Theorising Chinese Masculinity : Society and Gender in China

Rating:
Summary: How do you say "Awesome book!" in Chinese?
Review: Bravo, Professor Louie! This book is an incredible example of men's studies, cultural studies, and Sinology. In this text, the author argues that, unlike the all-inclusive yin-yang, the best way to understand Chinese masculinity is through the concept of wen-wu. Wen are scholars; wu are soldiers. It suggests that Chinese men must be masters of all mediums; have strong heads and bodies. Using canonical texts and later films, he begins by analyzing Confucius as the ultimate wen symbol and Guan Yu as the ultimate wu and moves on to discussing how these concepts are modernly portrayed.

This is not a static or essentialist text. He begins by stating that originally wen-wu could only be possessed by Chinese men and moves to saying that women, Westerners, and other Asians may now have the traits and affect the traits' very definitions. He mentions that upper-class men mostly championed wen and their lower-class counterparts mostly wu. He illustrates how both Confucius and Mao distanced themselves from financial matters; now in times of globalization, businessmen (purposely gendered as such) are considered the new models of wu. He also states that wen-wu together is traditionally privileged but that many Chinese men will drop one or the other depending upon context.

This was not primarily a comparative ethnographic text. However, it is fascinating to see how honored Chinese masculinity differs from its Western counterpart. In China, body and mind matter and mind usually trumps. In the West, we worship the Stallones and condemn the nerds. In the West, the knight always wins a maiden. In China, men who distanced themselves from romance and sex with women are praised for their self-control. If I were more skeptical, I'd be shocked that such a differing world could exist.

The author often compares the distant past with the last 100 years. This was highly informative work. However, I wonder if he missed something by not detailing a more complete history. For example, he basically jumps from Confucius (born many centuries before Christ) to intellectuals in the Communist era. In talking about the West, if I said, "First you had the Crusades and now Bush has captured Saddam," something would be clearly absent. This may be the case with this book.

Louie analyzes few texts and those who know more about China may be dissatisfied with this. He quotes academics from numerous nations. However, most theory he uses is Western while topics for discussion are Chinese. It's questionable whether scholars in China proper are just not writing in the field of men's studies or if Louie just hasn't found their work. Louie does not exalt Confucius or Guan Yu. His deconstruction may feel like undressing icons and borders on blasphemy. Film buffs will especially love the penultimate chapter on Bruce Lee and his progeny. I am surprised that he didn't mention Jet Li (and that cutie Russell Wong) in that section.

Though within the men's studies genre, this book does not omit women. Chapter 6 discusses Chinese women's writers' portrayal of masculinity. Still, as Chinese authors have written for centuries, I'm surprised he didn't mention earlier texts that had female readership if not authors. While Louie mentions violence against women and uses the term "misogyny" throughout the text, many readers may feel that he doesnt' condemn sexist behavior by Chinese men or male characters enough. Nevertheless, he does show Chinese female thinkers as having agency when they lament about supposedly having "no real men" in their country.

I did find a place where he took liberties. He mentions a Bruce Lee film in which a gay Chinese man fondles the martial artist. Louie's response is, "At least Chinese film shows that gays exist." (And I love that this was a gay-inclusive, non-heterosexist text.) However, Chinese-American scholar Jachison Chan pointed to this same film clip stating that Lee's work should be criticized for its homophobia. My guess is that Sinologists would be able to find other holes in Louie's assessments.

Still, I loved this work. I think men throughout the Chinese diaspora should find this work. Non-Chinese men should also give it a read.

Rating:
Summary: How do you say "Awesome book!" in Chinese?
Review: Bravo, Professor Louie! This book is an incredible example of men's studies, cultural studies, and Sinology. In this text, the author argues that, unlike the all-inclusive yin-yang, the best way to understand Chinese masculinity is through the concept of wen-wu. Wen are scholars; wu are soldiers. It suggests that Chinese men must be masters of all mediums; have strong heads and bodies. Using canonical texts and later films, he begins by analyzing Confucius as the ultimate wen symbol and Guan Yu as the ultimate wu and moves on to discussing how these concepts are modernly portrayed.

This is not a static or essentialist text. He begins by stating that originally wen-wu could only be possessed by Chinese men and moves to saying that women, Westerners, and other Asians may now have the traits and affect the traits' very definitions. He mentions that upper-class men mostly championed wen and their lower-class counterparts mostly wu. He illustrates how both Confucius and Mao distanced themselves from financial matters; now in times of globalization, businessmen (purposely gendered as such) are considered the new models of wu. He also states that wen-wu together is traditionally privileged but that many Chinese men will drop one or the other depending upon context.

This was not primarily a comparative ethnographic text. However, it is fascinating to see how honored Chinese masculinity differs from its Western counterpart. In China, body and mind matter and mind usually trumps. In the West, we worship the Stallones and condemn the nerds. In the West, the knight always wins a maiden. In China, men who distanced themselves from romance and sex with women are praised for their self-control. If I were more skeptical, I'd be shocked that such a differing world could exist.

The author often compares the distant past with the last 100 years. This was highly informative work. However, I wonder if he missed something by not detailing a more complete history. For example, he basically jumps from Confucius (born many centuries before Christ) to intellectuals in the Communist era. In talking about the West, if I said, "First you had the Crusades and now Bush has captured Saddam," something would be clearly absent. This may be the case with this book.

Louie analyzes few texts and those who know more about China may be dissatisfied with this. He quotes academics from numerous nations. However, most theory he uses is Western while topics for discussion are Chinese. It's questionable whether scholars in China proper are just not writing in the field of men's studies or if Louie just hasn't found their work. Louie does not exalt Confucius or Guan Yu. His deconstruction may feel like undressing icons and borders on blasphemy. Film buffs will especially love the penultimate chapter on Bruce Lee and his progeny. I am surprised that he didn't mention Jet Li (and that cutie Russell Wong) in that section.

Though within the men's studies genre, this book does not omit women. Chapter 6 discusses Chinese women's writers' portrayal of masculinity. Still, as Chinese authors have written for centuries, I'm surprised he didn't mention earlier texts that had female readership if not authors. While Louie mentions violence against women and uses the term "misogyny" throughout the text, many readers may feel that he doesnt' condemn sexist behavior by Chinese men or male characters enough. Nevertheless, he does show Chinese female thinkers as having agency when they lament about supposedly having "no real men" in their country.

I did find a place where he took liberties. He mentions a Bruce Lee film in which a gay Chinese man fondles the martial artist. Louie's response is, "At least Chinese film shows that gays exist." (And I love that this was a gay-inclusive, non-heterosexist text.) However, Chinese-American scholar Jachison Chan pointed to this same film clip stating that Lee's work should be criticized for its homophobia. My guess is that Sinologists would be able to find other holes in Louie's assessments.

Still, I loved this work. I think men throughout the Chinese diaspora should find this work. Non-Chinese men should also give it a read.