"Gender" Trouble: Feminism in China

under the Impact of Western Theory

and the Spatialization of Identity
Nicola Spakowski

2023

At the level of personal encounters, Shih Shu-mei has demonstrated

how self-definitions and mutual perceptions tend to be simplified in
crosscultural encounters and how scholars tend to align with either
universalism or particularism to stabilize troublesome relations.

Abstract
Li Xiaojiang, on the other hand, emphasizes the uniqueness of China, the particular context
and historical origin of the emergence of Chinese women’s studies, and the necessity of its
independent development.[<a class="ref-link" data-citation-id="c25" href="#r25">25</a>]
In Li’s account, the 1980s were the peak of a truly local (bentu), and at the same time non--
state (minjian),[<a class="ref-link" data-citation-id="c26" href="#r26">26</a>] feminism in
China that expressed a new subjectivity of Chinese women.[<a class="ref-link" data-
citation-id="c27" href="#r27">27</a>] This positive development of a local non-state
feminism, however, was interrupted in 1993 with the increasing influence of Western
feminism that had resulted from the preparations for the World Conference on Women. To
be sure, Li is critical of the entire Chinese tradition of women’s liberation since the late
nineteenth century and also of traditional discourses on women. However, she perceives
them as part of Chinese women’s history that cannot simply be denied: “As long as it is still
this nation that lives, breathes, and works on this stretch of land, it is impossible to be
completely cut off from our history.”[<a class="ref-link" data-citation-id="c28"
href="#r28">28</a>] With regard to socialist-style liberation, Li points out the deficiencies
but also concedes that liberation through socialism was the necessary basis for the
development of women today.[<a class="ref-link" data-citation-id="c29"
href="#r29">29</a>]
Scholarcy Synopsis
A new theoretical strand within Chinese feminism has been forming,
which, for lack of a programmatic label, the author calls 'socialist
feminist'.

Since around 2010, a new theoretical strand within Chinese feminism has been forming,
which, for lack of a programmatic label, the author calls “socialist feminism”.
Chinese socialist feminism shows an interest in political economy and attributes women’s
status to their place in the economic structures of Chinese society.
Productive and reproductive work are main fields of research.

Scholarcy Highlights
 I have discussed elsewhere the institutional and material side of the import of Western
theory to China.[3]
 I have highlighted the trans national networks of individuals, institutions, governments,
and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) — b oth Chinese and non-Chinese — that
support this transfer of theory, and the impressive financial support this project
receives from Western foundations
 At the level of personal encounters, Shih Shu-mei has demonstrated how self-definitions
and mutual perceptions tend to be simplified in crosscultural encounters and how
scholars tend to align with either universalism or particularism to stabilize troublesome
relations.[6]
 In between or beyond universalism and particularism, we will find more complex,
rather “semi-stable” answers to the challenges posed by Western theory; answers that
take the multitude of perspectives into account, address the interdependencies and the
temporary contradictions between approaches, highlight the temporal dynamics and
the contextual nature of certain stances, or point out the particular social outlook of
their supporters
 This article is structured systematically along basic issues of discussion. This systematic
structure, should not obscure the fact that theory-building in Chinese feminism is a
highly dynamic process, and certain stances are to be seen as answers to particular
theoretical or practical challenges that occurred at a particular point in time
 The scholars discussed there tried to mediate between perspectives and preserve
contradictions. They pointed out the frictions between various definitions of the local —
their contextuality and historicity, their irreducibility to a single definition of a “Chinese
feminism,” and their complex interaction with international feminism
Scholarcy Summary

Nicola Spakowski
I have discussed elsewhere the institutional and material side of the import of Western
theory to China.[3].

Since this essay aims to explore Chinese perspectives, it is impossible to base it on

standardized definitions

This holds true in particular for “gender,” which has come to China in various and often
intermingled meanings as a category of analysis, a theory of the nature of gender
differences, a political approach, or a comprehensive.

“ ‘Gender’ trouble” starts where the very term gender needs to be translated into Chinese,
and one of the most salient indicators for the plurality of ways to respond to “gender” is the
existence of two competing translations of the term shehui xingbie and xingbie

Both strongly reflect the contact of Chinese women’s studies with Western feminism and
the examination of “gender” as a theory and analytical category[10].

