The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy and Gender 9781472569851, 9781472569844, 9781472569868, 2015040037

Citation preview

THE BLOOMSBURY RESEARCH HANDBOOK OF

CHINESE PHILOSOPHY AND GENDER

Bloomsbury Research Handbooks in Asian Philosophy Series Editors: Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad, Lancaster University. Sor-hoon Tan, National University of Singapore.

Editorial Advisory Board: Roger Ames, University of Hawai’i; Doug Berger, Southern Illinois University; Carine Defoort, KU Leuven; Owen Flanagan, Duke University; Jessica Frazier, University of Kent; Chenyang Li, Nanyang Technological University; Ronnie Littlejohn, Belmont University; Evan Thompson, University of British Columbia. Series description: Bringing together established academics and rising stars, Bloomsbury Research Handbooks in Asian Philosophy survey philosophical topics across all the main schools of Asian thought. Each volume focuses on the history and development of a core subject in a single tradition, asking how the field has changed, highlighting current disputes, anticipating new directions of study, illustrating the Western philosophical significance of a subject and demonstrating why a topic is important for understanding Asian thought. From knowledge, being, gender and ethics, to methodology, language and art, these research handbooks provide up-to-date and authoritative overviews of Asian philosophy in the twenty-first century.

Titles in the series: The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art, edited by Arindam Chakrabarti

Forthcoming titles: The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Chinese Philosophy Methodologies, edited by Sor-hoon Tan The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Philosophy and Gender, edited by Veena Howard The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Epistemology and Metaphysics, edited by Joerg Tuske The Bloomsbury Research Handbook of Indian Ethics, edited by Shyam Ranganathan

THE BLOOMSBURY RESEARCH HANDBOOK OF

CHINESE PHILOSOPHY AND GENDER Edited by Ann A. Pang-White

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury Academic An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 © Ann A. Pang-White and Contributors, 2016 Ann A. Pang-White has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Editor of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4725-6985-1      ePDF: 978-1-4725-6984-4      ePub: 978-1-4725-6986-8 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Pang White, Ann A., editor. Title: The Bloomsbury research handbook of Chinese philosophy and gender / edited by Ann A. Pang White. Description: New York : Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2016. | Series: Bloomsbury research handbooks in Asian philosophy | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015040037| ISBN 9781472569851 (hb : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781472569844 (epdf : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781472569868 (epub : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Philosophy, Chinese. | Sex role. Classification: LCC B125 .B56 2016 | DDC 181/.11081–dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015040037 Series: Bloomsbury Research Handbooks in Asian Philosophy Typeset by Newgen Knowledge Works (P) Ltd., Chennai, India

To my mother, Ai-chu Huang—a Confucian daughter-mother-wife and a Buddhist nun-teacher—and to all the men and women who care to make the world a better place

CONTENTS

Notes on Contributors

ix

Acknowledgment

xv

Introduction: Rereading the Canon Ann A. Pang-White

1

Part I: Confucian Approaches: Ancient and Medieval

23

1 Women and Moral Dilemmas in Early Chinese Narrative Paul R. Goldin

25

2 Discourses on Women from the Classical Period to the Song: An Integrated Approach Tak-Ling Terry Woo

37

3 Neo-Confucians and Zhu Xi on Family and Women: Challenges and Potentials Ann A. Pang-White

69

4 The Dream of Sagehood: A Re-Examination of Queen Sohae’s Naehoon Hye-Kyung Kim

89

Part II: Confucian Approaches: Modern And Contemporary

109

5 Close Personal Relationships and the Situated Self: The Confucian Analects and Feminist Philosophy Karyn Lai

111

6 Care and Justice: Reading Mencius, Kant, and Gilligan Comparatively Chenyang Li

127

7 Moral Reasoning: The Female Way and the Xunzian Way Ellie Hua Wang 8 Multiculturalism and Feminism Revisited: A Hybridized Confucian Care Ethics Li-Hsiang Lisa Rosenlee

141

157

viii

CONTENTS

  9 Would Confucianism Allow Two Men to Share a Peach? Compatibility between Ancient Confucianism and Homosexuality Sin-Yee Chan

173

Part III: Daoist Approaches

203

10 Yinyang Gender Dynamics: Lived Bodies, Rhythmical Changes, and Cultural Performances Robin R. Wang

205

11 On the Dao of Ci 雌 (Feminine/Female) in the Daodejing《道德經》 Lin Ma 12 To Beget and to Forget: On the Transformative Power of the Two Feminine Images of Dao in the Laozi Galia Patt-Shamir

