文：Yosuna (Scroll down for English version)
"Feminism" 一字在19世紀的大部分時間指的都是「女性的特質(Quality of Females)」，原本指某些具備某些女性特徵的事物，然而，作為表意文字的漢字從來與拉丁語系的邏輯文字不同，不能以邏輯結構推論以觀之。在華語世界而言，Feminism一字的使用與「她」字的誕生有著相似之處，正如黃興濤 (2015) 於其《「她」字的文化史》中所談及到的：「『她』字在漢語中的合法化，本質上並不是因為它來源於霸道的西方，不是因為西方語言中有，漢語中也就必須有，而是因為它在根本上與漢語在新時代被激發出的現代性訴求需要發生了關聯，從而被漢語所接納。在這裡『她』字的西方性和現代性只是偶然發生了重合而已。」"Feminism" 一字在現代中國的發展，我們可以從其所引發的運動和思潮中得以一窺：從一開始的民國時期強調參政權的「女權主義」到學術使用居多的「女性主義」，以及毛時期的「婦女解放運動」，不同的時代中蘊含著不一樣的現代性訴求，導致了Feminism 一詞本身就不能單靠鑲嵌於西方社會背景的性別理論(Gender theories)進行了解。現代中國繼承的是儒家與共產主義的混合傳統，按其脈絡探討中國的性別社會可謂複雜至極，而在近代東亞漢字文化圈中，對於性別關係的研究又缺乏統一(Universal)理論基礎，即使是以「馬克思主義學者」創立著稱的理論也不例外。本文將失試圖批判地檢視馬克思女性主義的理論，繼而反思「現代性」問題，最後思考東亞女性主義在其中的定位。
馬克思主義女性主義與現代性問題
馬克思女性主義理論發展基於恩格斯（1972）的《家庭、私有制和國家的起源》一書中的論點而發展而成的，然而問題也出現在這裡：這些馬克思女性主義者似乎都忽略了馬克思的研究方法——歷史唯物主義的本質。要對這一唯物主義的研究方法進行精確的解讀，我們須先回顧馬克思的原文：
「德國哲學從天國降到人間；和它完全相反，這裡我們是從人間升到天國。這就是說，我們不是從人們所說的、所設想的、所想像的東西出發，也不是從口頭說的、思考出來的、設想出來的、想像出來的人出發，去理解有血有肉的人。我們的出發點是從事實際活動的人，而且從他們的現實生活過程中還可以描繪出這一生活過程在意識形態上的反射和反響的發展。甚至人們頭腦中的模糊幻象也是他們的可以通過經驗來確認的、與物質前提相聯繫的物質生活過程的必然昇華物。因此，道德、宗教、形而上學和其他意識形態，以及與它們相適應的意識形式便不再保留獨立性的外觀了。它們沒有歷史，沒有發展，而發展著自己的物質生產和物質交往的人們，在改變自己的這個現實的同時也改變著自己的思維和思維的產物。不是意識決定生活，而是生活決定意識。前一種考察方法從意識出發，把意識看作是有生命的個人。後一種符合現實生活的考察方法則從現實的、有生命的個人本身出發，把意識僅僅看作是他們的意識。」
《德意志意識形態》卡爾. 馬克思（1970）
正如上述文字所言，歷史唯物主義研究方法的重點在於：「出發點是從事實際活動的人」，繼而發現「反射」與「反響」，以及其與「物質前提相聯繫」，而在這一過程中人「改變自己的這個現實的同時也改變著自己的思維和思維的產物」於是乎我們可以發現這一研究方法的重點實際上是「物質前提相聯繫(Material Intercourse)」，也就是說，馬克思研究的重點其實是事物與事物之間的「辯證關係」。在資本論裡，這一「社會關係(social relation)」被稱為「資本(capital)」，在辯證法裡，這一社會關係則被稱為「辯證發展的整體關係(Dialectical relationship of totality)」。掌握了馬克思方法論的重點在於「辯證關係」，那麼我們便可以回顧各馬克思女性主義的說法了，按照上野千鶴子（1977）的說法：
「女權主義者們與馬克思主義的分歧，主要在性別和生育問題上，也就是由於馬克思將家庭看作是『自然的過程』而導致其理論分析沒能包含『家庭』這一領域。」「馬克思主義女權主義並不認同階級統治一元論以及性統治一元論，而是暫且認同了資本主義和父權制這兩個社會領域的並存，並去思考兩者之間的『辯證法關係』(dialectic relation) 2 [ Sokoloff, 1980 ]。所謂『辯證法』就是矛盾和調節的辯證方法。資本主義和父權制既是互相對立的，又是互相補充的。」
上野千鶴子又以圖表來描述她所稱之為父權體制的資本主義之模式，這種分類方式，把馬克思唯物論證的方式硬生生分開了成兩種個體。這種分類方式明顯受到了法國共產黨的學者——阿爾圖塞的結構主義馬克思主義影響，然而這種結構主義馬克思主義卻是有著官僚化傾向的共產國際體系中妥協的產物，這直接導致了阿爾圖塞以國家為中介，把世界分成了「兩個世界」，一個是意識形態的世界，另外一個則是物質生產的世界。事實上這卻正正是作為「壓迫者解放武器」的馬克思主義向「社會科學式的現代性範式」轉移的重要一步，華勒斯坦（2001）曾經在其《否思社會科學(Unthinking Social Science)》中一書提及：
「自從法國大革命的範式持續至今，人們把這種變化的正常性稱為『現代性』…資產階級發現，他們唯有承認『變化』是正常的，他們才有機會控制他，使之減緩。」
