What do you think?
Rate this book
Tongzhi: Politics of Same-Sex Eroticism in Chinese Societies
This book describes in detail the evolution of homosexual life and culture in various Chinese societies including Hong Kong and Taiwan. Deriving from the communist term for 'comrade', Tonghzi is the most popular contemporary Chinese word for lesbians, bisexuals, and gay people. But terms such as gay, lesbian, and queer are Anglo-Saxon in origin, with specific histories that do not exactly capture the indigenous features of Chinese same-sex relations. Tonghzi implies and includes much more. S/Mers, transvestites, fetishists, and members of the Chinese sexual counterculture who may be quite heterosexual are also tonghzi since the term not only embodie the sexual (legitimising same-sex love), it also denotes the political (sharing the goals of combating heterosexism) and the cultural (reappropriating a Chinese identity).
352 pages, Paperback
First published August 11, 2000
2 people are currently reading
52 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
August 21, 2022
The majority of this book was about contemporary politics in chinese societies, the problem with that is, that the book came out in 2000, therefore most of it was completely useless to me.
The only part of it that had any value is the historical and terminological one and even there, there are tons of problems. The book states that the term "tongzhi" refers not only to tongxinglian but to all forms of sexual practice that have been marginalized by hegemonic heterosexism. That's so vague it could cover the most perverse stuff you could think of. And he claims that it "asserts its identity not by antagonizing heterosexuals but by inviting them to explore their own homophobia and homoeroticism." Then how do you define heterosexuals? Plus, he claimed that it does the opposite before stating this. He further claims that "The insistence on seeing sexuality as a class, race, gender, age, and cultural category would threaten the complacency of lesbians and gays who view differences only in terms of sexuality, and view sexual differences only in terrns of the gender of erotic object choice." And I have no clue what he even wrote there. At this I got the suspicion that this book will be full of babbling of the author, and it was. After reading the introduction alone I was already not surprised when the author writes a personal note: "I position myself not only as an academic but also an activist who, for the last six years, has been intensely involved in Hong Kong tongzhi discourses." Because he wrote more like an activist than a researcher.
His statement about traditional chinese cosmology also fit that. He claimed that the traditional Chinese cosmology of yin-yang was gradually abandoned in the name of modernity and replaced by a biological determinism that medicalizes a woman 's body as weak and passive, in contrast to the male body, which is said to be active and strong. This was just one example where the author seems to not only almost demonize western discourses but romanticize chinese ones. And his "basic structural features" of the term Qing is so broad it is almost featureless and I have no clue what it is supposed to mean. It looks as if the author writes so much just to write. At least the words themselves are easy to understand. And claiming that the yin-yang philosophy somehow "opens up a broad and tolerant atitiude toward a variety of sexual and gender behaviors" is contrary to chinese history. They had very strict gender roles especially during the times of the Qing empire.
And I don't understand what he does or doesn't consider homophobic. He stated himself that someone who has an exclusively homosexual lifestyle is culturally inconceivable in imperial China and definitely intolerable, a nonbeing in society. In other words, nobody can be primarily a lesbian, bisexual, or gay man. And this isn't homophobic, why exactly? And he writes one becomes, rather than being born as, a wife or husband, a daughter or son. What? Is he insinuating that in the West one is born a wife? And how exactly can you become a daughter or son except by being born? Was there some official recognition after the baby was born or something? He further states that "In other words, homosexuality is seen not as a sexual essence monopolized by a minority group, hut as a social practice that everyone can experience in specific classist and sexist relations." And from what I know of imperial China, that "experience" would mostly be coercion and rape. And he claims that all these traditional terms referring to same-sex activities do not denote a fixed or generic personality. I disagree here, there are common features in literature etc. of those going regularly to boy prostitutes and have certain personality features in common. Also, he seems to use "severe social stigma" instead of just "social stigma" which suggests that there is stigma. And trust me, there was a stigma in the imperial times. And when he wrote that "lnstead, her relaxed and positive comments about their sexual relationship indicate the rather relaxed attitude of the time, though in the patriarchal society a woman has to accept her husband having sex with other men, which, after all, does not threaten her status as a wife", which just contains so much of his projection in one statement.
Like so many others he tries to excuse things by stating that hostility was not targeted at same-sex sexuality itself, but at the idea of having a lifestyle that denies the cultural imperative to get married. But then what about monks and hermits? Why aren't they ostracized then?