229

249

13 The Yijing, Gender, and the Ethics of Nature Eric S. Nelson and Liu Yang

267

14 Daoism and the LGBT Community Susan Scheibler

289

Part IV: Buddhist Approaches

305

15 Buddhist Nondualism: Deconstructing Gender and Other Delusions of the Discriminating Mind through Awareness Sandra A. Wawrytko

307

16 Non-Self, Agency, and Women: Buddhism’s Modern Transformation Ann A. Pang-White 17 “The Bodhisattva’s Path” as Gender-Neutral Practices: A Case Study of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Community in Taiwan Hwei-Syin Lu

331

357

18 Bhikṣunī Chao-Hwei’s Buddhist-Feminist Social Ethics Hsiao-Lan Hu

377

Index

399

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Paul R. Goldin received his doctorate from Harvard University. He is Professor of Chinese Thought at the University of Pennsylvania and formerly the department chair of the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations. He has authored several books on Chinese cultural and intellectual history, including Rituals of the Way: The Philosophy of Xunzi (Open Court, 1999), The Culture of Sex in Ancient China (University of Hawaii, 2001), After Confucius: Studies in Early Chinese Philosophy (University of Hawaii Press, 2005), and Confucianism (University of California Press, 2011). He has edited the Dao Companion to the Philosophy of Han Fei (Springer, 2012)  as well as the new edition of R. H. van Gulik’s classic study, Sexual Life in Ancient China (Brill, 2003). His current work includes a paper re-examining the mind-body problem in Chinese culture through the lens of debates about post-mortem consciousness, and a study of regional identity before the establishment of the Chinese empire in 221 BC. Hsiao-Lan Hu received her PhD in Religion from Temple University. She is an associate professor of Religious Studies & Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Detroit Mercy. Her monograph This-Worldly Nibbāna: A BuddhistFeminist Social Ethic for Peacemaking in the Global Community (SUNY, 2011)  is an interdisciplinary study of philosophy and sociology of early Buddhism, engaged Buddhism, poststructuralist feminist theory, liberation theology, socioeconomic studies, and peace studies. Her other publications include “Kamma, No-Self, and Social Construction: The Middle Way between Determinism and Indeterminism,” in Liberating Traditions (Columbia University Press, 2014); “Three Teachings in One,” in The World Book of Faith (Lannoo, 2014); “Rectification of the Four Teachings in Chinese Culture,” in Violence against Women in Contemporary World Religion (Pilgrim, 2007); and “Yearning for Justice and Mercy: Visions of Hells in the Nineteenth-Century Chinese Pao-chuan [precious scrolls],” in Considering Evil and Human Wickedness (Inter-Disciplinary, 2004). She is currently co-authoring a volume on Buddhist women and leadership. Hye-Kyung Kim is associate professor of Philosophy and Humanistic Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. She was born and raised in South Korea. After receiving a BA in Literature and an MA in Philosophy from Ewha Womans’ University, the birthplace and the center of contemporary Korean feminism, Professor Kim studied in Greece and America, and received a PhD in Philosophy from Marquette University. Her main areas of teaching and research are Ancient Greek philosophy, ethics, and Asian philosophy, especially Confucianism. Her publications include “Critical Thinking, Learning, and Confucius: A Positive Assessment,” in Journal of

x

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Philosophy of Education (2003), “Teaching Ethics in America,” in Korean Journal of Teaching Philosophy and Moral Education (2006), “Metaphysics H 6 and the Problem of Unity,” in Journal of the History of Philosophy (2007), and “Confucius” and “Mencius,” in The Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy (2014). Karyn Lai is associate professor of Philosophy in the School of Humanities and Languages at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Her primary research area is in early (pre-Qin) Confucian and Daoist philosophies. Her work is often of a comparative nature, drawing insights from Chinese philosophies to address issues in a number of philosophical areas, including moral philosophy, environmental ethics, reasoning and argumentation and, most recently, epistemology. Her monographs include Learning from Chinese Philosophies (Ashgate, 2006) and Introduction to Chinese Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2008). She has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals. She is editor of the Chinese Comparative Philosophy section of Philosophy Compass (Wiley-Blackwell), assistant editor of Sophia: International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysical Theology and Ethics (Springer) and co-editor of the Chinese philosophy section of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Chenyang Li is the founding director of the Philosophy program at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He has previously served as professor and chair of the Philosophy Department at Central Washington University, where he received the University Distinguished Research Professor Award, Outstanding Department Chair Award, and the Key to Success Award (student service). His main research interests are Chinese philosophy and comparative philosophy. His publications include The Confucian Philosophy of Harmony (2013), The Tao Encounters the West: Explorations in Comparative Philosophy (1999), The Sage and the Second Sex (ed. 2000), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective (co-edited with Daniel Bell, 2013), Moral Cultivation and Confucian Character: Engaging Joel J. Kupperman (co-edited with Peimin Ni), and about 100 journal articles and book chapters in such venues as Philosophy East and West, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Asian Philosophy, Review of Metaphysics, Journal of Value Inquiry, Hypatia, International Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophia, and Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy. He was an ACE fellow (2008–2009) and the first president of the Association of Chinese Philosophers in Northern America (1995–1997). He serves on the editorial/academic boards of fourteen publications and organizations. Hwei-Syin Lu earned her PhD in Anthropology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She was a member of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica (Taiwan), for thirteen years, doing research on women’s groups and feminism in Taiwan. In 2000, she joined the faculty of Tzuchi University and founded the Institute of Religion and Culture. Her interests of study evolved to include Buddhist women in Tzuchi, which is the largest Buddhist charity organization in Taiwan (and possibly in the world), and it is directed by a nun and lay women. Her research topics range from gender to religion, ethics, healing, life and death. In 2011, she

