Dear Anonymous Commenter
Thank you for your insightful comments. Apart from the final sentence, which I find it to be unnecessarily offensive, I think your comments do present another valid point of view. I do, however, believe that there are a few misunderstandings that might cause your anger in my untimely meditation.
Firstly, I do not doubt the genuinity of Jee-Wah's comments; rather my close reading of his speech is to point out how patriarchal assumptions are embedded within Hongkong culture's language, that people unconsciuosnessly say anti-feminist things. They cannot be faulted; on the other hand, it is necessary for them (and us too) to recognize our cultural assumptions and how damaging it can be.
Secondly, specifically to Jee-Wah's comment with regards to the many kinds of princess, I think he is indeed honest in trying to rouse people to their maturity. But his language does not show that: by categorizing you establish a hierarchy, because the categories are constructed by words, and words themselves carry social connotation that a specific culture cannot just get rid of. So when Jee-Wah implies that there are slim princesses and fat princesses, this unconsciously construct the hierarchy of slim over the fat (because of the connotation from culture), and therefore his comment effectively dismisses Yan-Yee as a being who is also entitled to a legitimate (e.g. "slim") endowing of the title "princess". As long as this hierarchy stays, and as long as the connotations of the word "fat" does not change, no matter how open-minded you are, you are still conservative.
Thirdly, your "political" view, in my humble opinion, is far too narrow. "Politics" is not just about George Bush. Politics is about power struggle, and that extends to all groups of people, and all kinds of grouping of people, from class struggle, to philosophical-political (e.g. socialism vs. fascism) struggle, to sexual struggle (gay vs straight, male vs. female), to racial struggle. The Yan-Yee issue has to do with a sexual struggle: this happens because of the all too powerful masculine gaze that imposes itself on the feminine body. It is not just about this trend or that trend, but the underlying structure of all trends. In fact, I would argue that the timely philosophical-political struggle is not as important as a cultural struggle like the one I've talked about - no effective changes can be made if we only focus on the timely, superficial level. This is precisely why the US has not change at all since its constitution: timely politics become such a big part of its culture that no cultural change takes place - capitalism remains the status quo; unquestioning political-religious values remains the status quo; argubly patriarchy remains the status quo. If the status quo remains, then nothing changes, and what good is that? "Politics" is not about going to marches and demonstrations; it is about the spreading of the ideas that are found in the marches and demonstrations, and as a cultural critic I should be spreading ideas by writing them and talking about them. This is hardly gossip about celebrities: this is real, political talk.
Fourthly, I do not like your comment of taking me and generalizing that "Chinese's tendency to be "curious" about entertainment news instead of current events that are happening around the world." I think it is awfully reductive of you to say that. If you are annoyed by my cultural critiques, please tell me why they are annoying. But there is certainly no need to make this kind of comments.
Fifthly, I must have to say that with a deconstructive reading of your comments it reveals the nature of your social, cultural and political background more than anything else. While you suggest me to meditate on "world" issues, I would suggest you to meditate (untimely, that is the key Nietzschean word) on"wordly" issues: issues of power, of structures, of narratives, of sexuality. I have the luxury of not having to worry about dinner tomorrow; I will admit that I come from a middle-class family. Precisely because I have the economic base I am now free to think about these "untimely" things; and I really believe that I should think about them because it would make the world a better place to live: no longer a place of patriarchal oppression, or class struggle, racism, etc. - a world of true cultural equality.
I hope we will continue this discussion, but in a milder tone.
Tristan
Firstly, I do not doubt the genuinity of Jee-Wah's comments; rather my close reading of his speech is to point out how patriarchal assumptions are embedded within Hongkong culture's language, that people unconsciuosnessly say anti-feminist things. They cannot be faulted; on the other hand, it is necessary for them (and us too) to recognize our cultural assumptions and how damaging it can be.