At the very least he acknowlegdes that Chinese culture has not supported or accepted homosexuality. He claims that the family-kinship system and the pressure to get married pose a limiting boundary to and pressure on same-sex erotic practices. That people may gossip but rarely take action against it and Homosexuality is not treated as intrinsically evil and sinful. The first sentence is correct, but the rest is garbage. Homosexual practices are at best tolerated and even that only when it adhers to very specific age and gender rules. So I would disagree that the notion of homophobia is inappropriate to describe traditional Chinese attitudes toward same-sex eroticism. He claims it is inappropriate since the condemnation was not a categorical rejection of same-sex conduct per se, but the betrayal of family and social roles. So? That was often no different in the West. Plus, if all you needed to do was pop-out babies, why not have babies by concubines and have the men be married and then each gets to sire babies.
And his constant statements of tolerance are so misleading because he states himself that "lt is therefore dangerous to romanticize Chinese traditions of same-sex eroticism. The cultural tolerance of same-sex eroticism is neither unconditional nor wholehearted, but with a vital qualifier-it occurs only when the social hierarchy is not challenged." This author is really contradictory. And he repeats himself over and over. Gosh, he repeated himself so often.
He claims that neither the emperors nor their contemporaries ever comprehended these behaviors as tongxinglian because eroticism toward women or men was not dichotomized. And at this point in the book, which was already not even 10 % mind you, I already couldn't believe him. And it is really strange how on the one hand he is careful to claim that the relationshup between Emperor Ai and Dong-Xian was mutual but he claims stuff like this even though the evidence if sketchy at best. It seems to be based on lack of evidence to the contrary and not evidence to support his claims. This is especially evident when he claims that "as same-sex relationships did not seem to be a social issue in traditional Chinese societies, they were rarely mentioned except as incidents within the wider narratives of the lives of the emperor and the male elite." But how does he know that? Shouldn't there be way more than just the stuff about the emperor and the male elite? And I know that there is more from the Qing era, but those were criminal records. But something way further back, the documents are naturally fewer. And yet, despite him being careful before, he states that the "limited references to same-sex relations in pre-Han China is not the result of homophobia, but indicates that scholars and historians simply felt there was little need to record same-sex relationship." But again: How does he know that? Plus in the story of Duke Jing of Qi, a plumb-bearer stared at him, not a minor official like what he claims here. And he claims the duke made a "sexual proposal to bathe with this minor official". And I know that story, and maybe you could argue that this "he should scrub my back" is something homoerotic, but it might as well not be it, could just as well be a punishment. So, how does he know?
And naturally, the information on the term "qing" that he gave is so vague I have no way of knowing whether Wen and Han were actually in a romantic/sexual relationship or not. He made mistakes/lied before. The actor Zhou in the story he cites is still referred to as a libiscus and lotus, so clearly feminized and his statements regarding Dreams of a Red Chamber, no comment. And in Prayer Mat of the Flesh he says the boy gets fucked because no women are present, which clearly suggests that this was done not because of sexual preference but rather due to lack of choice. And back to Red Chamber, what sexual intimacies with males did its protagonist Baoyu actually have? It wasn't stated as far as I read into the novel and the author had no problem at least alluding to sex before. And in regard to Dong Xian and others using powder and the like... so what? Was that considered feminine at the time? He doesn't adress that at all. And I really wonder why he doesn't adress the topic of feminization of these boys, and states their required age, even though he states himself that "the age factor is crucial, as youth symbolizes femininity, innocence, and powerlessness." And that doesn't bother him at all? At least the power thing should worry him. And his following examples really hammer the feminine appearance down. Something the author never really adresses even then. And he doesn't tell you that the story of Pan Zhang clearly condemns what he and his boyfriend/husband are doing either. I know that story and not only does the story condemn what they did, they even turn mad all of a sudden and their fiances commit suicide.
And just like I know that story, I also know about the Fujian "custom" that he refers to. That custom was not egalitarian in any way, there was a clear age difference required and sources themselves stated that those of similar age and status could not be together. It was also no marriage (rather a sort of formalized prostitution) and he clearly lies when he states that "A male mencius's mother raises her son properly by moving house" is between two men, Riu Lang was clearly an early teen (he later refers to him as a boy as well) and he also plays down the castration reasons that Riu Lang had, it was way more than just staying chaste to his "husband" and I better not tell you what the reasons were or I will start ranting again. Fun fact, that story itself shows that Riu Lang was actually bought to be the "sworn brother" of the older male and the story also makes it clear that mid-twenties is too old and ugly for these men in the story, they wanted and early teen like Riu Lang and are willing to pay the highest prices for virgin boys that are so young.