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xi

published an important monograph, Transformation of Human Sentiments to Great Love in Buddhist Tzuchi Community. She is currently a professor of the Institute of Religion and Humanity at Tzuchi University (Taiwan). Lin Ma received her PhD from the Higher Institute of Philosophy, The Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). She is associate professor at Renmin University of China. In the fall semester of 2010 and 2011, she was guest professor at the Higher Institute of Philosophy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. She is the author of Heidegger on East-West Dialogue: Anticipating the Event (Routledge, 2008). She has also published research papers in Continental Philosophical Review (forthcoming), Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, and Philosophy East and West. In addition, she has presented papers at academic conferences held in Norway, Austria, Germany, Denmark, the United States, and Canada. Eric S. Nelson is associate professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. He received his doctorate from Emory University. His research areas include hermeneutics, ethics, and the philosophy of nature. He has published over fifty articles and book chapters on Chinese, German, and Jewish philosophy. He is the co-editor with François Raffoul of the Bloomsbury Companion to Heidegger (Bloomsbury, 2013) and Rethinking Facticity (SUNY Press, 2008). He has also co-edited with John Drabinski, Between Levinas and Heidegger (SUNY Press, 2014); with G. D’Anna and H. Johach, Anthropologie und Geschichte. Studien zu Wilhelm Dilthey aus Anlass seines 100. Todestages (Königshausen and Neumann, 2013); and with A. Kapust and K. Still Addressing Levinas (Northwestern University Press, 2005). Ann A. Pang-White is professor of Philosophy at the University of Scranton, Pennsylvania. She is the founding director of the Asian Studies Program, and the former chair of the Philosophy Department. She received her BA from Tunghai University (Taiwan), her MA from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and her PhD in philosophy from Marquette University. In 2010, she was awarded the Provost’s Award for “Excellence in Advancing Global Learning.” She is a referee and manuscript reviewer for several journals and university presses. She has published in Medieval Philosophy and Theology, Revue d’ Etudes Augustiniennes et Patristiques, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, The Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, Philosophy Compass, The Journal of Chinese Religions, The Journal of Early Christian Studies, and The Review of Metaphysics. Her recent publications include “Reconstructing Modern Ethics: Confucian Care Ethics” (2009), “Nature, Interthing Intersubjectivity, and the Environment: A Comparative Analysis of Kant and Daoism” (2009), “Caring in Confucian Philosophy” (2011), “Friendship and Happiness: Why Matter Matters in Augustine’s Confessions?” (2011), and “Zhu Xi on Family and Women: Challenges and Potentials” (2013). Galia Patt-Shamir is professor of Chinese philosophy and Comparative Philosophy and Religion at Tel-Aviv University (Israel), in the departments of East-Asian Studies and Philosophy. She earned her PhD degree in the Study of Religion in 1997, from

