Book Discussion: Response to Comments by Anna High

Abstract

As I suspect is the case for many, as an academic juggling the demands of teaching, research, and family in these “new normal” times, the weeks of the academic calendar seem to be slipping away a little more rapidly as compared to pre-pandemic life. As such, it does not seem so long ago that I was finalizing the manuscript, reading the proofs, and sending this book (Orphan Relief in China) out into the world. And yet my son Fred, who is the same age as this book (kindly timing his arrival for soon after completion of the manuscript), is now a boisterous two-and-a-half-year-old. In that time, it has been humbling to see Orphan Relief in China well received by peers around the world, and it is humbling all over again—and perhaps even quite self-indulgent, given the aforementioned time pressures—to have this opportunity to engage again with the material and reflect on my research journey. I am immensely grateful to Liang Xiaochen,1 Xu Zheng, and Shahla Ali for taking the time to write these thoughtful comments, and to Hiroshi Fukurai, immediate past-president of the Asian Law and Society Association (ALSA), for his support in and co-ordination of this book discussion. Taking the same approach as previous years’ discussants, my intention in this short response to the commentary is not to summarize the key points of my research—that would be superfluous, as the commentators have done a wonderful job at introducing the scope and approach of the book. In the interests of space, I will not respond individually to each point raised in each commentary. Instead, I would like to use this opportunity to respond to and elaborate on three themes highlighted by the commentators.