阿爾圖塞式的結構主義馬克思主義，正正是一種這樣減緩變化的理論：他把馬克思主義制序化，成為了一種獨立的「現代性科學」，這就是斯科特 (2007) 所批評的：「馬克思主義女性主義學者有較歷史性的方法，因為他們有一個歷史理論的指引… 但對性別一定要有一個『唯物』角度解釋的自我要求，限制了，至少減緩了新的分析方法發展。」的原因。
制度分工與辯證概念
事實上，馬克思恩格斯從未反對過事物互相對立和補充的說法，對他們而言重點在於動態的發展與其關係，正如恩格斯（1960）在《自然辯證法》寫道：
歷史與自然史長期處於流動、變化、發展的過程中之中，而馬克思式與黑格爾式的辯證法最大不同便是在於：「黑格爾把思想的影子當作終極的現實來用，而馬克思證明了這些思想的影子的運動只不過是反映了物質實體的運動」（Trotsky, 1973）。這意味著，唯物而辯證的女性主義並非打算把女性主義當成終極的思想來使用，而是把事物回歸到實體世界的情況。在這裡值得留意的是：資本社會，在馬克思的角度而言，是一種社會整體，過往所有人類的社會模式都按歷史的發展進程摻雜其中，當中當然也包括延續了數千年的父權社會。因此，任何試圖把父權制分成一個獨立系統的方法都是背離了唯物主義方法論的，因為辯證法的重點在於實際的人與物質世界所發生的「聯繫」，而非與作為意識形態產物的「制度」的關係，而以「主義」命名制度分工方式則會導致以下的問題：
「知識專門化所帶來的問題不是專家不能接受其他領域的知識，而是從整體上強制地把其他領域的知識成為過時的概念。」(Wallerstein, 2001)
這種知識專門化過程在近代東亞社會被稱為「現代性」。在日本的明治維新後出現的「脫亞入歐」；在中國新青年運動後興起的，並於文化大革命達到巔峰的「反孔反儒運動」，都是這一現代性造成的具體表現，它們最後都導致了毀滅性的災難。我們在這裡引用日本無政府主義女性革命家伊藤野枝在近百年前寫下的警語：
「此種分業的結果、是奪去人類對於業務之愛、才能、發明之精神、專造成無能氣力之魯鈍人物，這樣的原則若是永久不變，會是何等的兇惡原道呢！這分明是對於社會有害、對於個人也沒有比這樣殘酷的事情、是引導人類的生活墮落、徒使其窒息而已！」
《經濟學底革命》伊藤野枝(1928)
日本在明治維新之後，社會步入了高速發展期，在這段時間西方性和現代性以高度重疊方式進入了日本社會，社會矛盾激烈、分工急速發展導致了伊藤這些大正浪漫時期的人感覺到不安，繼而反對日本初興資本主義的現代性，成為了無政府主義者。在這裡我們應重新回顧一下前文華勒斯坦提出的「變化的正常性」：這實際上是一種半醒的狀態，統治階級察覺到世界是不得不變換的，開始半推半就地承認，及嘗試體制化此種變化的正常性來減緩、限制其帶來的衝激，正如佩里.安德森 (1984) 所認為：現代性及其現代主義運動應該被理解為一種 「三角」關係的運動。互動的三點因素包括：
- 這一概念在「國家」和「社會」仍然佔主導概念的地區被制度化，而這些地區往往充斥著貴族或地主階級，這些階級的位置逐漸地在某種意義上被社會的經濟特徵而 「取代」。
- 第二次工業革命的關鍵技術或發明：電話、無線電、汽車、飛機等等。這些新技術為大規模消費的工業社會提供了豐富的土壤，而這些技術在世界其他地方還沒有實施（為其他地區的人提供了「未來的自己」影像）。
- 社會革命的想像。這種革命的想像所引起的希望或憂慮各地不一：但在歐洲的大部分地區，在美好時代（Belle Epoque）中，它是 「在大氣中存在的」。
在歐洲，現代性本身通常與古老的政權聯繫在一起，如俄羅斯的帝國統治、義大利的王家秩序。對於舊大陸的國家而言，既然有一個可以追溯的「輝煌的過去」，那麼這一社會就不可能擺脫過去的影響，因為這是統治階級所共有的「集體回憶」。在東亞，日本和中國的封建王朝在20世紀末在這一現代趨勢首當其衝，東亞現代性建構的核心在於「漢字文化圈」作為輝煌文化遺產屢次被挪用、重新塑造；先是由日本提出的「東亞共同體」被國家主義所納用，接下來是中華帝國與社會主義融合而產生的中國式「第三國家」陣營論。種種現象都證明了「現代性」一詞長期被借用、反复挪用，其意義在於：接受從而限制歷史的變化。這個概念背後有一種隱藏的前設：在現代性出現之前，統治階級是可以不變化的，生產關係並不會因此有顛覆性的變化，然而資本主義，正如馬克思(1967)所宣揚的一般：
「除非對生產工具，從而對生產關係，從而對全部社會關係不斷地進行革命，否則就不能生存下去。反之，原封不動地保持舊的生產方式，卻是過去的一切工業階級生存的首要條件。生產的不斷變革，一切社會狀況不停的動盪，永遠的不安定和變動，這就是資產階級時代不同於過去一切時代的地方。一切固定的僵化的關係以及與之相適應的素被尊崇的觀念和見解都被消除了，一切新形成的關係等不到固定下來就陳舊了。一切等級的和固定的東西都煙消雲散了，一切神聖的東西都被褻瀆了。人們終於不得不用冷靜的眼光來看他們的生活地位、他們的相互關係。」
由此可見，現代性被提出的原因在於：「資產階級的關係已經太狹窄了，再容納不了它本身所造成的財富了。資產階級用什麼辦法來克服這種危機呢？一方面不得不消滅大量生產力，另一方面奪取新的市場，更加徹底地利用舊的市場。這究竟是怎樣的一種辦法呢？這不過是資產階級準備更全面更猛烈的危機的辦法，不過是使防止危機的手段越來越少的辦法。」(Marx, 1967)
真正屬於東亞的社會未來