xii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Harvard University. She wrote a book on human nature in Chinese philosophies and religions (Hebrew, 2004). Her book To Broaden the Way—a Confucian-Jewish Dialogue (2006) focuses on the themes of ultimate, social life, and individual pursuit, as dealt with in both traditions, through religious texts, philosophical methodologies, and literary sources. She has published articles on Daoism, Confucianism, and NeoConfucianism, and on religious practice and theory, in various journals in Chinese, Hebrew, and English, including Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Philosophy and Literature, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, and Comparative and Continental Philosophy. Li-Hsiang Lisa Rosenlee is professor of Philosophy at the University of Hawaii,West Oahu. She received her PhD in Philosophy from the University of Hawaii at Manoa where she also received a BA in Political Science and an MA in Philosophy. Her recent publications include the book Confucianism and Women: A Philosophical Interpretation (SUNY Press, 2006); the articles “A Feminist Appropriation of Confucianism,” in Confucianism in Context: Classic Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, East Asian and Beyond, ed. Wonsuk Chang and Leah Kalmanson (SUNY Press, 2010); “How Do We Beat the Bitch?,” in Beyond “Burning Bras”: Feminist Activism for Everyone, ed. Laura Finley and Emily Stringer (Praeger Publisher, 2010); “Why Care? A Feminist Re-appropriation of Confucian Xiao,” in Dao Companion to the Analects, ed. Amy Olberding (Springer Press, 2013); “Confucian Care: A Hybrid Feminist Ethics,” in Feminist-Asian Comparative Philosophy: Liberating Traditions, ed. Jennifer McWeeny and Ashby Butnor (Columbia University Press, 2014); She also publishes in refereed journals such as Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, Philosophy East and West, The Philosophical Quarterly, International Studies in Philosophy, Journal of Chinese Philosophy, Journal of Chinese Religions, Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy, China Review International, and Asian Philosophy. Susan Scheibler has graduate degrees in New Testament Studies and Philosophy of Religion and a PhD in Critical Studies (Film and Television) from the University of Southern California. She has published in Theorizing Documentary, Alternative Media Handbook, War: Interdisciplinary Investigations, Signs and assorted journals. Her research and teaching interests include film theory, television studies, documentary, Asian film, science fiction, technologies of war, memory, video games, and Asian philosophy. Scheibler is an associate professor in Film and Media Studies in the School of Film and Television at Loyola Marymount University where she co-teaches, among other things, a course on the Meditative Gaze: Daoism and Film. Scheibler has spoken at such engagements as the War, Virtual War and Human Security Conference where she presented on the topic of “Experiencing War the Video Game Way: Call of Duty 2” and the American Cultural Studies Association where she spoke about avatars, war, and the documentary image. She is currently working on two projects: “Windows, Frames, Screens: Understanding Media” and “The Meditative Gaze: Media and Eastern Philosophy.” Ellie Hua Wang is an assistant professor at the National Cheng-Chi University in Taipei, Taiwan. She received her joint doctorate degree in Philosophy and Cognitive

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xiii

Science from Indiana University Bloomington in 2012. Her main philosophical interest centers on ethics, moral psychology, and the incorporation of the results from studies in empirical psychology into discussions in ethics and moral psychology. She has published in Neuroethics on this topic. Her current research focuses on Xunzi’s moral psychology. Her latest publication, “A Potential Reply to the Situationist Challenge—an Investigation of Xunzi’s Moral Reasoning and Hsi Yi Ching,” is included in a collection of essays titled In Search of Chinese Modernity: Retrospect and Prospect (Cheng-Chi University Press, forthcoming). Robin R. Wang was Daum Professor in the Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts, and is professor of Philosophy and director of Asian and Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University. She received her BA and MA from Beijing University, MA from the University of Notre Dame, and PhD in Philosophy from the University of Wales. She is the author of Yinyang: The Way of Heaven and Earth in Chinese Thought and Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2012), the editor of Chinese Philosophy in an Era of Globalization (SUNY Press, 2004), and Images of Women in Chinese Thought and Culture: Writings from the Pre-Qin Period to the Song Dynasty (Hackett, 2003). She has published many articles and essays and regularly given presentations in North America, Europe, and Asia. She has also been a consultant for the media, law firms, museums, K-12 educators, and health care professionals, and was a credited cultural consultant for the movie Karate Kid (2010). Sandra A. Wawrytko obtained her BA degree from Knox College and her MA and PhD in Philosophy from Washington University in St. Louis. She is professor of Philosophy and director of Asian & Pacific Studies at San Diego State University (SDSU). She specializes in Buddhist and Daoist epistemology and aesthetics. She is the editor/author of eight books. She has published numerous articles in professional journals and has contributed chapters to thirty books. She is an editor and a contributing author to the Dharma & Dao: Chinese Buddhist Philosophy (Springer, 2014). She is also the series editor of Peter Lang’s Asian Thought and Culture series, with more than seventy volumes in print. Currently she is developing an eight-volume series, Buddhism for Philosophers: A Guided Tour of Primary Texts, based on intensive summer classes at Fo Guang Shan’s Tsung Lin University, Taiwan, beginning in 1990. She has taught Philosophy and Asian Studies at SDSU for more than thirty years. Tak-Ling Terry Woo is currently teaching in the Department of Humanities at York University in Toronto. She taught at Hangzhou Normal University in 2011–2012. Her recent project involved compiling and editing essays on Canadian women and their religiosities and the effect that these beliefs and practices have on their identities. Her publications include “Chinese and Korean Religions,” in An Introduction to World Religions, ed. Amore et al., 4th edition (Oxford University Press, 2013); “Chinese Popular Religion in Diaspora: A Case Study of Shrines in Toronto’s Chinatowns,” in Studies in Religion (2010); and “Emotions and Self-Cultivation in Nü Lunyu (Woman’s Analects),” in Journal of Chinese Philosophy (2009). She just finished co-editing the book Canadian Women Shaping Diasporic Religious Identities with

