Gu Ailing compares Xuzhou's eight-child mother Xiaohuamei, the right and left hands of feminist public opinion fight each other |

This article was written after the Clubhouse online event on February 10th, "Feminism Talks About the Gu Ailing Phenomenon, Not Gu Ailing" , and expands my perspective and content in the discussion. The text summary of the event "Talking about the Gu Ailing Phenomenon from the Perspective of Feminism: "Female Empowerment" in the New Stage of Nationalist Expansion" has been published on Matters by @feminist voice, which is an important reference for this article and is recommended to be read at the same time.

Another article that needs to be referred to is the WeChat public account article "Observing China's emerging nationality, class, and gender views from "How to View Gu Ailing" | Also on the two elite cultures" , the author is signed "Li Xiaolong".

Since winning gold at the Winter Olympics, Gu Ailing has become a phenomenon-level topical figure. On domestic social media, discussions around her mainly have the following angles:

The first is from a gender perspective : feminists see her as a powerful modern female role model, and her achievements come from the accumulation of two generations of mother and grandmother, and there is no "father" at all; while others have always been concerned about Fengxian events. People discuss her success and Xiaohuamei's tragedy together.

The second is from a national perspective : "Patriot" uses her naturalization to satisfy her national pride; some people always question her nationality, and think that she and her mother are speculators flowing between China and the United States .

The third is from a class perspective: the media’s presentation of her growing up background caters to the middle class’s advocacy for elite education; some intellectuals have also suggested that Gu Ailing’s success is based on her class and privileges, and that such a “powerful person” will overshadow ordinary people. Dilemma, exacerbating social Darwinism.

In addition, there is an individualistic voice in the public opinion field , emphasizing that external conditions do not determine everything about Gu Ailing, her own ability, personality and charm are more important; or calling for removing all labels and seeing her as a "human" existence Value, especially from the perspective of sportsmanship and Olympic spirit, she is an extreme challenger that transcends nationality, gender and class, and can "unite all mankind".

Of course, the interpretation of Gu Ailing's phenomenon can be combined from multiple perspectives. For example, when Gu Ailing and Xiaohuamei (the mother of eight children in Xuzhou) are discussed together from the perspective of feminism, people can also point out these two fates from the perspective of class. The social problems behind the hugely different "Chinese" women, thus piercing the illusion of "positive energy" and "prosperity" created by nationalism borrowed by Gu Ailing.

Based on this, I would like to discuss the performance of feminists in Gu Ailing's topic from the perspective of public opinion observation - I found that feminists fought each other in the relevant public opinion of "Gu Ailing vs. Xiaohuamei", and then Exposes many problems with "elite feminism"-style thinking and discourse.

1. Gu Ailing's comparison with Xiaohuamei, the performance of feminist public opinion

First of all, Gu Ailing's image of a perfect woman who is independent, self-improving, beautiful, and rich is very much in line with the female role model advocated by the feminist discourse that has always been elitist in the public opinion field. She is undoubtedly a successful woman, so many feminists often start her welcome based on "celebrating the achievements of a good girl."

But soon, there was a discussion of comparing Gu Ailing and Xiaohuamei in the public opinion field, which undoubtedly created a moral challenge for feminists: there are obviously so many women in society who deserve attention, why do we To chase after a successful person at the top of the pyramid?

When confronted with this fake dilemma, some feminists responded quickly, suggesting that the two women should not be compared together, or emphasizing that praising Gu Ailing and supporting Xiaohuamei are not contradictory, Focusing on one woman's suffering doesn't mean you can't applaud another woman's accomplishments . At the same time, they skillfully introduced the perspective and concept of individualism, and proposed that we should strip away all labels including nationality and class, and see Gu Ailing as a "person", especially as an excellent woman , the "pure" individual identity of an elite athlete.

Using individualism as an ideological resource, feminists are also more adept at countering the dismantling of Gu Ailing's public image and her "achievements" from other perspectives. For example, they will fight back against the "naturalization" of Gu Ailing into the narrative of the rise of great powers. Nationalists in China will also fight back against those who question Gu Ailing's nationality and family background, calling these acts of misogyny.

