Marriage, Gender and Sex in a Contemporary Chinese Village

Sun-Pong Yuen, Pui-Lam Law, Yuk-Ying Ho, Fong-Ying Yu

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317465072
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ethnic Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This book explores changing concepts of marriage and gender relationships and attitudes toward sex in a rural Chinese community over the past five decades. The book is based on a study of an industrialized peasant village in Guangdong Province from 1994 to 1996 and subsequent visits from 2000 to 2002. According to the authors, the rural economic reforms of the 1980s in southern China have challenged and reinforced the deep structure of Chinese familism and this has lead to tensions between tradition and modernity. The first section of the book explores how attitudes toward marriage and courtship have changed over the past fifty years through personal accounts of three different marriages from different generations. In Part II, the transition from a traditional to a modern society is discussed from the perspective of several women from different generations. The third section focuses on sexual relationships and the growing sex trade in the village. Part IV includes updates to the original survey and takes a look at village politics.

1

Theoretical Framework

Familism, Women’s Liberation, and Autonomy

The aim of this book is to investigate the changes in views about marriage, relationship between the sexes, and attitudes toward sex in the rural villages in southern China. The research mainly adopted the method of participant observation to conduct an empirical study of a village in the Pearl River Delta. The data will be presented in the form of narrative stories. We hope that by way of thick description, we can present those facets of changes that have occurred in Mainland China in the last half-century, in particular the last twenty years or so. Through this discussion, we hope to reveal some of the progress and the setbacks that China encounters in the march toward modernization.

The book is divided into three parts. Part I consists of the stories of three marriages at three different points in time and investigates the problems of finding a spouse, conducting a courtship, and maintaining a marriage through the eyes of various men. The three weddings took place, respectively, before 1949, in the late 1970s, and at the beginning of the 1990s. The cases represent changes in views about marriage and related matters in the villages in southern China, through a process of transition from tradition to modernity.

Part II investigates how women of different generations perceive self-actualization during the transition period from tradition to modernity. The protagonist of the story in this part is a young woman who grew up in a village during the time of the reform and opening-up policy after 1979. An old woman and a middle-aged woman will also figure as contrasts to the protagonist in her quest for self-understanding.

The theme of Part III is the relationship between the sexes. The foci are the sexual relationship between men and women and the sex trade in the village. This part delineates the economic prosperity in the Pearl River Delta brought about by foreign investments and the consequent “abnormal” sexual relationships and sex trade.

At a more general level, this book deals with changes in ideas about marriage and relationships between the sexes in the context of “modernization.” We have employed some indigenous Chinese concepts and some Western concepts in our interpretive and analytical framework. First, we take up the concept of Chinese familism, with particular reference to its characteristics such as the male-dominated “patriarchal culture,” the male-female relationship expressed by the dictum “men superior, women inferior,” and the value of “ultimate concern.” Second, we make use of some of the ideas critical of the relationship between the sexes espoused by the women’s liberation movement in the West, a movement that was initiated in the twenties and reappeared as a second wave in the sixties. Last, we employ a group of theories that relate the development of individual autonomy and consciousness of selfhood to modernization driven by commodities or market economy. Furthermore, we take a critical stance in understanding how market-driven autonomy weakens the value of “ultimate concern” and examine how this may generate the dissolution of traditional social order in contemporary China. In using the above theories as a framework to interpret our data, we are careful not to impose Western theories on Chinese situations. We attempt to combine the application of Western theories with the context of Chinese traditional culture and historical development in our research.

Two reasons motivated us to use the above-mentioned Western theories as our interpretive and analytical framework. In the first place, this research is concerned with changes in views about marriage and the relationship between the sexes within the context of modernization. Western social sciences have had a rather rich tradition of theorizing about the transition from tradition to modernity. Any study that explores the relationship between tradition and modernity must perforce refer to Western social science theories. Second, although we realize that the development of Western social science theories took place within the corresponding context of the histories and realities of the West, and it is not possible to apply them to Chinese situations in their entirety, nevertheless the historical phenomena and social contexts that the Western social theories attempt to explain serve some useful purposes in relation to the direction of Chinese modernization and the present-day Chinese social system. They allow us to see more acutely, to contrast, and to some extent to evaluate the “legitimacy” of the latter. In this sense, the deployment of Western theories as an analytical tool also serves a “critical” function. Overall, then, we attempt to combine Chinese theories with relevant Western theories and to adopt both empathetic and critical perspectives so as to explore some of the developments and setbacks that China experienced along the road to modernization.

One point needs to be noted before we launch into an exposition of our theoretical framework. The main period under study is post-1979 China. Scholars of contemporary China will agree that this is a time when the old gives way to the new, a time of cataclysmic changes, a time when both traditional culture and modern values come to bear on a person’s behavior. In short, it is a time when paradoxes and conflicts at both the individual and social levels abound. Three integrated sets of theories from the Western and Chinese academic traditions will be used for analysis at different conceptual levels and angles. Sometimes the same person’s behaviors and events may be described and analyzed using different or even opposing theoretical concepts. This may create an impression of inconsistency; however, it is difficult to avoid such an impression. It aptly reflects, we think, the confusion experienced by China at a crossroads.