xiv

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Becky R. Lee (2015). She received her doctorate from the Centre for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto in 2000. Her research interests include women in Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Chinese Canadian patterns of religiosity, and Chinese Religion in comparative study. Liu Yang is assistant professor at Northwest University in Xi’an. She studied in China and the United Kingdom, and was a visiting scholar in Chinese Studies at Suffolk and Harvard Universities in 2012. She has published ten articles in Chinese on subjects such as feminism, gender, and Daoist and Religious Studies. Her research interests include gender and narrative in relation to the Yijing, Daoism, and Chinese religion, myth, and folklore.

Acknowledgment

There are so many people to whom I owe deep gratitude. Where should I begin? Perhaps along a historical line is the most fitting way to proceed. I am extremely fortunate to have been brought up in a lower-middle class family in the 1970s Taiwan, in a social and political environment that encouraged the education of women. Both my parents, with a meager income and influenced by Confucian values, lived a very simple life in order to save up funds to support me, my younger brother, and my younger sister to pursue our educational goals as far as our aspirations would take us. Never did either of my parents show any discrimination based on gender in the allocation of educational funds to their children. My mother (from a farming family), a strong woman with an unparalleled work ethic and determination, had a keen intellectual acumen. She and her two younger brothers were raised by their widowed mother. While in her teens, she earned a scholarship to attend the best middle school for girls in the region. Amid her multiple demanding Confucian roles as a mother, a wife, and a daughter, she was also my teacher, mentor, and confidante. Nonetheless, it is also a social reality that not all girls and women have the good fortune that my family had, particularly in a highly hierarchical—at times stratifying—Confucian society. This upbringing provided me an invaluable backdrop for developing my own view on the potential and limitations of Chinese thought and culture. My interest in Chinese philosophy and gender started relatively late in my academic career. Reading academic articles that engaged in comparative studies of Confucianism and feminist discourse first piqued my interest in this area, followed by my first visit to China for an international conference on Chinese philosophy at Wuhan University in 2007 and my attendance at the World Congress of Philosophy at Seoul National University, South Korea, in 2008. I noted how vastly different were individual and cultural interpretations of essential canonical texts. My many conversations with colleagues from both the East and the West about Asian philosophy, cultures, and practices also made me aware of the fact that even in the twenty-first century, gender studies remains an afterthought in Chinese philosophy, often mixed in with problematic interpretation of texts and lacking full awareness of the historical facts. It is under this premise that the idea for the current volume was conceived. The final product is the result of an immense collaborative effort of an interdisciplinary international group of eighteen experts in Chinese studies. Each of them, despite having their own pressing research agenda, generously set aside time to contribute an article to this book with an aim to invite further conversation in this important growing field. I would like to thank Paul R. Goldin, Tak-Ling Terry Woo,­

xvi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Hye-Kyung Kim, Karyn Lai, Chenyang Li, Ellie Hua Wang, Li-Hsiang Lisa Rosenlee, Sin-Yee Chan, Robin R. Wang, Lin Ma, Galia Patt-Shamir, Eric S. Nelson, Liu Yang, Susan Scheibler, Sandra A. Wawrytko, Hwei-Syin Lu, and Hsiao-Lan Hu for their generosity, encouragement, advice, and assistance along the way. Colleen Coalter, acquisition editor of Bloomsbury Academic in philosophy, deserves a big thank you for approaching me with the new series, Bloomsbury Research Handbooks in Asian Philosophy, taking my proposal seriously about doing something less traditional, and more cutting-edge, in Chinese philosophy, and for her incredible efficiency on all fronts. I would also like to thank Andrew Wardell, senior editorial assistant, and all the other staff behind-the-scenes who made the production of this volume a reality. Last but not least, my gratitude goes to my husband, David A. White, a devoted philosopher and an educator, who tirelessly conducted multiple proofreading and edits of my writing, and at times provided invaluable input on other authors’ articles as well. Equally important has been his willingness to release me from many of my wifely and motherly duties by attending to the needs of our 12-year-old son, Winston. A thank you to Winston too, for loving his “tiger mom” and for sharing his view with his friends—that girls can think too and that they are just as smart as boys. May this volume contribute to building a more caring, just, and peaceful world for many generations to come. Ann A. Pang-White The University of Scranton, Pennsylvania, United States