Secondly, specifically to Jee-Wah's comment with regards to the many kinds of princess, I think he is indeed honest in trying to rouse people to their maturity. But his language does not show that: by categorizing you establish a hierarchy, because the categories are constructed by words, and words themselves carry social connotation that a specific culture cannot just get rid of. So when Jee-Wah implies that there are slim princesses and fat princesses, this unconsciously construct the hierarchy of slim over the fat (because of the connotation from culture), and therefore his comment effectively dismisses Yan-Yee as a being who is also entitled to a legitimate (e.g. "slim") endowing of the title "princess". As long as this hierarchy stays, and as long as the connotations of the word "fat" does not change, no matter how open-minded you are, you are still conservative.
Thirdly, your "political" view, in my humble opinion, is far too narrow. "Politics" is not just about George Bush. Politics is about power struggle, and that extends to all groups of people, and all kinds of grouping of people, from class struggle, to philosophical-political (e.g. socialism vs. fascism) struggle, to sexual struggle (gay vs straight, male vs. female), to racial struggle. The Yan-Yee issue has to do with a sexual struggle: this happens because of the all too powerful masculine gaze that imposes itself on the feminine body. It is not just about this trend or that trend, but the underlying structure of all trends. In fact, I would argue that the timely philosophical-political struggle is not as important as a cultural struggle like the one I've talked about - no effective changes can be made if we only focus on the timely, superficial level. This is precisely why the US has not change at all since its constitution: timely politics become such a big part of its culture that no cultural change takes place - capitalism remains the status quo; unquestioning political-religious values remains the status quo; argubly patriarchy remains the status quo. If the status quo remains, then nothing changes, and what good is that? "Politics" is not about going to marches and demonstrations; it is about the spreading of the ideas that are found in the marches and demonstrations, and as a cultural critic I should be spreading ideas by writing them and talking about them. This is hardly gossip about celebrities: this is real, political talk.
Fourthly, I do not like your comment of taking me and generalizing that "Chinese's tendency to be "curious" about entertainment news instead of current events that are happening around the world." I think it is awfully reductive of you to say that. If you are annoyed by my cultural critiques, please tell me why they are annoying. But there is certainly no need to make this kind of comments.
Fifthly, I must have to say that with a deconstructive reading of your comments it reveals the nature of your social, cultural and political background more than anything else. While you suggest me to meditate on "world" issues, I would suggest you to meditate (untimely, that is the key Nietzschean word) on"wordly" issues: issues of power, of structures, of narratives, of sexuality. I have the luxury of not having to worry about dinner tomorrow; I will admit that I come from a middle-class family. Precisely because I have the economic base I am now free to think about these "untimely" things; and I really believe that I should think about them because it would make the world a better place to live: no longer a place of patriarchal oppression, or class struggle, racism, etc. - a world of true cultural equality.
I hope we will continue this discussion, but in a milder tone.
Tristan
posted by Tristan at 11:10 p.m.
9 Comments:
Have you guys tried asking the people who really detest yanyi why they hate her so much?
I'm personally rather ambivalent/indifferent towards her (“欣宜於我何有哉﹖”)... so it's quite eye-opening to listen to others speak so passionately about the feelings of disgust that yanyi elicits in them.
(I guess those are the people who need to get a life...... “雖小道﹐ 必有可觀者焉﹔ 致遠恐泥﹐ 是以君子不為也。”)
I think the HK public is indeed overreacting over the issue. However, I'm not sure if I fully agree with patriarchy as the reason for the resentment. I think the reason is partly due to the obsession with beauty that not only HK, but the western world is experiencing today. If Yan Yee was a fat and ugly male and had dressed up as a prince, I think she (he?) would still have received the same amount of complaints. Maybe HK's beauty-judging standards are more strict on females than on males, which is why I partly agree with your view of patriarchy being the cause, but I think the situation isn't that much better for males.
I don't really follow HK media that closely, so I'm not sure why Yan Yee is hated so much either. However, I have heard on several accounts that Yan Yee is rather 'inch'. If this is true, then perhaps the complaints have more to do with her detestable personality rather than her physical appearance.
