would sit in Professor Anthony C. Yu's class. He would teach courses on Dream of the Red Chamber, as well as other courses on Western religious literature and theory. His teaching style was so free and I benefited so much from him. That is the free spirit of The University of Chicago. Other great universities such as Harvard and Princeton share a similar free spirit, which is rarely seen in the Hong Kong universities that pursue over-institutionalisation.

Apart from the challenge of institutionalisation, scholars are also facing a declining traditional publication industry and new academic media is yet to be established. Scholars need to communicate in a close and open way for academic inspiration, so a communication platform is very important. Many universities in America have a tradition to maintain all kinds of formal and informal communication platforms, such as academic conferences, informal gatherings, luncheon talks, coffee hours and so on. Colleagues, professors and students are all encouraged to join to maintain good academic interaction.

As an important institute for Chinese studies at CUHK, ICS is independent from departments and thus has more flexibility to create a platform to connect professors and colleagues. I believe if colleagues gather and exchange ideas frequently, they will be inspired greatly. Additionally, many professors are retiring from the University every year when they are at their most mature academic stage. I think the ICS can provide a platform for them to continue their academic research. I hope the ICS will play a more important role in promoting Chinese studies at CUHK.

I believe Chinese studies in Hong Kong should develop a different perspective from those of the West or mainland China. Hong Kong is a modern and globalised Asian city, which provides a unique perspective on Chinese culture. I do not think we should identify too much with the culture of mainland China, as Chinese culture itself is multiple. We should not consider the Chinese culture of mainland China to be the only authentic Chinese culture. Culture should not be taken as a political concept. Many scholars in mainland China have also started to reflect on what China is and it is necessary for scholars in Hong Kong to reflect upon the same question. Living in a city that plays a central role in communication between the East and the West, Hong Kong scholars are deeply immersed in and influenced by Chinese and Western cultures. As a result, they are perfectly placed to reflect on the question of what China is, and to study Chinese culture more flexibly and creatively from multiple and comparative perspectives, instead of relying completely on Western theories. However, young scholars in Hong Kong face a bigger challenge than before as they have to endure pressure from the grand Chinese model as well as the institutionalisation and marketisation of globalisation. However, challenges also open up opportunities for creativity. In my own experience, continuous challenges and pressures have led to academic breakthroughs.