Introduction

Rereading the Canon Ann A. Pang-White

I.  bringing the past into the present Chinese philosophy, broadly construed, in its varied roots and forms has approximately three thousand years of history, and it continues to exert immense influence on the lives of Chinese people as well as on the world community. Nonetheless, if traditions are not simply to remain as antiquated ideas, they must be able to converse with contemporary readers and address their deepest concerns and longings (Pang-White, 2009b, 2009c, 2011). Premised on the undeniable facts that (1) all persons are embodied and cultural beings and that (2) traditions constitute an essential element of individual identity, it would be a mistake to attempt to eradicate traditions altogether, as certain types of liberal feminists have recommended.1 Instead, it would be more meaningful to ask: Can we, and how do we, reread, reimagine, and reconstruct canonical texts so as to find their new significance in the contemporary world? It is generally agreed that Chinese traditions have had a troubled history in dealing with gender relations—well-known examples include concubinage, footbinding, female infanticide, and so on. For various reasons, Chinese traditions and societies have generally been less enthusiastic in confronting, dialoguing about, and resolving problems of gender disparity. Even though gender studies and feminist theories have populated academic discourse in the West since the 1960s, these topics remain relatively marginalized, often as an afterthought, in Chinese philosophical and cultural discourse. Furthermore, as the growing body of research and our deepened knowledge informs and expands our conception of gender, informed persons must ask themselves how Chinese philosophical traditions would and should engage the LGBT community and their concerns. Gender studies is not and should not be perceived simply as a subject in vogue. Rather, for humanity to flourish in this incredibly interdependent network of reality, it is imperative that we have a better understanding of all members of the human community so as to relate to one another in more inclusive, caring, and just ways. Surely, many of our contemporary concerns and vocabularies are anachronistic in the historical settings of classical texts. However, even within the framework of Western traditions, phrases such as “feminism,” “gender,” and “homosexual” were not part of the existing apparatus of vocabulary until the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries (Jenainati and Groves, 2010).2 Moreover, with the advancement of

2

Ann A. Pang-White

reproductive technology, new nursing methods, and the use of machines to do heavy physical labor, among many other factors, we have forever changed our thinking about traditional division of labor along gender lines. Undoubtedly, to engage these concepts within Chinese philosophy adds further layers of complexity for several reasons: (1) Chinese philosophy does not operate with the exclusive dualistic logic of “either-or,” a common hypothesis of Western mainstream philosophy; (2) it encompasses at least three quite divergent traditions (Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism); (3) it has developed over a time span of approximately three thousand years; (4) it operates with a very fluid conception of masculinity and femininity, rooted in the yin-yang concept; and (5) it upholds a less dichotomized hierarchical concept of the self and the other.3 These important differences render the categories employed in the gender discourse in the West inadequate when applied within Chinese contexts. These limitations must be kept in mind when one engages in cross-cultural comparisons and studies. Nonetheless, as a living tradition and as an active participant in the global community, Chinese philosophy has a responsibility to engage in the global discourse of “questioning,” “thinking-through,” and “thinkingwith” the world community on these important subjects.

II.  multiculturalism and liberal feminism: is the rift between them necessary? To begin a conversation on Chinese philosophy and gender, a brief overview of the history of feminist discourse is needed. It is, however, notoriously difficult and risky to give a uniform definition of feminism and the feminist movement due to the immense complexity of the movement and the vast diversity of feminist thought (Delmar, 1994, p. 5; Tuana and Tong, 1995, p. xi). If a base-line definition must be given in order to facilitate conversation, feminism may be described as “a struggle to end sexist [as well as other forms of systematic] oppression” (Jenainati and Groves, 2010, p. 3). Generally speaking, the word “feminism” as well as the word “homosexuality”4 came into English usage around the 1890s (Jenainati and Groves, 2010, p. 171); however, the women’s movement that began in Europe can be dated back to the seventeenth or the eighteenth centuries. The history of the feminist movement is often described in three waves. The “firstwave feminism” (ca. 1800–1960), notably Mary Wollstonecraft, Harriet Taylor Mill, and John Stuart Mill, advocated for women’s equal access to education and the right to vote as well as challenged unjust property rights and marital laws. The “second wave feminism” (1960–1990)—inspired by Simone De Beauvoir’s diagnosis in her The Second Sex that a woman is not born but made and that gender suppression is a result of social construction—fought for women’s rights in much more organized movements across cultural, economic, social, legal, and political spectrums.5 The second-wave feminist movement, however, was later severely criticized for being middle class and ethnically white, excluding the diverse voices of women from other social strata and the non-Western world. The “third-wave feminism” (from the 1990s onward) has seen the blooming of a great variety of feminist

