CHAPTER 3. Analysis of disruptive change

The final chapter further analyses disruptive design as a catalyst for sociopolitical change. It reviews the cultural and ethical implications of such practice, providing both supportive and counter-views on disruptive change. This extends my response to the research question on a more holistic and objective note.

3.1 Cultural implications of disruptive design

Prior to the prevalence of youth activism, the younger generations of Hong Kong were not perceived as particularly politically active (Lam, 2018). However, since the Umbrella Movement in 2014, these passive attitudes shifted massively. Two years later, legislative voters saw a record high of 57.9% within the 18 to 35 voter age group (Legco, 2017, p.3) The demonstrations in 2014 can also be described as ‘disruptive’ in similar ways previously mentioned, where many of the events inspired the creative tactics cited in Chapter Two.

In a report analysing Hong Kong’s youth activism in light of the 2014 protests, multiple interviews found strong links between youth future orientations and political struggles, demonstrating a newfound sense of awareness (Ting, 2017). There is a significant relational quality when we see the scope of youth activism manifested into consumption, identity and even personal aspirations:

“In fact, many youth activists, who took part in the Umbrella Movement, altered their personal life goals and future plans in the course of their movement participation. These shifts in future orientations tended to be expressed in terms of everyday decisions and mundane projects. They include university students who changed their career choices in order to avoid (participation in) potential political suppression, young adults who decided to not have babies or to not invest in Hong Kong properties, and youth who considered emigration as a result of lacking confidence in the future society.” (Ting, 2017, p.8)

Sociopolitical disruption in Hong Kong implicated a huge culture shift that had a role in protest tactics (p.23) and now, its societal structure and attitudes. These changing attitudes have also been described as increasingly xenophobic, as youths begin to adopt a more separatist identity (Pang & Jiang, 2019). Numerous attacks against Mainland Chinese tourists (SCMP, 2019) and prejudice against Mandarin speaking customers (Chan, 2020) were reported that same year. Currently, there are more than a million Mainland Chinese individuals that live in Hong Kong (Zhu, 2019), and the resulted prejudice has only exacerbated the polarising divide between the two cultures in the city, as well as the ideological divide between the pro-establishment and prodemocracy camps. This divergence can easily threaten the deep-rooted, multi-cultural values held by “Asia’s World City”, a reputation already said to be ‘tarnished’ by the disruptive events (Kammerer, 2020). Disruption therefore, can have implications to culture that hinder peace, incite segregation, and even violence.

3.2 Ethical implications of disruptive design

From a public standpoint, the reception of disruptive tools for change used by the Hong Kong protestors have been controversial. Like XR, Hong Kong’s disruptive protests are largely conditional to self-restraint and solidarity, and a sudden death or case of serious injury can dramatically lose support (Yuen, quoted by Reuters, 2019). Yet, though disruption has no correlation with violence, youth protestors have resorted to violent tactics in their protests. One of the only two recorded deaths involved a government cleaner accidentally struck on the head by a presumed protestor (Yau, 2019). Public opinion often likens Hong Kong protestors to ‘violent rioters’, including the government (Mang & Chow, 2020). This implicates how disruptive change can lead to turbulent consequences, and begs the question of whether use of violence or militant responses, albeit for a ‘greater cause’, can be morally justified.

Systematically, violence realises the uncontrollable nature of reinforcing feedback loops, with great impact to public safety. When we evaluate the violence provoked by the youths of Hong Kong, there are varying degrees. On the less violent spectrum, we see acts of property vandalisation against blue businesses. Then, the escalation of xenophobic attacks against Mainland Chinese tourists, including an incident where a man was set on fire by angry youths (RTHK, 2019). The most violent tactics take place in the clashes between police and protestors, where weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets and dye guns are introduced by police (Fig 20), and likewise, protestors have been seen to return molotov cocktails and resort to physical violence (Fig 21).

Traditionally, Hong Kong’s longstanding protest culture has expressed tenacious sensitivity to violence, respecting the Cantonese principle called “woh-lei-fei” (Leung, quoted by Ramzy, 2019). This translates to “peaceful, rational and non-violent”, and dates back to the demonstrations held in remembrance of the Tiananmen Square victims in 1989. However, due to the limited success peaceful demonstrations have seen in the recent decade, the new generation of protestors are resorting to more confrontational approaches, one that challenges elites and authority even if it incites violence. When a tradition like “woh-lei-fei” is disrespected — or ‘disrupted’ — it is both

Fig 20. Hong Kong police fires tear gas (Reuters, 2019) Fig 21. Hong Kong protestor throws molotov cocktail (Kwok, 2019)

unpredictable and challenging for the public to re-evaluate their political views. After all, disruption regards rendering the old ‘obsolete’, and in many instances, can disregard the implications of doing so. For example, should Hong Kong be fully independent, what would that be of its future? Without modelling a ToC, it is a near impossible consideration even for political experts (Barron, 2020).

Technologically, ethical implications have also been raised in disruptive design. LIHKG is arguably yellow because it has been engineered in such a way that reduces security risks and protection of identity from the police. On the other hand, similarly popular messaging tool Telegram (p.23) is not based locally — designed without privacy in mind — and can leave its systems architecture vulnerable to cyber-government crackdowns against protestor identities (Hill, 2019). This vulnerability was exposed in the arrest of activist Ivan Ip, administrator of a pro-democratic group chat of 200,000 members (Stand News, 2019). Hence, communication technology can favour Hong Kong activists, but only when designed disruptively: similar apps have done little to achieve the level of user privacy LIHKG provides. Human rights technologists have also been critical of this, and rallied for developers and engineers to consider the drastic consequences for users most in need of encrypted security — not just in Hong Kong, but also for activists and reporters in heavily-censored countries like China (York, 2017).

However, politicised technology demands for companies to establish political views, and this has implications beyond ethical consumption. Apple’s decision to remove HK.Map.Live (p.23) from its app store, citing conflict with Hong Kong law, has been condemned by Hong Kong people and activists alike (Hern, 2019). This example highlights the ethical dilemma presented to Apple — and very likely, other tech companies in the future — in face of China’s pressurising monopoly. Systems design, can therefore pose limitations for disruption if not designed iteratively, unintentionally hindering possibilities for radical, sociopolitical transformation.

Chapter Three concludes the main topic by providing an implicative analysis of using disruptive design for change. It contextualises certain negative and positive implications from both lens of culture and ethics, although only to a certain extent. This analysis aims to realise that disruptive design is still a flawed process, and stresses how ignorance should not be feigned in its practice. Consequences of cultural prejudice, violence and technological ethics are also alluded.