"Rejecting the Label": Is Xianzi Mai Yai a Feminist?

What do you think of #Metoo's seemingly paradoxical reluctance to call themselves feminists? I think many of the current comments fail to touch upon the core controversy here. The problem is that it is necessary to properly understand the mechanism by which "labels" function in public discourse, and to reflect on how we should act within that mechanism. Once we do this, we may find that we can better respond to the conceptual and identity dilemmas we all face in order to defend the values we are supposed to defend.

How to think about "tags"

A central idea of Xianzi and Mai Yai is the refusal to label themselves feminists. However, what is special about the word "label" is that a person's label is not only affixed by herself, but can also be affixed by others. In many cases, the person or thing being labelled cannot decide what label they are being labelled with. For example, a historical figure cannot decide how future generations will evaluate himself, and a commodity cannot decide what name it is called by people to sell. In other cases, the label, even if applied by oneself, is directed outwards to allow others to understand certain characteristics of oneself. If we isolate one person, or if people have unhindered access to the hearts of others, then we don't need to label ourselves.

Xianzi is aware of this directivity of the label. A Foucaultian insight is that the existence and use of labels can be understood as a kind of "surveillance", or "watching": people use labels to build understanding of others, anticipating their behavior, And the structure of power (we can take this Foucaultian concept as the established power that governs people's behavior) inevitably governs what labels exist, and what labels are attached to individuals.

Xianzi cites the example that "freedom and independence" as a value is part of the power structure that led her friends to label Hu Bo "a symbol of freedom and independence." In Xianzi's view, the problem with this "gazing-labeling" mechanism is that it makes us accustomed to using the labels, concepts and thinking given by the existing power structure to anticipate the behavior of others, so as to achieve our own goals. Ignore the "subjectivity" of the individual being watched. Here, "subjectivity" is a relatively abstract concept, we can temporarily understand it as those personal thoughts, characteristics (idiosyncrasy) and other subtleties (subtlety) that are not covered by labels.

The intuition behind this series of ideas, I think, comes close to an instinctive aversion to understanding and publicizing the deeds of others as symbols of abstract ideas. Based on this intuition, Xianzi's response is to reject not only the label of feminists, but "all labels": "victims, whistleblowers, opinion leaders, dissidents", so that "with our own view of the world" Perceive, be ourselves."

But it is precisely in Foucault's thinking that there is an essential difficulty: it is fundamentally impossible to "be ourselves" without a power structure. He tells us that the concepts that humans use to describe and understand the world—and ourselves—are themselves governed by the history, power structures, and contingency of human society. This of course includes the concept of "subjectivity" and the various concepts that constitute a "subject". Therefore, our understanding of ourselves is shaped by power structures all the time.

A similar observation can be made by thinking in terms of common sense. Since humans cannot see each other's thoughts but must communicate with each other, we inevitably use various concepts to carry our thoughts. For some reason, a more widely spread, more representative, or more abstract concept will naturally become something like "label" and "identity". The existence of this kind of thing has already happened in history, and it happened for the reasons mentioned above. In any case, all of us are already a collection of complex identities. This aggregate is simplified in different ways in different situations, becoming different "labels". It is unimaginable to completely withdraw from it: when we walk into a bakery, under normal circumstances, we do not and do not need to understand the salesperson as a XX year old, XX family, XX gender, with XX identity and XX life experience The individual (even so understood, does not seem to be able to get rid of the suspicion of labeling). We are even less likely to get rid of the label similar to "salesperson" to relay our shopping experience to others.

What does "feminism" mean

In this way, we can only seek new ways of looking at the phenomenon of "labeling". Rather than rejecting it outright, trying to escape from it (which has been seen to be futile), we can at best object to the wrong use of labels in certain situations, such as treating someone (as mentioned earlier, as some more A complex collection of label-like things) reduced to a single label. We cannot discuss labels in a general, abstract way, or simply lament that the existence of labels obliterates “autonomy.” Since the emergence of labels stems from the need for real-world applications, we must go back to various real-life situations to understand how labels are used in different situations, and what are the benefits and harms. This is a complex issue that cannot be fully discussed here, I can only point it out and then discuss the controversy over the term "feminism" as a label in this event.