Familism

No one will deny that familism or familial culture lies at the core of traditional Chinese society. On the other hand, the changes in the social, political, and economic aspects of China in the past hundred years have been tremendous, and manifest themselves in changes in the Chinese way of life. China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, whose populations are predominantly Chinese, show markedly diverse patterns in their political, social, and cultural facets. The changes have been most noticeable in Mainland China, where there has been a deliberate attempt to eradicate traditional values and ways by means of sundry political movements and economic reforms. As for Hong Kong and Taiwan, although exempt from the baptism of violent political changes, lifestyles there have nonetheless undergone considerable change, affected in many ways by Western values. One might ask the following: Is the impact of familial culture as strong as in the past? Is familism still a good starting point for the study of the situation of contemporary Chinese?

In the past twenty to thirty years, familism remained as the main research anchor in most studies of the Chinese way of life. It is undeniable that the style of living of the modern Chinese departs from that of the traditional, but familism and its value system still affect greatly the behavior of Chinese everywhere.¹ Our study centers on the Chinese village after the reforms and opening-up policy of China starting in 1979. In fact, the post-1979 period is generally regarded as one of reawakening for familism in China. With the implicit approval of the central government, pre-1949 lineage activities revived. Ironically, under the impact of the market economy, the rise of individual autonomy counters the values of traditional familism in many ways. For this reason, some studies have pointed out that it is precisely during this period that the effect of familism on the individual weakened day by day.

This appears to be a contradiction. But if we observe carefully, we will see that far from being eradicated, familism has continued to influence people’s behavior in the past decades. Only the related rituals and activities were suppressed. When the activities and rituals were revived, they could have exerted a stronger influence on people’s behavior. However, as we said earlier, some of the values of the market economy were to a large extent at odds with those of familism; thus the influence of familism has been correspondingly weakened, especially in the southern provinces. This is an illustration of the tension between tradition and modernity.

We can approach an understanding of familism at two levels: at the more concrete or human relationship level and at the more abstract or general level. The more concrete level denotes some criteria of behavioral standards. We can use the “five human relationships”—between sovereign and subject, father and son, husband and wife, among brothers, and among friends—as the focus of analysis. These five relationships form the basis of proper behavior for social and individual behavior. Of course, in the modern world, the field of sovereign and subject no longer applies, or needs to be invested with new meaning. What is significant here, though, is the kind of “patriarchal culture” and its related human relationships. We will make use of Francis Hsu’s concept of the “father-son dyad” and Fei Hsiaotung’s concept of “differential mode of association” as explanatory tools.² Familism or lineage culture puts the “father-son dyad” at the center of all other relationships, and extends the blood relationship of paternity outward to other relationships and so constitutes an extension of familism. Within the structure of a lineage, familism—the value system that prescribes behavioral standards—requires that members of the lineage act in accordance with the ultimate goal of continuing and expanding the lineage. On the level of decision making, what guides decisions under familism revolves around the axis of the father-son relationship. The latter highlights one of the important characteristics of familism: patriarchal culture, and out of that the male-female relationship of men dominant, women subservient.

From the point of view of the structure of a family or a lineage, familism entails two interrelated human relationships. One is the father-son relationship with its strict differentiated order according to seniority; the other is the relationship obtaining between the sexes, which holds that men are superior and women inferior. Viewed from these two angles, although men, who are already in a leading position, should respect women who are more senior than they are; in actual fact, when it comes to decision making and authority, men’s status is higher than that of women of a senior generation. Starting from the “father-son dyad,” and extending outward according to the “differential mode of association,” the Chinese human relationship network is formed.

The second, more abstract level of approaching familism is to look for some general characteristics or attributes exhibited by the specific behavioral standards espoused by familism. These attributes can be taken to be the deep structure of Chinese culture. We can liken them to the attributes of Francis Hsu’s “father-son dyad”: continuity, inclusiveness, authority, and asexuality.³ According to Hsu, a relationship network revolving around the axis of the father-son relationship will naturally emphasize the quality of continuity. The father-son blood relationship is one that is stable and will not be changed by internal or external factors. If all other relationships, such as husband and wife, and friendship, are also subsumed under the quality of continuity, then the mark of inclusiveness in Chinese human relationships is apparent. Fei’s construct of “differential mode of association” neatly explains the practice of defining relationships from the closest to the most distant with kinship terms that are applicable to relatives and brothers. This is a mark of inclusiveness. Although relationships are seen as closer or more distant, because they center on the father-son relationship, they exhibit to varying extents the attribute of authority whereby the seniors are superior and the juniors inferior. The same holds true for the bond between husband and wife or the relationship beiween men and women; the father-son dyad invests in them the attribute of asexuality, thus ignoring the intrinsic differences in gender between men and women.⁴ At the macro level, the above analysis serves to reveal the deep structure of Chinese culture. At the micro level, it reveals the character or self-concept of the Chinese.