Granted, it is something positive that this is the first book who regards that one story from Liaozhai Zhiyi as something lesbian. And considered that his later examples of alleged lesbianism is among Cantonese area women, I really question whether it makes sense to simply refer to all of this as "chinese" as we clearly talking about different language areas at the very least, I would say that we are talking about different ethnicities and cultures here.
Naturally, he ruins everything positive about this book with something negative. He claims, once again that traditional Chinese are rarely exclusively "homosexual" and most display a bisexual pattern; but he considers the term "bisexual" to also be inappropriate, as for him it is a categonzahon based on the gender of erotic object choice, something he states that did not exist in the minds of traditional Chinese. Ignoring the fact that I doubt that but even if that was true, what difference does that make? By that logic you should never call something a viral disease from times back then as the traditional chinese had no concept of viruses. However, at the very least he states that talking of western concepts was highly selective and chinese driven. But why does he not take the perceived humiliation, nationalism and gender anxieties being present since the Qing takeover in the 17th century into account? That is really odd. He only takes Opium and Sino-Japanese Wars into account. And why does he consider the lack of lesbian stories to be a sign of sexism? With gay he did it the other way around.
And speaking of his contradictions, he states that the Confucian emphasis on familial-marital institutions and reproduction is so overwhelming that it has been a crucial ground for a heterosexist and homophobic construction of sexuality. And yet, despite stating this and that china never accepted homosexuality, he still refuses to see something homophobic there.
He at least makes the reasonable claim that it was the sexologist's pathologization of homosexuality rather than the Christian homophobic attitude that was selectively and strategically adopted by Chinese intellectuals who had their own sociopolitical agenda
in mind, But while he states this, other things he seems to ignore. To get back to the topic of feminization and substitutes, he even quotes things like this: "There are public streets füll of boys got up like prostitutes. And there are people who buy these boys and teach them to play music, sing and dance. And then, gallantly dressed and made up with rouge like women these miserable men are initiated into this terrible vice."And yet he never points this lack of masculine appearance out. And trust me, when you look at the topic of "homoeroticism" in imperial China, this lack of masculinity sticks out like a sore thumb.
And I noticed that he mostly uses anecdotes and not data. The one piece of data from Taiwan with 26 % of boys and 21 % of girls in these schools encountered same sex eroticism was all I can remember. The rest was anecdotes and assuming literati and the like stand for popular attitudes. And naturally the sex imbalance during the Ming and Qing times and the Qing law have been ignored in this book. And either he has faulty sources or he has a specific agenda and so distorts history when he states that it is only since the Republican period that China's long history of cultural tolerance of same-sex eroticism began to fade. From what I know, that tolerance was extremely narrow, something he only shortly touched and then ignored. He only mentioned once that homosexuality was not accepted and then never again, which makes his constant talk about tolerance very misleading.
So I don't believe that the later homosexual law is not a reflection of Chinese law or culture but the imposition of colonial law without any consultation with the colonized people. Because I could have sworn that the Qing law also criminalized consentual anal sex between two males just like the Hong Kong law did back then. Granted, even here he has something interesting to state that "it was mixed-race relationships between Chinese and non-Chinese that received the most attention and constituted around half of the court cases of homosexuality before 1990. He found that about half of the offenses in the 1970s and 1980s were between Caucasians and Chinese men. And funny, considered that this Hong Kong Law was so seldom enforced, you could argue that it was just as tolerant as imperial China, but this author would never do that. He either doesn't know Qing law or downplays that and other things.
He states that tongxinglian or tongxingai is a translation of the Western medical term "homosexuality," which defines a minority group of individuals according to their same-sex sexual preference or orientation, as if everyone has a ccrtain fixed and innate sexual essence. That confirms what I suspected of this author: He denies something like sexual orientation apparently, so I suspect he is a constructionist. At this point in the book I had a serious need to stop this there and now. As he straight up goes to "current" chinese societies, but this book is from 2000 and so it is totally useless to me. In fact, several things before already were pretty unreliable and I noticed that his "tongzhi" so far only covers homo- and bisexuals despite his earlier definition. When I noticed that the next section was about "Contemporary Taiwan" I decided to check the later chapters and if this stays with "contemporary", I would stop this book, because that is useless for me. And it turned out it was about "contemporary times" and so I decided not to waste my time any further.sThe historical section had some merit, but the rest is useless to me.