We'll start by looking at a salient phenomenon surrounding the term "feminism": groups of people who think it has different meanings are fighting over its definition. People who self-identify as feminists try to distinguish the term "feminism" from other common understandings of feminism, such as feminism asserting that women have more rights than men, and feminism encouraging women to manipulate and take advantage of men, arguing that these understandings are Misunderstanding and even stigmatization of feminism. This complicates the discussion of "is someone a feminist or not," because one is a feminist in some senses and not a feminist in other senses. This also confuses people trying to discuss whether Xianzi and Mai Yao are feminists at all, and even puts Mai Yao himself in some kind of confusion. In "What is Feminism?"[2], she writes: "...the advancement of justice to change the situation of sexual harassment, sexual assault is feminism". In this way, she and Xianzi are "really doing feminist things". But at the same time, she doesn't want to be defined as a feminist.

To understand the formation of this seemingly contradictory complex position, it is necessary to answer three questions: one is whether the two are feminists in the usual sense; It's whether the two want others to think of themselves as feminists. Whether in their writing or in the reader's response, these three questions are all mixed together and messed up. The crux of the controversy is that people don't understand why someone who embraces the idea of gender equality, and even tries to take action for women's rights, can think he's not a feminist, and doesn't want others to think he's a feminist. For example, author Ji Xiaocheng commented on Matters: "Accepting a certain label seems to be no different from agreeing with a certain value/theory." From this point of view, a feminist in the usual sense seems to have to consider himself Be a feminist and have to want other people to think of yourself as a feminist too.

Xianzi and Mai Yai try to refute this notion. The term "feminism" is a general term for some viewpoints in theory, but it is a "label" in practical application scenarios. One can identify with the whole idea of feminism but be reluctant to appear publicly as a "feminist" for some reason, just as one can be a homosexual within the meaning of being "attracted to the same sex" people, but for some reason (e.g. "don't want to believe", "don't want to be defined") don't consider themselves gay and don't want others to think so.

So what are the more specific reasons for the pair's reluctance to consider themselves feminists, other than a general reluctance to be labelled (which, as noted, is not an idea that can be achieved)? There are, I think, at least three: a) confusing feminism in the usual sense with stigmatized feminism, equating feminism with the latter; b) despite recognizing that there is a de-stigmatizing , feminism in the usual sense, but does not make the effort to clarify the meaning of this label, choosing instead to distance itself from possible controversies; c) agrees with the general principles of feminism, but has a specific understanding of these principles that differs from existing ones People who are considered feminists are different, for example, do not think they have the ability to carry feminist expectations of themselves, do not want their actions to be "politicized", do not want to discuss "ism", etc., so they do not want to be See as people under the same label.

Many self-proclaimed feminists identify reasons a and b. The way they respond to a is to try to reaffirm the distinction between feminism and feminism that has been misinterpreted, and to feel disappointed and angry that two people who once thought they understood them equated themselves with the enemy. The way to respond to b is that feminists make efforts to support the agenda of the two, but the two refuse to join the feminist ranks or pay attention to parts of the feminist agenda, which is a lack of solidarity. But I don't think either of these responses is satisfactory: since Mai Yao believes that what she does is indeed a "feminist thing", it seems that she cannot be considered ignorant of the usual meaning of "feminist", so a is not her form. reasons for the existing position. b may indeed be one of the reasons why the two reject the feminist label, but this choice is not necessarily unreasonable. After all, generally speaking, a group with solidarity may not have the right to ask all the people it supports to join itself and support its own agenda .

"Feminism" and "Politics"

Below, I would like to focus on the third reason. In Xianzi and Mai Yao's writings, it can be read that their real opinion on the "feminist" label is to distinguish what they are doing from the "political meaning" associated with the label. The category covered by the word "politics" here includes not only the tendency of empty theories such as "imaginationism" and "imposing a detached political meaning", but also realpolitik ( Realpolitik ) practices such as forming factions and attacking dissidents. Awareness of certain specific agendas (such as the relationship between judicial access and feminist demands, and the relationship between feminist values and some more general values, etc.).