We could combine Francis Hsu’s concept of “father-son dyad” and Fei’s “differential mode of association” to better examine the behavior of the Chinese. There are two strata of human relationships in this integrated view. One is to start from the “father-son dyad,” that is, to start from the family to the lineage, and go thence to friends and acquaintances, thus constituting a network of relationships in which the polar relationships of close versus distant and superior versus inferior are observed. In other words, every person’s role as well as status is assessed from the point of view of the family, in terms of the ranking the person achieves in seniority and in gender. In the relationship between the sexes, the rule of “men superior, women inferior” applies. At the second stratum, the defined relationships become the basis for the distribution of resources and benefits, especially in regard to wealth and jobs.

Equipped with the above analysis, we can compare the differences between the Chinese conception about human relationships and that of Westerners; the contrast will sharpen our understanding of the Chinese character. One main difference in the conception of human relationships between the Chinese and the Westerners is that the former emphasize the continuity of a relationship whereas the latter emphasize its function. From the Chinese point of view, the bond between father and son passes from generation to generation: it is everlasting. In assessing, interpreting, and understanding other relationships in terms of this pivotal bond, what is important is continuity. In contrast, for Westerners, the relationships of husband and wife, father and son beyond adulthood, and among family members become weakened, with respect to duties and responsibilities, past a certain stage in life. Westerners, especially citizens of the United States, throughout their lives, associate themselves with a number of societies and organizations. On the whole, such societies are functional and are joined to meet the various needs arising at the different stages of life.⁵

Close scrutiny will show that the value system underlying a continuity-based relationship is inclined toward conforming to group values and using the degree of closeness of relationship in the “differential mode of association” as the bases for value judgment and distribution of benefits. In contrast, the value system emphasizing functional orientation in relationships makes self-interest the compass for one’s behavior and the principle of fairness the criterion for the distribution of resources. The two value systems will naturally give rise to two modes of behavior and different criteria for value judgment and orientation. This in turn gives rise to two different concepts of the self. To simplify, because the mode of behavior and value orientation of the Chinese are based on the well-being of the collectivity of the lineage, their self-concept is hardly distinguishable from the concept of the “larger self,” that is, the larger groups formed by relatives and lineage members. Personal likes and dislikes are limited by the concept of the larger self. This is very different from the attitude of Westerners, who see self-interest as the guiding principle. True, their self-concept is also influenced by the societal larger self, but in deciding on the priority of actions and benefits, the individual self will take precedence over the larger self.

Applying the above analysis to the topic of marriage and associated matters, we can clearly see that the patriarchal culture and the “men decide, women follow” relationship between the sexes, which is characteristic of familism, regulate the behavior of the Chinese in their courtship and marriage customs. In traditional China, marriage was not based on affection, but rather on the interest of lineage. Viewing the traditional Chinese concept of marriage through the lens of modern-day values, we can see that in such matters, individuals are powerless to make their own decisions. We can even say that the behavioral standards and criteria according to which a traditional Chinese behaves are not contingent upon individual “likes and dislikes.” The individual’s desires are all subjugated to the “larger self’ of the family and the lineage.⁶ If one compares the lives of men and women, taking the father-son dyad as the principle into which to subsume all other human relationships, then it is clear that women face many more constraints than men in matters of marriage and daily life and behavior.

To deal with the people and the issues of our research, we employ the concept of father-son dyad and its extension, the relational network of “differential mode of association,” as our analytical framework. The relationship between the sexes characterized by “men decide, women follow” and “men superior, women inferior” is the focus of our analysis. We also pay attention to the tension between familism and the development of individual autonomy. We further examine the idea of “ultimate concern” generated by Chinese familism. In brief, “ultimate concern” here refers to a value of familial concern transcending the individual and extending to kinsmen and friends, and emanating from which a social network based on family and lineage ties is woven. Based upon this understanding, the relationship between “ultimate concern” and the dissolution of social order will then be explored as well. These issues will be discussed in greater detail in sections two and three of this chapter and in chapter 13.

“Men decide, women follow” was the model for the relationship between the two sexes in traditional Chinese society. The relationship between the two sexes and the idea about marriage before 1949 belonged, of course, to the traditional model. After the Communist Party took over the ruling of China...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Preface to the Expanded English Edition
• Preface to the Chinese Edition
• 1. Theoretical Framework: Familism, Women's Liberation, and Autonomy
• 2. Baixiu Village: Past and Present
• I. Finding a Partner, Love, and Marriage
• II. Tradition, Women, and the Interpretation of the Self
• III. Sex and the Sex Trade Under the Reform and Opening-Up Policy
• IV. Epilogue: Baixiu Village at the Turn of the Century
• Notes
• Index