The only part of it that had any value is the historical and terminological one and even there, there are tons of problems. The book states that the term "tongzhi" refers not only to tongxinglian but to all forms of sexual practice that have been marginalized by hegemonic heterosexism. That's so vague it could cover the most perverse stuff you could think of. And he claims that it "asserts its identity not by antagonizing heterosexuals but by inviting them to explore their own homophobia and homoeroticism." Then how do you define heterosexuals? Plus, he claimed that it does the opposite before stating this. He further claims that "The insistence on seeing sexuality as a class, race, gender, age, and cultural category would threaten the complacency of lesbians and gays who view differences only in terms of sexuality, and view sexual differences only in terrns of the gender of erotic object choice." And I have no clue what he even wrote there. At this I got the suspicion that this book will be full of babbling of the author, and it was. After reading the introduction alone I was already not surprised when the author writes a personal note: "I position myself not only as an academic but also an activist who, for the last six years, has been intensely involved in Hong Kong tongzhi discourses." Because he wrote more like an activist than a researcher.
His statement about traditional chinese cosmology also fit that. He claimed that the traditional Chinese cosmology of yin-yang was gradually abandoned in the name of modernity and replaced by a biological determinism that medicalizes a woman 's body as weak and passive, in contrast to the male body, which is said to be active and strong. This was just one example where the author seems to not only almost demonize western discourses but romanticize chinese ones. And his "basic structural features" of the term Qing is so broad it is almost featureless and I have no clue what it is supposed to mean. It looks as if the author writes so much just to write. At least the words themselves are easy to understand. And claiming that the yin-yang philosophy somehow "opens up a broad and tolerant atitiude toward a variety of sexual and gender behaviors" is contrary to chinese history. They had very strict gender roles especially during the times of the Qing empire.
And I don't understand what he does or doesn't consider homophobic. He stated himself that someone who has an exclusively homosexual lifestyle is culturally inconceivable in imperial China and definitely intolerable, a nonbeing in society. In other words, nobody can be primarily a lesbian, bisexual, or gay man. And this isn't homophobic, why exactly? And he writes one becomes, rather than being born as, a wife or husband, a daughter or son. What? Is he insinuating that in the West one is born a wife? And how exactly can you become a daughter or son except by being born? Was there some official recognition after the baby was born or something? He further states that "In other words, homosexuality is seen not as a sexual essence monopolized by a minority group, hut as a social practice that everyone can experience in specific classist and sexist relations." And from what I know of imperial China, that "experience" would mostly be coercion and rape. And he claims that all these traditional terms referring to same-sex activities do not denote a fixed or generic personality. I disagree here, there are common features in literature etc. of those going regularly to boy prostitutes and have certain personality features in common. Also, he seems to use "severe social stigma" instead of just "social stigma" which suggests that there is stigma. And trust me, there was a stigma in the imperial times. And when he wrote that "lnstead, her relaxed and positive comments about their sexual relationship indicate the rather relaxed attitude of the time, though in the patriarchal society a woman has to accept her husband having sex with other men, which, after all, does not threaten her status as a wife", which just contains so much of his projection in one statement.
Like so many others he tries to excuse things by stating that hostility was not targeted at same-sex sexuality itself, but at the idea of having a lifestyle that denies the cultural imperative to get married. But then what about monks and hermits? Why aren't they ostracized then?
At the very least he acknowlegdes that Chinese culture has not supported or accepted homosexuality. He claims that the family-kinship system and the pressure to get married pose a limiting boundary to and pressure on same-sex erotic practices. That people may gossip but rarely take action against it and Homosexuality is not treated as intrinsically evil and sinful. The first sentence is correct, but the rest is garbage. Homosexual practices are at best tolerated and even that only when it adhers to very specific age and gender rules. So I would disagree that the notion of homophobia is inappropriate to describe traditional Chinese attitudes toward same-sex eroticism. He claims it is inappropriate since the condemnation was not a categorical rejection of same-sex conduct per se, but the betrayal of family and social roles. So? That was often no different in the West. Plus, if all you needed to do was pop-out babies, why not have babies by concubines and have the men be married and then each gets to sire babies.
And his constant statements of tolerance are so misleading because he states himself that "lt is therefore dangerous to romanticize Chinese traditions of same-sex eroticism. The cultural tolerance of same-sex eroticism is neither unconditional nor wholehearted, but with a vital qualifier-it occurs only when the social hierarchy is not challenged." This author is really contradictory. And he repeats himself over and over. Gosh, he repeated himself so often.