I interpret these claims as a consequence of the aforementioned reasons c: the two, while agreeing with most of the principles of feminism, differed in their actual beliefs and actions from many self-proclaimed feminists, and wished instead to share the same A grassroots way of pursuing justice that has nothing to do with abstract political theories and complex disputes between different labels and factions: "Feminism is not a dinner party, but to truly promote women's rights requires many people to do something strategically." (The quotations in this paragraph and the previous paragraph are from the Xianzi article)

My response to this thinking is the need to recognize that feminists as a label cannot simply be identified with people who believe in feminism, or as a group that promotes a certain set of agendas. If we agree with the former, then it is impossible to imagine anyone who would support gender equality and not be a feminist. If we agree with the latter, then we have no way of understanding why "feminists" are angry that the object of their solidarity is unwilling to join them. Affected people join themselves. The feminist label is precisely the medium through which feminist theory intervenes in realpolitik, a way of mobilizing people to stop “dine-in” and unite around certain abstract normative beliefs, such as justice, freedom, and so on. Therefore, it is precisely a strategy that people use to push others to "do something", but different people use it to achieve different purposes, so there are "who are the real feminists", "(( What should real feminists do?" is a game in which different groups try to compete for the same conceptual tool to advance their own agendas.

Under this framework, those who have different understandings of what is feminism or what feminists should do, but still want to advance relevant actions, have two choices: one is to join the game and explain their own views on labels The second is to start anew and use other conceptual tools. What Xianzi and Mai-yao made was the latter choice: instead, they used the concepts of "freedom" and "justice" to support their actions and to unite those with similar pursuits.

Rather than judge the personal choices of the two parties, we can discuss what we should do when faced with a similar situation without this specific example. I think what needs to be seen here is that making such a choice does not mean that you can get rid of the various real-world political struggles around labels. A libertarian and so on. At this point, after all, we have to stand up and argue what is justice, what is freedom, and why we should all be liberals. One could argue that, unlike "feminists" as labels, freedom and justice are ultimate values that are not instrumental, and their purpose is not to initiate social movements, but to justify one's own actions. But this is only wishful thinking: for one, there are many people who have used similar values as mobilization tools in history, and they will not disappear in the future. If you blindly give in, you can only fall into the predicament of cocooning yourself. Second, if these concepts cannot be used to initiate social movements or otherwise enter the public sphere, it seems reasonable to question whether they have any relevance to the political problems we are trying to solve.

Conclusion: Under the web of power, how should we act?

A recent article[3] mentioned that, in Taiwan, "Don't things like 'queer', 'diversity', and 'mobility' sound familiar progressive languages? 'democracy' and 'human rights' are also marginal The community’s expectations for a political future? Even anti-gay language is now full of these words.” The anti-gay groups that use money and power to seize the right to speak have actually completed or redefines "gender education", "equal rights" and "inclusion" in the minds of some people, so that they have won the vote. In the face of such an offensive, can we give up the struggle for these concepts, give up our status as "equalitarians", and fight "as individuals"?

In this era of rampant fake news and stigmatized concepts, it is inevitable that various "labels" simplify and distort people's actual views. However, wishful thinking about withdrawing from it does not mean that we can truly get rid of the dilemma caused by labeling. Where there are people, there is politics as a public affair, and where there is politics, there are people who have to persuade others to take action, and there is a game about the right to interpret the concepts, labels, identities, and ideologies involved. If we still hope to make some changes in a certain way, but feel fear and rejection of such complex disputes, it is tantamount to hoping that "withdrawing from the arena" and "washing hands with gold" will be able to "smile proudly" , a utopian fantasy.

I think it is appropriate to end with a concept by Hannah Arendt: the attention, reflection and deliberation of a political community on its own problems Concepts and ways of thinking that allow individuals to think outside of their own perspective on the political issues facing our group. If we understand the problem we are facing as a lack of this sense of commonality, then anyone who wants to make meaningful change without wanting to be left alone must face the question of how to rebuild it.

[1] https://matters.news/forum/?post=cbd67620-b4dd-43ca-8577-6584ff8cb949

[2] https://media.weibo.cn/article?id=2309404309358313082083

[3] https://media.weibo.cn/article?id=2309404309607542879705

---

Note: This article is also published on the author's personal WeChat public account "Metasequoia Anshui".