Shehui xingbie, to Li, is yet another form of women’s self-denial.[19]

Writing the History of Chinese Feminism in a Global Context

Different notions of gender produce different stories of its career in China and of the origins
and characteristics of Chinese women’s studies in general.

The mid-1990s in her history of Chinese feminism appear as a kind of transitional period
with the benefits of international exchange but at the same time a focus on project-oriented
research

It was not until the late 1990s that “women and gender studies” as — in her view — the
most appropriate approach emerged, which could become the basis for discipline-building
within academia as the true place for women’s studies.

Definitions of the local that have been brought up over the last years can broadly be
assigned to the following three concepts, each of which puts emphasis on different political,
cultural, and social aspects of the “local”: Marxism-Leninism and the socialist tradition of
women’s liberation; a tradition of nonantagonistic gender relations; and the particular
social constituency of feminism in China.

They meet at the intermediate level of the region but still follow quite different scholarly
and political agendas
Mediating between Perspectives and Preserving Contradictions
Differing from the various attempts at stabilizing the identity of a universal Asian or Chinese
feminism, a few authors try to preserve the tensions within Chinese feminism and between
Chinese and Western perspectives.

Commercial discourse, on the other hand, undermines the authority and monopoly of
mainstream discourse while at the same time being part of “liberal capitalist male
culture.”[80] It becomes clear that, in Qu’s view, the three discourses, in their particular
roots and perspectives, might compensate for one another’s deficiencies but remain
irreconcilable

They can neither be merged into a unified “Chinese feminism,” nor can any of them claim to
represent the “true” voice of Chinese women.

Xu herself seems to sympathize with the propositions of min jian discourse on the basis of
the concrete circumstances of Chinese reality

She points out the temporary nature of stances such as Deng’s and its lack of general
validity: Deng Dingjie’s feminist standpoint is an attitude towards women in the transition
phase of Chinese society.

The “local” here is not a “permeable” local, a simple variant of the global, but a concrete
answer to a concrete situation, one that is determined by differences within China, shaped
by Chinese history, highly contradictory in light of various understandings of feminism, and
impossible to assess by an absolute and universal standard of liberation

Conclusion
I have outlined the various responses feminists in China have encountered with the
introduction of “gender” to China — a process many authors have found troublesome
because of its universalist and interventionist overtones and the cutting off of indigenous
creativity, traditions, and resources.

The responses to “gender” included acceptance based on universalist assumptions as well

as rejection on the grounds of a particularist outlook

Those scholars who found that Western concepts and theories did not fit the Chinese
context defined what they thought made women’s experience and women’s liberation in
China a particular case.

Some scholars embraced the concept of “Asia” or “East Asia” — a lbeit again in quite
contradictory definitions — a s a way out of earlier extreme stances of particularism or
universalism

All of these responses mentioned so far can be seen as efforts to restabilize feminist theory
in China in the face of troublesome intercultural encounters.
Contributions
I have outlined the various responses feminists in China have encountered with the
introduction of “gender” to China — a process many authors have found troublesome
because of its universalist and interventionist overtones and the cutting off of indigenous
creativity, traditions, and resources. The responses to “gender” included acceptance based
on universalist assumptions as well as rejection on the grounds of a particularist outlook.
Those scholars who found that Western concepts and theories did not fit the Chinese
context defined what they thought made women’s experience and women’s liberation in
China a particular case. Another twist in the discussion was the move from nation to region.
Some scholars embraced the concept of “Asia” or “East Asia” — a lbeit again in quite
contradictory definitions — a s a way out of earlier extreme stances of particularism or
universalism. All of these responses mentioned so far can be seen as efforts to restabilize
feminist theory in China in the face of troublesome intercultural encounters. These attempts
at stabilization entailed simplifications and thus contrasted with the more complex,
“semistable” approaches, which I presented in the final part of the essay. The scholars
discussed there tried to mediate between perspectives and preserve contradictions. They
pointed out the frictions between various definitions of the local — their contextuality and
historicity, their irreducibility to a single definition of a “Chinese feminism,” and their
complex interaction with international feminism. Altogether, the various responses paint a
picture of a pluralist and complex feminism in China, which does not fit the formula of
“differences within commonality” put forth by international feminism and thus calls for a
particularization of gender.[88]