He claims that neither the emperors nor their contemporaries ever comprehended these behaviors as tongxinglian because eroticism toward women or men was not dichotomized. And at this point in the book, which was already not even 10 % mind you, I already couldn't believe him. And it is really strange how on the one hand he is careful to claim that the relationshup between Emperor Ai and Dong-Xian was mutual but he claims stuff like this even though the evidence if sketchy at best. It seems to be based on lack of evidence to the contrary and not evidence to support his claims. This is especially evident when he claims that "as same-sex relationships did not seem to be a social issue in traditional Chinese societies, they were rarely mentioned except as incidents within the wider narratives of the lives of the emperor and the male elite." But how does he know that? Shouldn't there be way more than just the stuff about the emperor and the male elite? And I know that there is more from the Qing era, but those were criminal records. But something way further back, the documents are naturally fewer. And yet, despite him being careful before, he states that the "limited references to same-sex relations in pre-Han China is not the result of homophobia, but indicates that scholars and historians simply felt there was little need to record same-sex relationship." But again: How does he know that? Plus in the story of Duke Jing of Qi, a plumb-bearer stared at him, not a minor official like what he claims here. And he claims the duke made a "sexual proposal to bathe with this minor official". And I know that story, and maybe you could argue that this "he should scrub my back" is something homoerotic, but it might as well not be it, could just as well be a punishment. So, how does he know?
And naturally, the information on the term "qing" that he gave is so vague I have no way of knowing whether Wen and Han were actually in a romantic/sexual relationship or not. He made mistakes/lied before. The actor Zhou in the story he cites is still referred to as a libiscus and lotus, so clearly feminized and his statements regarding Dreams of a Red Chamber, no comment. And in Prayer Mat of the Flesh he says the boy gets fucked because no women are present, which clearly suggests that this was done not because of sexual preference but rather due to lack of choice. And back to Red Chamber, what sexual intimacies with males did its protagonist Baoyu actually have? It wasn't stated as far as I read into the novel and the author had no problem at least alluding to sex before. And in regard to Dong Xian and others using powder and the like... so what? Was that considered feminine at the time? He doesn't adress that at all. And I really wonder why he doesn't adress the topic of feminization of these boys, and states their required age, even though he states himself that "the age factor is crucial, as youth symbolizes femininity, innocence, and powerlessness." And that doesn't bother him at all? At least the power thing should worry him. And his following examples really hammer the feminine appearance down. Something the author never really adresses even then. And he doesn't tell you that the story of Pan Zhang clearly condemns what he and his boyfriend/husband are doing either. I know that story and not only does the story condemn what they did, they even turn mad all of a sudden and their fiances commit suicide.
And just like I know that story, I also know about the Fujian "custom" that he refers to. That custom was not egalitarian in any way, there was a clear age difference required and sources themselves stated that those of similar age and status could not be together. It was also no marriage (rather a sort of formalized prostitution) and he clearly lies when he states that "A male mencius's mother raises her son properly by moving house" is between two men, Riu Lang was clearly an early teen (he later refers to him as a boy as well) and he also plays down the castration reasons that Riu Lang had, it was way more than just staying chaste to his "husband" and I better not tell you what the reasons were or I will start ranting again. Fun fact, that story itself shows that Riu Lang was actually bought to be the "sworn brother" of the older male and the story also makes it clear that mid-twenties is too old and ugly for these men in the story, they wanted and early teen like Riu Lang and are willing to pay the highest prices for virgin boys that are so young.
Granted, it is something positive that this is the first book who regards that one story from Liaozhai Zhiyi as something lesbian. And considered that his later examples of alleged lesbianism is among Cantonese area women, I really question whether it makes sense to simply refer to all of this as "chinese" as we clearly talking about different language areas at the very least, I would say that we are talking about different ethnicities and cultures here.
Naturally, he ruins everything positive about this book with something negative. He claims, once again that traditional Chinese are rarely exclusively "homosexual" and most display a bisexual pattern; but he considers the term "bisexual" to also be inappropriate, as for him it is a categonzahon based on the gender of erotic object choice, something he states that did not exist in the minds of traditional Chinese. Ignoring the fact that I doubt that but even if that was true, what difference does that make? By that logic you should never call something a viral disease from times back then as the traditional chinese had no concept of viruses. However, at the very least he states that talking of western concepts was highly selective and chinese driven. But why does he not take the perceived humiliation, nationalism and gender anxieties being present since the Qing takeover in the 17th century into account? That is really odd. He only takes Opium and Sino-Japanese Wars into account. And why does he consider the lack of lesbian stories to be a sign of sexism? With gay he did it the other way around.