Introduction

3

perspectives, including ecofeminism, Marxist feminism, psychoanalytical feminism, postcolonial feminism, deconstructive feminism, black feminism, multicultural feminism, transnational feminism, and many others.6 According to some accounts, the movement rose partially as a response to the perceived failures and somewhat parochial feminist sensibility of the second-wave feminism (Jenainati and Groves, 2010, pp.  136–38, 163, 166–68). In other words, women are of “many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds,” not in “some sort of Platonic form each and every flesh-and-blood woman somehow fits” (Tong, 2009, pp.  284–85, 289; 1998, p.  212). The third-wave feminists endeavor to widen the perspective of feminist discourse, particularly with the inclusion of women’s voices from multiple social strata and the non-Western communities. Many thirdwave feminists connect women’s issues to issues of race, class, sexuality, ability, and environmental justice. They further deconstruct any rigid binary distinctions that perpetuate forms of prejudice and discrimination, including the dichotomy of sexgender, male-female, derived from previous versions of feminism. The classification of feminism into “waves,” particularly second-wave feminists’ conception of unity and sisterhood—based purely on the Western history of gender oppression and its concomitant presumption that the First World women and their model is the sole source to provide a unified solution to solve women’s issues once and for all—has encountered strong opposition from postcolonial feminists and writers such as Chandra Talpade Mohanty and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Mohanty and Spivak particularly fault the “First World” feminists for holding two mistaken positions: (1) “female essentialism,” the projection of the label “Third World” women—a monotonic universal label that robs the rich diversity of these women’s lived experience and the vibrant regional differences, and (2) “female chauvinism,” which uniformly and unfairly presumes that the “Third World” women are helpless victims, neglecting their struggles and triumphs in their own cultural contexts, while projecting women in the First World as “the voice of reason” who must come to the rescue of their Third World sisters by imposing liberal ideas and values (Tong, 1998, p. 212). Such a mentality has been condemned as simply a new form of “neocolonial imperialism” in a feminist disguise (Rosenlee, 2006, pp. 1–3, 13). The “either-or” logic of exclusion is harmful in our formulation of a worldview that encompasses gender and race. It has been well demonstrated that Western philosophical traditions have been dominated by the patriarchal “either-or” thinking, including even the most beloved figures such as Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel, as well as others (Warren, 1987, p. 6; Pang-White, 2006, pp. 131–33). Aristotle, for example, notoriously proclaimed that women are “mutilated males” (Aristotle, Generation of Animals II, 737a27). Kant wrote that men are sublime (an adjective he used to praise the supreme moral law) and women are only beautiful. These thinkers also tended to hold offensive views regarding other races and ethnicities. Aristotle declares, [A]mong barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them; they are a community of slaves, male and female. That is why the poets say, “It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians. (Politics I, 1242b1; Barnes, 1984, p. 1987)

4

Ann A. Pang-White

Kant writes in his Observation on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, The Indians have a dominating taste of the grotesque, . . . Their religion consists of grotesqueries. Idols of monstrous form, . . . What trifling grotesqueries do the verbose and studied compliments of the Chinese contain! Even their paintings are grotesque and portray strange and unnatural figures . . . [Likewise,] this fellow was quite black .  .  ., a clear proof that what he said was stupid. (Eze, 1997, pp. 55, 57) However, such hierarchical and exclusionary moves are not always a thing of the past. Consider the following argument that takes place between some feminists and what they take to be the regressive nature of multiculturalism. In the past two decades, Susan M. Okin has been one of the most vocal liberal feminists who argue that multiculturalism is harmful to women. In a highly contentious essay, Okin cites extreme cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, polygamy, forced marriage, and many others, to support her quite controversial proposition that the Third World women are better off if their minority cultures actually become extinct. She writes: It is by no means clear, then, from a feminist point of view, that minority group rights are “part of the solution.” They may well exacerbate the problem. In the case of a more patriarchal minority culture in the context of a less patriarchal majority culture, no argument can be made on the basis of self-respect or freedom that the female members of the culture have a clear interest in its preservation. Indeed, they might be much better off if the culture into which they were born were either to become extinct (so that its members would become integrated into the less sexist surrounding culture) or, preferably, to be encouraged to alter itself so as to reinforce the equality of women—at least to the degree to which this value is upheld in the majority culture. (Cohen, Howard, and Nussbaum, 1999, pp. 22–23, emphasis added) Understandably, many people reacted to her arguments. In Okin’s reply to her critics, she denies that she suggested that we should actively eliminate offending cultures. She nonetheless says the following regarding “passive extinction by assimilation”: In most instances people exercising their individual rights will have the greatest impact on whether their culture stays the same, changes, or becomes extinct in a particular context because its members assimilate, more or less slowly, and wholly or partially, into one of the alternative cultures available, which is the kind of “becom[ing] extinct” I had in mind. (Cohen, Howard, and Nussbaum, 1999, pp. 117–18) Okin’s forthright defense of women’s fundamental human rights is to be applauded. Very few people would disagree with her on the importance of gender equity, individual liberty, and human flourishing. Nonetheless, many—I included—feel uncomfortable with her line of reasoning. First, in her rhetoric, a person (in particular, a woman) has to choose either “the enlightened/ majority/liberal culture” or “the unenlightened/patriarchal/minority/ non-liberal cultures.” One wonders