正如我們在文章開頭所提及的，在近代中國「現代化」的過程中出現的「現代性」擔任了無可比擬的角色，就單單「她」字而言就已經是漢語在「新時代被激發出的現代性訴求需要發生了關聯」的表現了；透過重新創造「她」一字，兩性關係的變化得以部分地承認。然而，在當代「現代性」的困境就出現了；酷兒理論的誕生導致性別不再是以男、女作二元劃分，作為日常代名詞的「她」字已無法回應多元性別的後現代狀態——正如馬克思所言，「她」等不到固定下來就陳舊了。女性主義也是如此，不論是「她」還是「女性主義」都跟不上時代的發展，這導致了在華語的語境下，無論是在2019年的香港社會運動，還是中國的「徐州八孩母親事件」裡，女性主義的理論都無法給予一個影響大眾和歷史的解釋。當代的女性主義急需革新，而革新的面向應當撇棄現代性，因為現代性將文化「縱向」劃分等級，使人自發地把某種文化視為「追隨的對象」( Anderson, 1984)。革新則意味著人類的文化得以「橫向」發展：人只能在認真檢視其自身的前提下，才能繼承和發展自身所獨有的性別文化，正如葛蘭西 (2020) 所說：
「創造一種新文化，不僅僅意味著個人的『原創性』發現。它同時——這一點尤為重要——意味著以一種批判的方式去傳播已經發現的真理，可以說是這些真理的『社會化』。甚至使它們成為重大活動的基礎，成為一個共同使命、智力與道德秩序的要素。因為引導大眾進行融貫一致的思想，並以同樣融貫一致的方式去思考真實的當今世界，這遠比作為某一位哲學天才的個人發現還是知識分子集團的財富的真理更重要，也具備『原創性』得多。」
在這個意義上，東亞的女性主義還未曾起步，然而在歐洲，女性主義已開始逐漸回歸到女性本身了，這種方向可以從女性主義神學的著作中得以一窺：「對於女性主義神學來說，女性正在變化著的自我理解是根本。」(Wendel, 1986)。然而從這個角度而言，中國的古文字——甲骨文卻代表了中國女性自我理解的歷史。與西方的「認識你自己」(Know thyself) 不同，透過認識「你(汝)
總結
創造性的文化拒絕現代性，在人的文化得到統合在這樣的一個世界裡，我們將化身為本雅明（2020）筆下的「歷史學家」：
「把握一個歷史的星座。這個星座是他自己的時代與一個確定的過去時代一道形成的。這樣，他就建立了一個『當下』的現在概念。這個概念貫穿於整個救世主時代的種種微小事物之中。」
然而，當下的社會仍是由主從關係構成的，但自由並不單單意味著推翻主從關係獲得自由——自由的真相在於愛。開放、堅實的互愛社區具備無限的潛能(Wendel, 1986)。然而女性主義並不止於此：我們的終極目標是名為可能性的未來。過去、未來皆聚與當下，我們當以卜辭中的文字以作結：「王伐 𢀛方，我受又（祐）（胡，1999）」，得到下上百神的庇祐，那我們有甚麼可畏懼？
For most of the 19th century, the word "Feminism" referred to the "qualities of females", originally referring to things that possessed certain female characteristics. However, as a Chinese character, it differs from the logical structure of Latin-based languages and cannot be inferred through logical reasoning. In the Chinese-speaking world, the use of the word Feminism has similarities to the birth of the character "她" (she). As Huang Xingtao (2015) discussed in his book "The Cultural History of '她'", the legalization of the character "她" in Chinese is not essentially because it originated from the domineering West, nor because it exists in Western languages and therefore must exist in Chinese. Rather, it is because it is fundamentally related to the modernity demands that have emerged in Chinese, and has been accepted by the language. Here, the Western and modernity aspects of "她" are just a coincidence. In modern China, we can also glimpse the use of Feminism from its application in modern China, from the emphasis on political rights for women in the Republican period to the academic use of "women's studies" to the Mao era's "women's liberation movement". Different