And speaking of his contradictions, he states that the Confucian emphasis on familial-marital institutions and reproduction is so overwhelming that it has been a crucial ground for a heterosexist and homophobic construction of sexuality. And yet, despite stating this and that china never accepted homosexuality, he still refuses to see something homophobic there.
He at least makes the reasonable claim that it was the sexologist's pathologization of homosexuality rather than the Christian homophobic attitude that was selectively and strategically adopted by Chinese intellectuals who had their own sociopolitical agenda
in mind, But while he states this, other things he seems to ignore. To get back to the topic of feminization and substitutes, he even quotes things like this: "There are public streets füll of boys got up like prostitutes. And there are people who buy these boys and teach them to play music, sing and dance. And then, gallantly dressed and made up with rouge like women these miserable men are initiated into this terrible vice."And yet he never points this lack of masculine appearance out. And trust me, when you look at the topic of "homoeroticism" in imperial China, this lack of masculinity sticks out like a sore thumb.
And I noticed that he mostly uses anecdotes and not data. The one piece of data from Taiwan with 26 % of boys and 21 % of girls in these schools encountered same sex eroticism was all I can remember. The rest was anecdotes and assuming literati and the like stand for popular attitudes. And naturally the sex imbalance during the Ming and Qing times and the Qing law have been ignored in this book. And either he has faulty sources or he has a specific agenda and so distorts history when he states that it is only since the Republican period that China's long history of cultural tolerance of same-sex eroticism began to fade. From what I know, that tolerance was extremely narrow, something he only shortly touched and then ignored. He only mentioned once that homosexuality was not accepted and then never again, which makes his constant talk about tolerance very misleading.
So I don't believe that the later homosexual law is not a reflection of Chinese law or culture but the imposition of colonial law without any consultation with the colonized people. Because I could have sworn that the Qing law also criminalized consentual anal sex between two males just like the Hong Kong law did back then. Granted, even here he has something interesting to state that "it was mixed-race relationships between Chinese and non-Chinese that received the most attention and constituted around half of the court cases of homosexuality before 1990. He found that about half of the offenses in the 1970s and 1980s were between Caucasians and Chinese men. And funny, considered that this Hong Kong Law was so seldom enforced, you could argue that it was just as tolerant as imperial China, but this author would never do that. He either doesn't know Qing law or downplays that and other things.
He states that tongxinglian or tongxingai is a translation of the Western medical term "homosexuality," which defines a minority group of individuals according to their same-sex sexual preference or orientation, as if everyone has a ccrtain fixed and innate sexual essence. That confirms what I suspected of this author: He denies something like sexual orientation apparently, so I suspect he is a constructionist. At this point in the book I had a serious need to stop this there and now. As he straight up goes to "current" chinese societies, but this book is from 2000 and so it is totally useless to me. In fact, several things before already were pretty unreliable and I noticed that his "tongzhi" so far only covers homo- and bisexuals despite his earlier definition. When I noticed that the next section was about "Contemporary Taiwan" I decided to check the later chapters and if this stays with "contemporary", I would stop this book, because that is useless for me. And it turned out it was about "contemporary times" and so I decided not to waste my time any further.sThe historical section had some merit, but the rest is useless to me.
December 10, 2012
I actually found this book in a second hand book shop in Charring cross road. I can never find books in my field in shops and always end up ordering things onlne, but this one was there and £10 and £90 on amazon! So I HAD to get it.
The first chapter and the introduction was just brilliant. It talked about how western discourse on sexuality tended to make it a binary propostion of gay or straight. That it focused too much on the sex acts and didn't include the bigger cultural picture, which I totally agreed with. It presented this lovely view of the idea of Tongzi (which was the Chinese translation of Comrade originaly) that had come to mean queer in that it was people with the same feelings, but that it also include not just gay, lesbians, but bi, S&M and everyone who wasn't totally normal in their approach to sexuality. Later chapters refuted this lovely ideal, but it was great and wonderful theory. The author then went and looked at the history of same sex love and relationships in China. There argument was that there was no homophobia in China, there was no religion that condemmed such behaviour. The only requirement was that you got married and if you got married it didn't matter what you did in addition to that. OF course this requirement to get married is in a way the kind of heteronormative behaviour that entrenchs homophobia within a society. While getting married was important, not once was it addressed that not all Chinese people in traditional society got married, and there was no equation between those who refused marriage to become monks and nuns and their rejection of the familiar role and how that effected society.