This definitely isn't the kind of gossip you would commonly read or hear about in HK media these days. Indeed, it is a serious problem facing modern western society and is just as worthy of discussion as any other "current events that are happening around the world."
I've also gotten the feeling that people destest yanyi more because of her personality than because of her physical appearance (of course, her physical appearance doesn't help things either).
As for whether there's any sexism involved here... let us think of... William Hung. Was he ridiculed as heavily as yanyi is being ridiculed today? People hated him, sure, but they didn't go as far as to file complaints.
As I've said before... if some ugly guy "pretends" to be "cool" and "handsome", the people will at most laugh at him. Some porkchop "pretends" to be "hot", and the people throw up and deride her to no end. OK, perhaps the people would throw up at the guy too... but probably not as hard as they'd throw up at the girl, right? And see... my use of the word "porkchop" is interesting. It brings up the question of whether or not there's an corresponding male term. Is there?
Are you gay?
To the anonymous person who replied in the last two posts:
You said "the underlying intention of the remark carries the same meaning as what the new Dove commercial is attempting to manifest."
From the Dove ads slogan, "real women have curves," one can only presume that the women in the ads have culturally unacceptable bodies; in other words, they are fat.
The women in these ads are part of a campaign to promote "real beauty." Again, it's saying that these are supposedly larger than the usual "unreal" models.
What this ad says to me is that this type of "real women" who have "curves" is not measuring up to what is thought of being beautiful. It's just condescending.
Another thing that's interesting is that Dove's ads are aiming for an audience of "real women" but take a look at them and you will see that each of them have perfect skin, with absolute no wrinkles, cellulite or flabs. Sure they're not wearing Victoria's Secret but they're the same old airbrushed models with slightly less makeup.
Here is a link to the pictures and a discussion of the topic.
http://ad-rag.com/122029.php
If you think politics of aesthetics are not disscussing, then please take your pseudo-intellectual jargon elsewhere.
I don't follow HK news, and have no fucking clue who this Yan person is. But the person who left the post last time made a comment that is utterly absurd:
"Rather, your "untimely Meditations" causes me to worry about another trend: Chinese's tendency to be "curious" about entertainment news instead of current events that are happening around the world. I suggest that you should "meditate" on some more worldwide issues instead of being so keen and nosy about stars and gossips."
This is ignorance at its best. Anyone who follows western news would realize how much time and space are spent on gossip about Britney or Paris. So this comment on "Chinese tendency" shows the poster to be a rather narrowminded individual. Alas Tristan, I must admit I am more interested in electrodynamics at the moment than analyzing the rest of your post. Maybe later.
Chris
Just to clarify, I did not post any other comment except for that one long one giving the site some feedbacks.
To Chris: I do not think that you have the right to judge, as your comment revealing the limited knowledge you know about the Chinese culture, as evidenced by the fact that you do not even know who Yan-Yee is - dismisses your validy in comparing the two cultures. How do you know that the trend to gossip on "Britney or Paris" is equal to Chinese's trend to gossip about Yan-Yee or Myolie Wu or Roger Kowk, taking into account that you do not even know any of them? Surely your rather ignorant position towards Hong Kong gossips causes you to underestimate Hong Kong people's "tendency to be curious" about stars. What I am referring to is evidenced by the dispersing of reporters after "Zhang Man Yuk" claims that she is not ready to marry. In this case, I am not only talking about Hong Kong's wave of curiousity in general, but also their lack of basic respect for the others. As for the comment towards my narrow-mindedness, I do not construe you to be any better, as manifested by your one-sided knowledge on the western culture.
For Tristan: I do not mean to offend you. Towards the issue raised about Jun-gee-wai's comment, I do not agree with what you said about his attempts to categorize and thereby to condescend individuals. You cannot deny that there are pretty, ugly, overweight, slim, young, and old people out there. Your point of admonishing Jee-wai is not fathomable, because by not being aware of the differences that exist in this world, one is merely trying to blindfold oneself into thinking that "everyone is equal and no one should categorize anyone to be thin or fat." The fact is: there are thin people and there are fat people out there. We must not reject the truth. What we can do, is to broaden our human tolerance for these differences. Without categories in this world, improvements and progressions would not take place interminably in this world. Differences are needed for competition and advancement in society. Similarly, I commend the Dove's commercial because it portrays many of these differences as beautiful individuals. What I do concern about is D.Y's opinion that even portraying these individuals in the commercial is condescending. The question to me is...why? The answer that I came up with is that YOU are the one who has a preconceived idea that only the idealistic models can appear on these commercial, and by making a connection between condescension and the new image of beauty presented in Dove, you are suggesting to me that the condescension is within you. Lastly, I do not concur with the world of "true cultural equality" that Tristan is trying to create. I cannot even believe that in ruminating about these articles, you are going to change the world. Cultural eqality, to me, is as difficult to reach as utopia. There is no true cultural equality. For instance, the existing term of "Chinatown" in Canada would be oppressive - at least to you - because it is simply a way to categorize the Chinese in one area. Even your usage of "cultural" equality is symbolic of the segregation between different race then. Recall the fact that the last time humans tried to achieve political equality, the world suffered profoundly from communism.
The other factors that you posted I cannot reply to yet, because I simply do not have the time to go through all your points. I enjoy reading your reply to my comment, and I feel flattered by the discussion that has been carried out because of it.
I shall be referred to as,
A.C. for Anonymous Commenter.
P.S. If I have misinterpreted your meanings, please correct me, as I have skimmed through your entry in a rush.
"I do not think that you have the right to judge"
And you do? My friend made an analysis of something he thought was interesting, and you told him to get a life. Yes, the mark of true objectivity and intellectualism.
No, I do not know the specific people in the article, which is why I have not commented on that particular story. My reply was only to your generalization, the "Chinese tendency to be curious about entertainment news". My parents watch chinese TV, and there's plenty of chinese newspaper/reading material lying around my home. The little snippets I pick up from here and there are enough to confirm that this "Chinese tendency" is not limited to China at all.
"I do not construe you to be any better, as manifested by your one-sided knowledge on the western culture."
Go stick your highschool bullshit argument up your ass. Using big words and writing pretty sentences does not make you any more intelligent.
Chris
A.C. sounds like a very interesting dude (or dudette?) indeed.
Actually, last night I was talking with Tristan and I said that, the more I thought about it, the more that whole "get a life" thing... actually struck me as... making a lot of sense and having some merit to it. I guess we were initially less receptive to it due to the injurious tone.
For you see... it brings to mind the ideal of the literati in traditional China (or even all of traditional East Asia, i.e., "cultural China")... 天下為己任... and recalls the reference I made to the Analects I made at the end of my first comment on this entry ("Although the byways no doubt have their own interesting sights to see, one who wishes to reach a distant destination fears becoming mired. This is why the gentleman does not take the byways.")
In this "Apple Daily" era we live in, it seems like not a lot of people in HK have any sort of ideal (理想) at all... other than making as much money as possible or becoming famous or what have you. Within this context, "get a life!" certainly doesn't appear nearly as outrageous.
But saying that Tristan ought to "get a life"... 此言差矣﹗ For Tristan is considering applying to become an AO in HK when he graduates... and that strikes me as, in fact, a pretty conventional expression of that literati ideal. Aspiring scholars (scholar-apprentices? gentlemen?) have always tended to an overwhelming degree to enter civil service once they finish their education. In that respect, Tristan very much reminds me of a traditional Chinese literatus (LOL!) and doesn't need to "get a life" nearly as much as the "Apple Daily" crowd in HK do.
(Of course, I think that Tristan's interest in Stephen Chow movies and TVB soaps doesn't exactly exactly make him a super-traditional literatus either... hmm... ;-) )
Post a Comment
<< Home