Introduction

5

whether the either/or logic of exclusion and domination is at play here. Margaret A. McLaren, in her discussion of the liberal feminist view on rights and equality for women, analyzes Okin’s statements. She perceptively observes, “if feminism aims to embrace a global vision, it must be culturally and historically sensitive and not impose ethnocentric views from the dominant West” (McLaren, 2008, p. 4). Second, Okin’s neglect of a culture’s elasticity and capability to self-correct—to confront its ghosts from the past—is unjustified. Third, Okin problematically perceives a person’s cultural identity as a casual attire—a person could simply put it on, and take it off, at will. With reference to our case in hand, we must ask: Should one ignore the value of pluralism or multiculturalism when it comes to gender studies and feminist discourse? Is the rift between multiculturalism and liberal feminism necessary? It appears as if classical liberalism’s blindness to cultural and individual difference has bled into feminist discourse. Bhikhu Parekh, a political theorist and a critic of Okin, writes about the arrogant liberal mentality: Many a classical liberal argued that since the liberal view of life was grounded in the fundamental truths of human nature and represented more or less the last word in human wisdom, nonliberal communities at home and abroad should be persuaded and, if necessary, pressured and coerced to assimilate into it. This belief informed J. S. Mill’s attitudes to the native peoples, the Basques, the Bretons, the Scots, and the Francophones in Quebec, and formed the basis of his justification of British colonialism in India and elsewhere . . . And since the fun-loving people of Tahiti lacked moral seriousness and high ideals and were little different from “sheep and cattle,” Kant wondered “why they should exist at all” and what the universe would lose if they disappeared altogether. (Cohen, Howard, and Nussbaum, 1999, p. 69) This liberal fear of difference in its hope to preserve an absolute universal morality of liberal values to the detriment of intercultural respect is harmful to the feminist movement. This is not to say that all this is done consciously with intent to harm or to commit evil. Most mean well. Certainly not every modern liberal holds such a view. Nor am I equating Okin with Aristotle, Kant, or Mill. Rather, what is important here is the danger of cultural blinders. When the First World feminists do not see Third World women as true equals, as competent moral agents with their own voices, who can draw from their rich cultural contexts to set their own priorities in their struggles for a better future for women, it only perpetuates the dangerous “either-or” opposition of “the self versus others” and the accompanying top-down attitude of domination, which the feminist movement has so strongly opposed in its struggle against oppressive patriarchy since the eighteenth century. In this neglect (and perhaps fear) of cultural difference, some liberal feminists in the First World have ironically assumed the oppressor’s role of master and colonist after their overcoming of male domination in their own dominant cultures. But this is in itself a violation of the liberal value of true equality and it suffocates the spirit of democratic discourse in the global arena. Not all women are created the same. Multicultural feminism has made great strides in enlarging the perspective of feminist discourse. This inclusion of as many

6

Ann A. Pang-White

conversational partners as possible ought to be applied globally, moving beyond the confines of industrialized countries as well as any intentional or unintentional attempt of a one-way imposition of the West’s ideas on the rest of the world. It is essential for the future health of the feminist movement to recognize the interconnectedness of human existence, the multilayered identity of a woman through her lived experience (including her cultural identity), and the fact that any sustainable social change must come from within, beginning at the home front—the grass roots. In our case, the grass roots within the Chinese traditions would require re-appropriating influential canonical texts; re-examining historical, social, political, and religious contexts; removing unjustified practices/laws/policies; uncovering hidden exemplary historical women figures; and re-imagining the conceptual and practical possibilities of these resources.

III.  development of gender discourse in chinese culture and thought Given its troubled history, can Chinese philosophy and traditions speak and contribute to cont