There were however some great examples of love and sexual relationships. Lots of these were higher and lower relationships, but there were some that were between equals. I even found out that there was a romance between two women in Pu Songlin (one of whom was a fox spirit!)
After giving the cultural background the author went on to look at gay society in Hong Kong, the mainland and Taiwan. The fact that homosexuality (well anal sex) was illegal in Hong Kong until 1991 was blamed on the colonial governement and the internalisation of homophobia from the colonisers (it was very post-modern, post-colonial and possibly post-structural but despite all that I loved this book). I was shocked to realise that it had been illegal so long. Ironically it was finally made legal in a bill that was desinged to protect the human rights of Hong Kong citizens in the handover to the mainland (where it had never been illegal).
In mainland China that attitude was one of medicalisation of homosexuality as a disease. It was one of those things that didn't really seem to exist, though there were gay marriages that were allowed in the early 90s. Many people were living as closeted and many people who were engaging in relationships with people of the same sex didn't see themselves as "gay" as that to them was something distasteful. The author transcribed several excerts from people in the mainland who all had different approaches to their sexuality that was really interesting.
Likewise Taiwan was also very repressed with martial law until the 80s. THough I was surprised to learn of a lesbian who was the star celebrity in Taiwan in the late 60s early 70s. There was a lot more books and films about gy people in Taiwan. Unfortunately the author paid no attention to the Hong Kong film industry. When talking about women who were "tom boys" and defying gender roles no mention was made of the huge tradition of women cross-dressers in Hong Kong movies (and actual Chinese history).
Where I started to have issues with the book was in the secound half where the author seemed to be focusing entirely on the differences between Hong Kong and US gay issues, and seemed to be overlooking a lot of similarities in his attempt to show how different things were for Queers in Hong Kong. He was also guilty offorcing the same homo-hetero duality he was accusing the west of by totally ignoring the bi-sexual element to the stories he was telling.
One thing that he was very critical of was the older white coloniser advertising for young Chinese boys in magazines. It was always an old white guy after young Chinese boys. He was complaining how part of the post-colonial role was that of inferior. He seemed to be totally ignoring the submissive act, and that some people were drawn to that. Not all Hong Kong gay boys were dating older white men, but only the ones who were interested in it! The young boys also made no effort to hide that a lot of them were in it for the money (and the westernisation of lall sorts of luxury goods!) Oddly when the prostitute in the mainland was open about having sex for money he was much less condemmed. While the author spent a lot of time talking about the unfair power dynamics in white-Chinese relationships he spent no time at all dealing with it in Lesbian relationships. He spent a long time looking at the Tom Boy/Tom Boy Girlfriend relationships in Hong Kong. How the TB's were ultra-masculine and the girls would be submissive and "girlfriends" to either boys or girls. But no issues of power were addressed. Reading these sections some of the Tom Boys came across as clearly transsexual (whereas others didn't) yet this was not a concept the author was familiar with. Likewise some of the girls seemed to be bisexual. Only once was this addressed when one girl he interviewed said that she didn't judge her partner's by their gender, the author stated that the person clearly couldn't be bi-sexual because they weren't using gender to base their relationships on, but that's entirely what being bi-sexual is!!! The chapter on the Tom Boy's also did a lot to expose the ideal of Tongzhi that was explained in the beigining as they were very much judging what was and wasn't Tongzhi. The tom boys were trying to pass as actual boyfriends to avoid the homophobia in the culture. Indeed even the author would often refer to the women as nu tongzhi (women queers whereas the men were just tongzhi not nan tongzhi) once again showing the dicotomy. There was a very good Hong Kong activist group called Queer Sisters that seemed to be addressing this.
The book was written in 2000 and I really wonder how the past ten years have changed things.
The first chapter and the introduction was just brilliant. It talked about how western discourse on sexuality tended to make it a binary propostion of gay or straight. That it focused too much on the sex acts and didn't include the bigger cultural picture, which I totally agreed with. It presented this lovely view of the idea of Tongzi (which was the Chinese translation of Comrade originaly) that had come to mean queer in that it was people with the same feelings, but that it also include not just gay, lesbians, but bi, S&M and everyone who wasn't totally normal in their approach to sexuality. Later chapters refuted this lovely ideal, but it was great and wonderful theory. The author then went and looked at the history of same sex love and relationships in China. There argument was that there was no homophobia in China, there was no religion that condemmed such behaviour. The only requirement was that you got married and if you got married it didn't matter what you did in addition to that. OF course this requirement to get married is in a way the kind of heteronormative behaviour that entrenchs homophobia within a society. While getting married was important, not once was it addressed that not all Chinese people in traditional society got married, and there was no equation between those who refused marriage to become monks and nuns and their rejection of the familiar role and how that effected society.