eras embody different modernity demands, leading to the understanding of the term Feminism not solely based on Western gender theories. From the mixed tradition of Confucianism and communism in China, exploring China's gender society is extremely complex. However, the study of gender relations in the modern East Asian Chinese culture lacks a universal theoretical foundation (even theories established by "Marxist scholars" are no exception). This article will attempt to critically examine Marxist feminism theory, reflect on "modernity", and finally consider the positioning of feminism within it.
Marxist Feminism and the Problem of Modernity
Marxist feminist theory developed based on the arguments presented in Engels' (1972) "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State." However, a problem arose here: these Marxist feminists seemed to overlook Marx's research method - the essence of historical materialism. To precisely interpret this materialist research method, we must first review Marx's original text:
"German philosophy descends from heaven to earth. Here, we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not start from what people say, imagine or think, nor from the personal individuality of anyone. Rather, we start from real individuals in their activity and from the development of their real-life process. We can depict the development of this process in its ideological reflection and reverberation. Even the dim illusions in people's minds are the necessary sublimations of their material life processes, which are linked to material premises. Therefore, morality, religion, metaphysics and other ideologies, as well as the corresponding forms of consciousness, no longer retain an independent appearance. They have no history, no development, and the people who develop their own material production and material intercourse simultaneously change their own thinking and the products of their thinking. It is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness. The former method of examination starts from consciousness, regarding it as an individual with life. The latter examination method, which conforms to real-life, starts from the real individuals themselves, regarding consciousness merely as their consciousness."
"The German Ideology" by Karl Marx (1970)
As mentioned above, the focus of the research method of historical materialism is that the "starting point is the person engaged in practical activities", followed by the discovery of "reflection" and "reaction", and its connection with "material premises". In this process, people "change their own reality and also change their thinking and its products". Therefore, we can see that the emphasis of this research method is actually "material intercourse", which means that the main focus of Marx's research is the "dialectical relationship" between things. In Capital, this "social relation" is called "capital", while in dialectics, this social relation is called "dialectical relationship of totality". If we understand that the essence of Marx's methodology lies in the "dialectical relationship", then we can review the various Marxist feminist views. According to Chizuko Ueno (1977), "the main disagreement between feminist scholars and Marxism is on gender and reproductive issues, that is, Marx's theoretical analysis failed to include the domain of 'family' because he regarded it as a 'natural process'." "Marxist feminist scholars do not agree with the uniformity of class domination and sexual domination, but temporarily agree with the coexistence of capitalism and patriarchy, and think about the 'dialectical relationship' between the two." The so-called "dialectics" is a dialectical method of contradiction and adjustment. Capitalism and patriarchy are not only contradictory but also complementary.
Ueno Chizuko once again used (Figure 1) to describe the model of capitalist patriarchy, which forcibly separated the two entities of Marxist materialism. This classification method is clearly influenced by the structural Marxism of Althusser, a scholar of the French Communist Party. However, the development of this structural Marxism was compromised by the bureaucratic tendency of the Communist International system, which directly led Althusser to divide the world into "two worlds" through the intermediary of the state, one being the world of ideology and the other the world of material production. In fact, this was an important step for Marxism as a "weapon of liberation for the oppressor" to shift towards a "modern paradigm of social science". Walzerstein (2001) mentioned in his book "Unthinking Social Science" that "since the paradigm of the French Revolution continues to this day, people call this normality of change 'modernity'... The bourgeoisie discovered that they could only control change by acknowledging that it is normal and slowing it down." Althusser-style structural Marxism is precisely a theory that slows down change: he systematizes Marxism into an independent "modern science of modernity", which is why the research methods of materialist feminism often "limit or at least slow down the development of new analytical methods".
Division of Labor and Dialectical Concepts
In fact, Marx and Engels never opposed the idea of things being contradictory and complementary to each other. For them, the key lies in the dynamic development and its relationship. We can see the following words from Engels' "Dialectics of Nature" (1960):
"The whole of nature, from the smallest thing to the biggest, from sand grain to sun, from protista to man, is in a constant state of coming into being and passing away, in a constant flux, in unceasing motion and change."
Here, history and natural history are in a long-term process of flow, change, and development. As mentioned by Scott (2007), "Marxist feminist scholars have a more historical approach because they have a historical theory to guide them... but the requirement to have a 'material' perspective on gender has limited or at least slowed the development of new analytical methods." However, the biggest difference between Marxist dialectics and Hegelian dialectics is that "Hegel uses the shadow of thought as an ultimate reality, while Marx proves that the movement of these shadows of thought is only a reflection of the movement of material entities" (Trotsky, 1973). If we apply feminism to the category of "thought," we are not intending to use feminism as the ultimate thought, but rather to bring things back to the world of material entities. It is worth noting here that, from Marx's perspective, capitalist society is a social whole that includes all social patterns in human history, including patriarchal society. Therefore, any attempt to separate patriarchy as an independent system would depart from the methodological materialism because the focus of dialectics is on the "connection" between actual people and the material world, rather than the relationship with the "system" as an ideological product. The problem with the division of labor named as "ism" is that it forces other areas of knowledge to become outdated concepts (Wallerstein, 2001). This model, which we call modernity in East Asian societies, was demonstrated by the "Westernization" movement in Japan after the Meiji Restoration, the "anti-Confucian and anti-Confucianism" movement during the Cultural Revolution, and other specific expressions caused by modernity. They all eventually led to catastrophic consequences: Japan's national socialist theory developed into a layer from "Westernization," and China's ten-year catastrophe also had disastrous effects due to the reason of modernity. Here, we should quote the work of the Japanese anarchist feminist revolutionary of a century ago:
"The result of such division of labor is to deprive mankind of the love, talent, inventive genius, and special skill in the work, and to produce the dullness and inability of the ignorant. How cruel and wicked would be a principle that would permit this state of things to go on forever! It is clearly harmful to society and cruel to individuals; it is a guide to the degradation of human life, and leads only to suffocation!"
"Economic Revolution" by Ito Noe (1928)
After the Meiji Restoration, Japan entered a period of rapid development in which Westernization and modernization overlapped, leading to intense social conflicts and rapid division of labor that made people like Ito feel uneasy during the Taisho Romantic period. They opposed the modernity of Japan's early capitalism and became anarchists. Here we should reconsider the "normality of change" described by Wallerstein earlier: it is actually a semi-conscious state in which the ruling class realizes that the world must change and begins to semi-acknowledge and semi-institutionalize this normality of change to slow down and limit it, as Perry Anderson (1984) pointed out: modernity and its modernist movement should be understood as a movement of a "triangle" relationship. The three interacting factors include: 1) the concept is institutionalized in areas where "nation" and "society" still dominate, often filled with aristocrats or landowners whose positions are gradually being "replaced" in a sense by the economic characteristics of society; 2) the key technologies or inventions of the second industrial revolution: telephones, radios, cars, airplanes, etc., provide a rich soil for industrial societies with large-scale consumption, and these technologies have not yet been implemented in other parts of the world (providing "future self" images for people in other regions); 3) the imagination of social revolution. The hopes or concerns caused by this revolutionary imagination vary from place to place, but in most parts of Europe during the Belle Epoque, it "exists in the atmosphere". In Europe, modernity itself is usually associated with ancient regimes, such as imperial rule in Russia and royal orders in Italy. For old continent countries, since there is a traceable "glorious past", this society cannot escape the influence of the past, because it is a "collective memory" shared by the ruling class. In East Asia, feudal empires led by Japan and China began to be exposed to this modern trend in the late 20th century. The core of East Asian modernity construction is the Han cultural circle. Chinese characters, as a brilliant cultural achievement of the past, have been repeatedly reshaped. First, the "East Asian community" proposed by Japan was adopted by nationalism, followed by the Chinese-style "third country" camp produced by the fusion of the Chinese empire and socialism. These phenomena all prove that modernity is a long-term borrowed and repeatedly used meaning, and its meaning is to accept and limit change. Behind this concept is a hidden premise: before modernity appeared, the ruling class could remain unchanged, and the production relations would not have subversive changes. However, as Marx (1967) proclaimed: "Unless there is a revolution in the means of production and hence in the relations of production, and hence in all social relations, it cannot survive. On the other hand, keeping the old production methods unchanged is the primary condition for the survival of all industrial classes in the past. Constant changes in production, constant turbulence in all social situations, eternal instability and change, this is the difference between the bourgeois era and all other eras in the past. All fixed and rigid relationships, as well as the ideas and views that correspond to them, have been eliminated. All new relationships become obsolete before they can be fixed. All levels and fixed things have disappeared, and all sacred things have been profaned. People finally have to look at their position in life and their relationships with each other with a calm eye." The reason for proposing modernity is that "the relationship of the bourgeoisie has become too narrow to accommodate the wealth it has created. How does the bourgeoisie overcome this crisis? On the one hand, it has to eliminate a large number of production forces, and on the other hand, it has to seize new markets and more thoroughly use the old ones. What kind of method is this? It is nothing more than a way for the bourgeoisie to prepare for more comprehensive and fierce crises, a way to make the means of preventing crises less and less." (Marx, 1967)
However, as we mentioned at the beginning of this article, in the process of modernizing China in modern times, "modernity" played an incomparable role, and even the word "she" alone was an expression of the "modernist appeal of the Chinese language in the new era". By recreating the word "she", changes in gender relations can be partially recognized. However, in contemporary times, the dilemma of "modernity" has emerged: the emergence of queer theory has led to gender no longer being opposed between male and female, and the use of the word "she" in daily life is always troubling. Faced with the postmodern state of diverse gender, just as Marx said, "she" becomes obsolete before it can be fixed. Feminism is also the same. Whether it is "she" or "feminism", they cannot keep up with the development of the times. This has led to the theory of feminism in the Chinese language context, whether it is the 2019 Hong Kong social movement or the "Xuzhou eight-child mother incident" in China, cannot provide a widely acceptable explanation. Modernity has hierarchized culture from bottom to top, making people spontaneously regard a certain culture as an "object of pursuit" (Anderson, 1984). Contemporary feminism urgently needs to be reformed, and the direction of reform should abandon modernity, so that human culture can develop horizontally. Only by seriously examining oneself can one inherit and develop one's own gender culture, just as Gramsci (2020) said, "Creating a new culture not only means discovering individual 'originality'. It also - and this is especially important - means spreading the discovered truth in a critical way, which can be said to be the 'socialization' of these truths. It even becomes the basis of major activities, becoming an element of common mission, intelligence, and moral order. Because guiding the public to carry out a coherent thinking, and thinking about the real world in the same coherent way, is far more important than discovering the truth as a philosophical genius or as the wealth of an intellectual group, and it is much more original."
In this sense, feminism in East Asia has yet to take off, while in Europe, feminism has begun to return to women themselves, as can be seen in feminist theological works: "For feminist theology, the changing self-understanding of women is fundamental" (Wendel, 1986). However, from this perspective, China's ancient characters - oracle bone inscriptions - represent the history of Chinese women's self-understanding. Unlike the Western "know thyself," through understanding "yu (you ina ancient Chinese)" (a woman seeing herself by the river), we will also come to know the "yu (water reflecting faces of ourselves)" under the roof. This is not an unfounded claim, as the history of Korean writing, katakana, and the women's script of Jiang Yong all prove the inherent nature of East Asian women's writing when building a community of shared suffering (Endo & Huang, 2005). What East Asian written characters represent may be the history of thousands of years of feudal women's suffering, and we will here re-recognize the true history of women.
Conclusion
Creative culture rejects modernity, it will be integrated as human culture in such a world, and in such a world, we will become "historians" under Benjamin (2020): "Grasp a constellation of history. This constellation is formed by his own era and a certain past era. In this way, he establishes a concept of 'now' that runs through all the trivialities of the savior era." However, the current environment is one of master-slave relationship, and the master-slave will destroy the community itself. True freedom lies in love. Open, solid communities of mutual love have infinite potential (Wendel, 1986). However, feminism is not just this: our ultimate goal is a future called possibility. The past and the future converge in the present, and we conclude with the characters from divination: if "the ancestwe receives me again when the enemy is defeated (Hu, 1999)," then what do we have to fear?
參考文獻
Anderson, P. (1984). Modernity and revolution. New left review, 144(1), 96-113.
Benjamin, W. (2020). Theses on the Philosophy of History. In Critical theory and society a reader (pp. 255-263). Routledge.
Engels, F. (1960). Dialectics of nature. Wellred Books.
Engels, F. (1972). The origin of the family, private property and the state (1884). New York: International.
Gramsci, A. (2020). Selections from the prison notebooks. In The applied theatre reader (pp. 141-142). Routledge.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1967). The communist manifesto. 1848. Trans. Samuel Moore. London: Penguin, 15(10.1215), 9780822392583-049.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1970). The german ideology (Vol. 1). International Publishers Co.
Moltmann-Wendel, E. (1986). A land flowing with milk and honey : perspectives on feminist theology. Crossroad.
Scott, J. W. (2007). Gender as a useful category of historical analysis. In Culture, society and sexuality (pp. 77-97). Routledge.
Trotsky, L. (1973). In defense of Marxism ([2d ed.]). Pathfinder Press.
Wallerstein, I. M. (2001). Unthinking social science: The limits of nineteenth-century paradigms. Temple University Press.
Williams, R. (2014). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. Oxford University Press.
上野千鶴子. (1997). 父權體制與資本主義 : 馬克思主義之女性主義 (初版.)（劉靜貞, & 洪金珠）. 時報文化出版企業股份有限公司.
伊藤野枝. (1928) 經濟學底革命. （衛惠林譯）. 民眾書店.
胡厚宣. (1999). 甲骨學商史論叢初集. 北京圖書館出版社.
黄兴涛. 「她「字的文化史 : 女性新代词的发明与认同研究. 增订版, 第1版. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社, 2015.
遠藤織枝, & 黄雪贞. (2005). 女书的历史与现状 : 解析女书的新视点 (第1版. ed.). 中国社会科学出版社.
留言
發佈留言