But it is worth noting that the reason why public opinion will discuss Gu Ailing and Xiao Huamei, two people who have absolutely nothing to do with their social identities, is based on two reasons:

The first is a feminist perspective . People see the huge difference in the fate of the two public figures who are both "women" and are concerned about the issues that are closely related to women behind them; and many people who propose and participate in this discussion are feminists.

The second is a public perspective , in which the two of them are at the center of hot public topics in the same time period, and their messages are juxtaposed and intertwined in the social media space, so that they can be seen by all. The sense of contrast and division formed by how they are treated in public space (especially how they are treated by public power) reveals the poignancy of this social Darwinist society, which makes the public infinitely sighed. (Later, the incident of Zhu Yi, a former American figure skater who was also a naturalized athlete, suffered a cyber attack after his defeat further proved this unease.)

In this context, some feminists use elitist, individualistic discourses to defend Gu Ailing, which seems passive and powerless, although it can rely on removing all labels to end the topic and prevent perspectives other than "female-based". The dismantling of Gu Ailing's image, but at the same time, he is also drawing a dungeon for himself and withdrawing from public discussion.

When we are faced with labels such as "Xuzhou eight-child mother", or the broader label of "disabled", "minority", "vulnerable women", feminists remind the public to see the people behind the label, restore The subjectivity of the parties is positive. Many people who are trapped in structural oppression are also very passive in the face of public opinion. It is difficult for them to express their own voice and their initiative is easily ignored by the outside world.

But what is different about Gu Ailing is that the attention she has received is accompanied by huge benefits, and the team behind her is actively involved in the operation. Today, she holds more than 20 brand endorsements and earns more than 200 million yuan. This commercial value is inseparable from the label on her body, that is, the image created for her by the media, public relations team and even the whole country. Therefore, some feminists advocate that the public ignore her label and "see her", which is neither possible nor fair, and brings feminist public opinion into a very narrow pattern.

Unlike other athletes at home and abroad who conduct commercial operations, the influence of this "God-making" campaign targeting Gu Ailing is far beyond the category of a "successful female/athlete". On Weibo, including CCTV, People's Daily, Global Network, and even all the official media accounts of various local governments are exposing her and building momentum for her. On the other hand, the censorship machine was actually activated for her, and many posts were questioned, and even the self-media that just analyzed the phenomenon of Gu Ailing was deleted and bombed. The "Old News Review" article "Gu Ailing in the Olympic Bubble" discussed the deletion of Gu Ailing's dual nationality status, and "Slave Society" published an article "Gu Ailing's success, what does it have to do with ordinary people" analyzing Gu Ailing's privileges and questioning Sheda's thinking, After being bombed.

We should also pay attention to the whole background of the Winter Olympics behind the country's support of her - the Beijing Winter Olympics was diplomatically boycotted by many Western countries including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and other countries because of China's human rights issues, and some international human rights Organizations are also calling for boycotts and encouraging athletes to protest. In this environment, it is an extremely important political task for China to host a successful Winter Olympics; I think no one is better suited to be such an idol than Gu Ailing, to awaken the "world of nations" that is revived by the promise of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The old dream of coming to the DPRK.

On this issue, the feminist community has more in-depth insights into the transcript "A Feminist Perspective on the Gu Ailing Phenomenon: "Women's Empowerment" in a New Stage of Nationalist Expansion" compiled after Clubhouse's online discussion event.

The Gu Ailing phenomenon is a reminder of a new phase of China's nationalist expansion, behind which is an upgrade of the country's enormous capabilities and self-confidence. What people see today is not only that globalization transports benefits within the boundaries of authoritarian rule, but also that authoritarianism spreads around the world to reap the benefits of globalization. This is a new phenomenon in which authoritarian governments and globalization interact.

And in the face of such a large and varied public opinion and issue, feminists should realize that there is no "pure" feminism - a power game that has been reduced to a gender war on social media. Women live in the times and society, and have a relationship with the times and society all the time, and refuse to explore intersectionality and public participation, and feminism that is only trapped in gender and individual dimensions will be difficult to respond to their encounters.

2. How elite feminism draws the dungeon into a prison and how to break the situation

1. How does this article define "elite feminism"?

First of all, it is necessary to define what "elite feminism" refers to below. This is not a clear group, and it may also be the part of feminist consciousness and discourse that tends to be elitist and has an elitist color. The identification of values and lifestyles has a strong tendency to individualism because it promotes the awakening, breakthrough and self-realization of women.

Behind this "elite feminist" consciousness, on the one hand, the state's propaganda in the "women's cause" agenda has affected women's individual consciousness. , which means that women should be 'self-respect, self-confidence, self-reliance, and self-improvement'." On the other hand, Lu Pin pointed out that the development of this feminist consciousness "is itself a free ride on capitalism, a by-product of capitalism's willingness or reluctance. It is the rise of women (especially urban women) and the liberation of individual rights consciousness after the reform and opening up; it is also influenced by the desirable image and lifestyle of "modern women" shaped by consumerism in the mass media.

It is also worth mentioning that in today's public opinion field with social media as the carrier, the production and output of feminist discourse is also very dependent on the "elite crowd" - they are not necessarily materially wealthy, but they are also knowledgeable. , (pan) feminists with logic and language ability, often carry labels such as "urban", "middle class", "higher education". Coupled with the age group of Weibo users and the orientation of censorship machines, individual-based feminist discourse is easier to produce, retain, and disseminate than discussions that focus on social and structural issues, thus forming elite feminism in the public opinion field. the mainstream of discourse.

(Therefore, I hope readers will understand the following "elite feminism" as "partial feminist awareness and discourse", rather than a label attached to a certain group)

Not only on the topic of Gu Ailing, but also in the incident of Xiaohuamei, this kind of awareness of the city's middle-class standard is also at work. A popular sentence on Weibo is: "You are 10 times away from Gu Ailing's reincarnation, and you are only one sap away from Xiaohuamei." The real name of the person involved is Li Ying, a female student from Nanchong, whose parents were both civil servants in the system. Women from urban areas were abducted and sold to "backcountry" overnight. This narrative that touches class anxiety has stimulated great communication power, but it also obscures the suffering of women in a marginal area like Xiaohuamei, and the issues behind her.

2. How are feminist beliefs facing divisions?

Therefore, from the perspective of how to respond to women's situations and encounters, we can see how narrow and barren public opinion has become. And fanaticism is just the other side of barrenness. Elite feminists are more or less coerced by this public opinion, led by the nose, or forced into a corner by it. When public opinion put Gu Ailing and Xiaohuamei together for discussion, the elite feminist response was obviously a failure. Rejecting the public nature of the topic and retreating to the personal dimension might be able to escape the moral crisis, but it failed to promote the discussion. boundaries and expand its content, contributing to a richer feminist perspective, not to mention leading the discussion and setting the agenda.

This is not only the predicament of feminist public opinion, but also the predicament of the feminists themselves who participate in public opinion.

Behind the predicament is the tension between feminists' concerns about "successful female individuals breaking through the secular" and "vulnerable female groups under structural predicament", as well as the tension between feminist ideologies with different emphases . (whether you name them "neoliberal feminism vs marxist feminism" or "elite/capitalist feminism vs socialist feminism" or whatever) especially when feminism is intertwined with other issues like class, nationality, etc. At the time, the complexity of reality made it difficult for feminists to maintain a single narrative from a gender perspective, and it was also difficult to maintain the infinite self-consistency of "female standard". Xiaohuamei and Gu Ailing are just representatives of two extremes. The fate of women in the real world is very different. Feminists cannot avoid the discomfort caused by these divisions, and the ensuing destroyed imagination of "female community", and even Imagining a "feminist community".

Of course, feminists cannot lose the gender dimension in public opinion, but is "individualistic" feminism the way out?

On this social media platform that is extremely lacking in publicity, and some are just "public opinion wars" again and again, the narrowness of feminism is also the result of polarization. Expressing anger over the Fengxian incident and love for Gu Ailing has become a "feminist activity" participated by the whole people, and the output of feminist discourse has become unprecedentedly surging and confident, forming the greatest common denominator of feminist public opinion. But has the issue of feminism been expanded? Stripped of the social and historical dimensions, one side is a powerful and perfect modern female icon, and the other is a perfect victim with no initiative; the success of women is the breakthrough of individual talents and efforts, and the victimization of women is the maliciousness of the bad and the whole society. The operation of the CCP is hidden, people’s presuppositions and prejudices against marginalized people in marginal areas are deepened, and the plight of more women who are neither winners nor perfect victims in life is obscured.

It stands to reason that when we have the upper hand in public opinion, we have the opportunity to relieve the anxiety and hostility of the gender war a little, and try to see more complexity and intersectionality of feminist issues, but I don’t know whether it is inertia or cherish this hard-won victory. Many Feminists are more inclined to maintain the absolute gender nature of issues, and they are reluctant to get involved in discussions that can easily eliminate the right to speak and the legitimacy of their positions, and they are reluctant to enter the opponent's home court or even the public. Thus, the "Girls help Girls" style of female support seems to be our safe space and the basic consensus we can grasp, if not the only consensus.

3. How does empathy based on unexamined privilege limit our public engagement?

It has to be said that we must point out what conditions our empathy for female individuals such as Xiao Huamei and Gu Ailing are based on. These "conditions" are often closely related to our own "privileges"; and the unexamined "privileges" The resulting blind spot determines that elite feminists cannot go further in public participation.

• Empathy with whom

In the above analysis, the public opinion about Xiaohuamei successfully established empathy with urban women and the public through the story of "Li Ying" and the emotional mobilization discourse of "all women can become her". However, is it more difficult for the public to empathize with Xiao Huamei than to empathize with Li Ying? I don't think so. The key is that "who" and "how" occupied the right of discourse and narrative creation at the very beginning, and successfully guided the public.

Until recently, the Nujiang Lisu woman behind "Xiaohuamei" by "Mr. Made" through the self-media: Was it taken away? Abducted? Or independent marriage migration? " and "occasionally cured" "We went to the hometown of the eight-child mother in Fengxian County and learned about these things" and many other articles, we only further learned about Xiaohuamei's life experience, and gradually restored the "Xiaohuamei" - these The plight of abducted women in marginalized areas. If this is the real issue behind this public incident, then some people refuse to believe it, some people are deeply confused, some people are already emotionally fatigued, and the public attention is constantly losing focus. (As of the end of this article, the agenda of public opinion is still set on the theme of "Is the mother of eight children in Xuzhou Li Ying?")

The lack of focus of the public means that it will be difficult for public opinion to develop into a constructive force for issues, and it will become more of a force for "chasing towers". As for whether "pushing the tower" should be advocated in the context of China, this article will not discuss it for the time being.

On the other hand, in the topic of Gu Ailing, some elites have a sincere understanding and love for her, which is why many people hope that their judgments on her are only personal. Of course, public affection for her out of nationalist or social values could also be sincere.

Those who wish to critically discuss the Gu Ailing phenomenon also often need to declare their personal affirmation and support for Gu Ailing at the beginning, so as not to destroy people's sincere empathy and be regarded as evidence of "envy, jealousy and hatred".

So first of all, it is a question of who to empathize with; empathy is very important, it is a common motivation and starting point for people to connect with others and participate in the public, and it is not worthy of criticism. But we need an in-depth analysis of how elite feminist discourse behaves in order to preserve this empathy, and why this has become the end point of their public engagement.

In a swiping article in the circle of friends, "Observing China's emerging nationality, class, and gender views from "How to View Gu Ailing" | Also on the Two Elite Cultures , there is a typical embodiment of this, so readers are advised to read this article. article as a reference for this article.

This article first criticized the phenomenon of nationalism and public opinion in the category of feminism from the perspective of feminism, and then touched on the topic of Gu Ailing's comparison with Xiaohuamei, saying that "I don't agree that someone will forcefully use the situation of women at the bottom to obliterate Gu Ailing's own excellence. ”, and then the author puts forward an important concept of “intersection”, arguing that people should not understand the interactivity of feminist discourse as replacing each other and opposing each other. This is an important argument, and it also relates to the "publicity" that I emphasized above. But unfortunately, at the end of the whole article, it concluded that "there is no need to add too many other reasons to cheer for Gu Ailing, just because she is good enough", almost throwing away the armor all the way, which just reflects what is eradication An elite feminist mentality of all intersectional issues.

The article concludes with:

Everyone can continue to find reasons for Gu Ailing's success, the strength of the motherland, the teaching of mother, hard training, elite culture, these can be used to understand and study, but you can't ignore an excellent female athlete because of the existence of these factors Strength of heart, strength of body and strength of her own personality. For me, this is where the female athlete inspires me, not just the narrative of the external conditions, but the fact that she is a good person. That's why I've seen this kind of sportsmanship in so many different athletes.

Here, elite feminism combines a person's "external conditions" (the strength of the motherland, mother's teaching, hard training, elite culture) and "internal conditions" (the strength of the heart, the strength of the body, and the strength of her own personality). ), and proposed to see Gu Ailing's inner condition, that is, "a good person".

What I want to say is that if elite feminists’ conclusion after reflection on “privilege” is to better identify and separate a person’s “external conditions”, so as to more affirm the merits of “her own”, then we Reflection on "privilege" simply does not exist.

• What exactly is "privilege"? How do we reflect on privilege?

What exactly is a "privilege"? I used to think, like the author, that "privileges" are those external advantages that are not obtained through our own efforts, such as birthplace, family, living environment, quality and wealth of parents, luck, etc... But then I understood, The environment and the individual cannot be separated. A person who grows up at the bottom of the society is not only inferior to the privileged in terms of external conditions, but even difficult to have the same psychological quality, mental state, health level, morality and morality as the privileged person. , knowledge, cognitive ability, language, and all the qualities that can help him reverse the predicament. They are more vulnerable and have fewer choices in the face of external doom and pressure, and even internalize these pressures as violence against themselves and those around them.

And one day you will understand that the independence and detachment of a person as a pure individual, of the essence of her existence and self-worth (that is, to be seen as "herself" by all) is precisely the greatest privilege and the most envied place. Many ordinary people don't have this kind of detached experience, just like an ordinary woman is often seen as a daughter, mother, wife, employee, not herself; she doesn't even "have herself" - no space, dreams, and value pursuits of her own .

It is true that children with good external conditions may also grow up to be ignorant and self-defeating people. The Chinese call it "a good hand of cards is sloppy." The author of the article also said: "We can see many similar family conditions, educational environments and individuals. Quality students have very different values and life choices.”

Not to mention how we construct success and failure, but does this mean that a person has absolute subjectivity relative to the environment? Statistically speaking, what are the odds that a child from a poor, violent minority will live on the same level as a child from an elite white family on New York's Upper East Side? We must have seen some successful "bottom people", but do we think their opportunities and costs are the same as ours?

It does sound like a leftist cliché, but does a "correct" word become "wrong" if it is said 10,000 times in a "correct" context?

Similarly, it is impossible to understand the situation of marginalized women - " To regard Xiao Huamei's experience as 'an accident that all women may encounter' is to obliterate her suffering. If we realize that accident can have a huge impact on people's fate Difference, then we should also realize that we are not in that 'accident', and our class also determines that we will not suffer so many 'accidents'."

As for Gu Ailing, her "perfect" privilege is expressed as "winner takes all" as Lu Pin said:

We have entered a winner-takes-all era, where smart winners not only possess natural advantages, wealthy families, outstanding looks, but also success and honor, and even all the good virtues—how terrifying. People must and have the right to respond in a way of anxiety, anxiety and doubt, but these emotions are projected on Gu Ailing himself.

The accumulation of intergenerational wealth, the inheritance of cultural resources and capital, and the global allocation of resources embodied in Gu Ailing are not original sins for a girl. People's anxiety is that when people like Gu Ailing are so comfortable with the capital they have, the injustice based on chance at the starting point on which they accumulate capital has not been reflected, and the differences that have accelerated in the process of competition have not been realized. Reflect. When successful people look back on the past, it is easy to take all achievements for granted plus their own efforts, but often people "get on the bus" because of some accidental factors, and those who "can't get on the bus" have different trajectories from their trajectories. This is why the success narrative about Gu Ailing has been questioned.

In today's China, people feel powerless to criticize class differentiation, so they often give up social criticism, not only admitting class differentiation as a matter of course, but also strengthening the rationality of differentiation with infinite envy and worship. The worship of Gu Ailing has an obvious social Darwinian thought of winning or losing: looking at the process from the results and rationalizing the whole process, and covering up the inequality in the whole process, and even the institutional abuse of the law.

(—— "The Gu Ailing Phenomenon from the Perspective of Feminism: "Female Empowerment" in the New Stage of Nationalist Expansion" )

Later we said, this is called "the strong can play hooligans gracefully."

With an in-depth understanding of "privilege", we can continue to talk about what is "reflection privilege" for elites? I think: to reflect on what "conditions" the empathy with Gu Ailing is based on, and that is where the privilege lies . It is not that under the banner of reflection, the external conditions are eliminated, and then this empathy is justified by affirming her "self". This raises the question of whether feminism has been coerced into endorsing the overextended self-consciousness of the elite.

In addition, compared with many articles dismantling and questioning the Gu Ailing phenomenon, which were censored not long after they were published, this article "Observing China's Emerging Ethnic, Class, and Gender Concepts from "How to View Gu Ailing" | Also on Two Elite Cultures" So far, more than 42,000 readings have remained. From the orientation of the censorship machine, we can see what kind of "Gu Ailing's narrative" is the official willing to see.

To quote Lu Pin again:

Our country and government have never opposed women's success, which is not inconsistent with women facing all kinds of sexism and gender-based violence. On the other hand, if a woman can really overcome the barriers of discrimination and violence and become an excellent and successful survivor, she will always receive a certain reward, even if it is discounted compared to what men get. Because China's economic model and social development require "high-quality" women - the concept of "low-quality population" is publicly proposed by the government. So in a system of gender inequality, women's empowerment is still welcomed by the state.

Such a discourse of female empowerment represented by Gu Ailing can be combined with both global capitalism and the needs of authoritarian states.

In the field of public opinion, where the public discussion space is desperately compressed by the authorities, the "female empowerment" narrative of elite feminism based on individuals can stand out. It is a survivor's bias, but it is also almost a "privilege", rather than a hundred schools of thought contending and equality. The outcome of the competition, its theory and ethics are not fully discussed. If feminists ignore these privileges and allow their blind spots to expand, they will inevitably become more and more disconnected from reality.

This is why, in addition to individualistic feminism, we should emphasize the public nature of feminism. The more the latter is restricted and rejected in this public opinion field, the more we should insist, and this is the real responsibility of the elite.

4. The ideological dilemma of the elite

Finally, I would like to review the ideological predicament exposed by the elite group, which may also help readers understand why elite feminism not only failed to deal with the public opinion of Gu Ailing's comparison with Xiaohuamei, but also simply relieved the responsibility of public participation.

In the second half of the article "Observing China's Emerging Concepts of Ethnicity, Class and Gender from "How to View Gu Ailing" | Also on Two Elite Cultures, the author analyzes the so-called "two elite cultures": "One is A culture of being elitist and knowing and delighting, and a culture of being elitist and knowing and reflexive.”

To put it simply, the former belongs to the elites who have no reflection on their own privileges, are content with them, and draw a clear line with the general public, while the latter are elites who reflect on their own privileges, oppose them, and empathize with the general public.

But the author immediately raised questions about the latter kind of elite:

I understand that this elite culture is based on a desire for equality and a sense of guilt for one's own privilege, but the resulting self-reflection is not enough for the elite to truly integrate with the "other". After all, the concept of the "other" is almost impossible to integrate once it is born. So what is the result of this "fusion" that cannot be merged? That is, the elites have further monopolized the narrative of inequality, and the elites' reflexivity towards their own privileges has been further recruited. A kind of "shaming of eating more and taking more" is slowly transformed into the moral superiority of the elites.

The meaning of the translation is probably: because the elite and the public cannot be integrated (perhaps it also means that the class cannot break through), so the elite's reflection on privilege and empathy with the public has become a performance that highlights moral superiority, in fact, it is even more so. strengthen his voice.

This piece of content made a friend of mine very angry, he commented: "The author wrote so many reflections on the elite, but he said to classmate Gu that 'the ladder is free and anyone can download it' and 'the person who scolds me is not educated. It's impossible to turn a blind eye to the words like 'the Olympic champion'. Isn't this the author's most disgusting person? Such a Gu has a major flaw in class consciousness. With this kind of elite consciousness, what kind of example should she set?"

I believe that the author has faced questions like "the moral superiority of the elites", which is a powerful moral challenge that every intellectual who cares about public affairs can ask himself, but judging from the article, the author quickly Escaping this challenge is like escaping the moral challenge set by public opinion when Gu Ailing is compared to Xiaohuamei.

After describing "two elite cultures", the author goes on to say:

It is impossible for me to deny that the material level I am in is a foundation, and at the same material level, a warmer humanistic education has given me a deeper understanding and concern for society, and you can argue that this concern is materially rich A product, but you cannot say that social concern and reflexivity are the inevitable result of material abundance. After all, I could name an infinite number of peers who have similar conditions but who do not possess such reflectiveness. This is also the reason why I strive to detach from the latter elite culture. I don’t want to slowly set limits for myself because of my educational background, and I don’t want to feel uneasy about thinking because I recognize how my thinking came about. .

Then, the author presented the long-prepared conclusion that Gu Ailing "is an excellent person" and ended the article.

Such a logical line made me realize that when the author proposed the concept of "two kinds of elites", he was not sincerely discussing the confusion and dilemma of an elite in public participation, but to point out the second kind of "reflexive" The "sex" elite is seeking the point of view of "moral superiority" to dismantle the legitimacy of those who question Gu Ailing's privilege in the public opinion field. In this way, whether the author is conscious or not, it is clearing the obstacle for the "individualism" conclusion that will finally appear.

However, referring to my analysis of "privilege" above, is the author's idea of individualism a way out of the cultural confines of the reflexive elite? So what are the conditions for this detachment? Where is the foothold after detachment?

Through the analogy arranged by the author, the elites who have no reflection on their own privileges and the elites who have reflections on their own privileges are actually placed on the same moral level, and may even be regarded as "half a pound" and "a raccoon dog", because later Those who care about the masses and the public are hypocritical, only "to make themselves stand on the moral high ground".

How cynical this is. If so, who is qualified to stand up and "meddle with business" in the future?

Similar to the theory of punishing one's heart, we only need to think a little rationally and know that the author is caught in a fantasy, too perfection and blame, so we have to implement the self-disarming power. This is not only a prison for myself, a prison for feminism, but also a prison for all those who aspire to participate in the public.

5. Advice for "elites" to get rid of their intellectual baggage

So finally, I would like to give some suggestions based on my own experience to help the "elites" get rid of this unnecessary ideological burden as soon as possible.

First, there is nothing wrong with speaking up and acting out of moral legitimacy motives. Building a good sense of public morality and public participation is also a major goal of elite education. Moral legitimacy is an important driving force and criterion for how people do the "right" thing; except for those who are anti-social and anti-human, moral legitimacy is considered in everything they do. Moreover, there are speculators in every group, and morality cannot be nihilized because of the "hypocrisy" of some elite groups.

Second, public participation is a step-by-step learning and growth process, and it is not ruled out that many people proceed from their own interests. "Speaking for yourself" is the first step for most people to participate in the public. If you get good feedback and guidance, people may become more professional and expand their participation. On a practical level, we cannot speculate on the motives of participants, nor is it necessary, otherwise only flawless people can participate in public (by the way, this is a kind of totalitarian thinking).

Third, the ideological world of elites is easy to be introverted, and the ego (self) is easy to expand. When public participation, it is necessary to set a public-private boundary. The goal of feminism is to achieve gender equality, not to focus on the qualifications of the elite; participants are tasked with trying to move society closer to this goal, and they need to constantly adjust themselves to this end. The self-entanglement of the elite should be stopped in moderation, and they should also be careful to confuse their own feelings into the public agenda. It is recommended that we, in an existential spirit, let go of our anxiety about perfection, acknowledge our limitations, and then do whatever we can to the best of our ability.

Fourth, as the written record of our discussion event "Talking about Gu Ailing's Phenomenon from the Perspective of Feminism: "Women Empowerment" in the New Stage of Nationalist Expansion" said at the end: "We can try to extend from the topic of Gu Ailing and Xiaohuamei, and reconstruct it. The imagining of a feminist community of women's cause. It doesn't have to be 'I could be her too,' but 'I'm not her, how can I relate to her'."

Societal problems are often systemic, not limited to individuals, and empathy based solely on individuals limits our vision, scope of engagement and sustainability. If the premise of participation is always "what does he have to do with me?", it may be just self-projection, not real public concern, and it will lead everyone into the shackles of individualism.

I think the question is, first, how to better build empathy to help us connect with real people and issues; the second is to realize that building empathy is only part of it, and if we want to go a little further, it also depends on public participation. Beliefs, habits, sense of responsibility, methods, skills, reason...

Last but not least, never give up the privilege of reflection and try to accept the limitations and discomforts that reflection brings.

Thanks for reading :)