There were however some great examples of love and sexual relationships. Lots of these were higher and lower relationships, but there were some that were between equals. I even found out that there was a romance between two women in Pu Songlin (one of whom was a fox spirit!)
After giving the cultural background the author went on to look at gay society in Hong Kong, the mainland and Taiwan. The fact that homosexuality (well anal sex) was illegal in Hong Kong until 1991 was blamed on the colonial governement and the internalisation of homophobia from the colonisers (it was very post-modern, post-colonial and possibly post-structural but despite all that I loved this book). I was shocked to realise that it had been illegal so long. Ironically it was finally made legal in a bill that was desinged to protect the human rights of Hong Kong citizens in the handover to the mainland (where it had never been illegal).
In mainland China that attitude was one of medicalisation of homosexuality as a disease. It was one of those things that didn't really seem to exist, though there were gay marriages that were allowed in the early 90s. Many people were living as closeted and many people who were engaging in relationships with people of the same sex didn't see themselves as "gay" as that to them was something distasteful. The author transcribed several excerts from people in the mainland who all had different approaches to their sexuality that was really interesting.
Likewise Taiwan was also very repressed with martial law until the 80s. THough I was surprised to learn of a lesbian who was the star celebrity in Taiwan in the late 60s early 70s. There was a lot more books and films about gy people in Taiwan. Unfortunately the author paid no attention to the Hong Kong film industry. When talking about women who were "tom boys" and defying gender roles no mention was made of the huge tradition of women cross-dressers in Hong Kong movies (and actual Chinese history).
Where I started to have issues with the book was in the secound half where the author seemed to be focusing entirely on the differences between Hong Kong and US gay issues, and seemed to be overlooking a lot of similarities in his attempt to show how different things were for Queers in Hong Kong. He was also guilty offorcing the same homo-hetero duality he was accusing the west of by totally ignoring the bi-sexual element to the stories he was telling.
One thing that he was very critical of was the older white coloniser advertising for young Chinese boys in magazines. It was always an old white guy after young Chinese boys. He was complaining how part of the post-colonial role was that of inferior. He seemed to be totally ignoring the submissive act, and that some people were drawn to that. Not all Hong Kong gay boys were dating older white men, but only the ones who were interested in it! The young boys also made no effort to hide that a lot of them were in it for the money (and the westernisation of lall sorts of luxury goods!) Oddly when the prostitute in the mainland was open about having sex for money he was much less condemmed. While the author spent a lot of time talking about the unfair power dynamics in white-Chinese relationships he spent no time at all dealing with it in Lesbian relationships. He spent a long time looking at the Tom Boy/Tom Boy Girlfriend relationships in Hong Kong. How the TB's were ultra-masculine and the girls would be submissive and "girlfriends" to either boys or girls. But no issues of power were addressed. Reading these sections some of the Tom Boys came across as clearly transsexual (whereas others didn't) yet this was not a concept the author was familiar with. Likewise some of the girls seemed to be bisexual. Only once was this addressed when one girl he interviewed said that she didn't judge her partner's by their gender, the author stated that the person clearly couldn't be bi-sexual because they weren't using gender to base their relationships on, but that's entirely what being bi-sexual is!!! The chapter on the Tom Boy's also did a lot to expose the ideal of Tongzhi that was explained in the beigining as they were very much judging what was and wasn't Tongzhi. The tom boys were trying to pass as actual boyfriends to avoid the homophobia in the culture. Indeed even the author would often refer to the women as nu tongzhi (women queers whereas the men were just tongzhi not nan tongzhi) once again showing the dicotomy. There was a very good Hong Kong activist group called Queer Sisters that seemed to be addressing this.
The book was written in 2000 and I really wonder how the past ten years have changed things.
June 27, 2018
Some interesting insights but as is the case with many academic books, can be quite repetitive in using the same examples for multiple interpretations. Am also not sure how much I agree with his conclusions, especially the liberatory nature of erasing the Herero/homo divide.
March 31, 2021
likely extremely outdated wrt tongzhi politics in the modern day, but informative re: relationship between homoeroticism and patriarchal classism in the pre-colonial period
January 12, 2017
Brilliant! Used it for a research essay.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews