Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to boundary 2.
http://www.jstor.org
International Theory and the Transnational Critic:
China in the Age of Multiculturalism
Michelle Yeh
I thank Professors A. Owen Aldridge, Rey Chow, Prasenjit Duara, Lydia H. Liu, Marjorie
Perloff, and Wen-hsin Yeh, as well as the audiences at the University of Notre Dame,
University of Georgia, Athens, and University of California, Berkeley, for their valuable
comments on earlier versions of the paper.
ture. In a short span of five or six years, roughlyfiftyor sixty years' worth of
Western theories were introducedto Chinese readers."9
Knowledge of Western theory is not only acquired through reading
but also through direct contact with theorists. While a sizable number of
Chinese students major in literaryand cultural studies in North America
and Europe, quite a few theorists fromthe West have visited Taiwan, Hong
Kong, and mainlandChina in the past two decades. The luminariesinclude
IhabHassan, Susan Sontag, FredricJameson, TerryEagleton, Charles Tay-
lor,Tzvetan Todorov,RichardRorty,J. HillisMiller,MurrayKrieger,TrinhT.
Minh-ha,GayatriSpivak, Umberto Eco, Jonathan Arac, Stuart Hall,and the
list goes on. Leadingjournalsand book reviews in Chinese devote generous
space to Western theory-in the form of translations, introductions,inter-
views, and the like-and its applications to Chinese literatureand culture.
For instance, the table of contents of Con-Temporary(Dangdai), a
leading humanities and social sciences journalfounded in Taiwan in 1986
by Tu Wei-ming of HarvardUniversity,lists (in chronological order) special
issues on Foucault, Derrida, feminism, neo-Marxism, Heidegger, Althus-
ser, Benjamin, Baudrillard,Bourdieu, Lacan, and Jameson. The focus on
contemporary theory finds another telling example in Chung-wai Literary
Monthly(Zhongwai wenxue), published by the Department of Foreign Lan-
guages and Literaturesof National Taiwan University.Founded in 1972, it
was the strongholdof New Criticismin the 1970s but in recent years has fea-
tured deconstruction, postcolonialism, French feminism, psychoanalysis,
chaos theory, Rorty,queer theory, and so on. Nowadays, reputable schol-
arlyjournals in Chinese don't look much differentfromtheir NorthAmerican
counterparts in terms of the range of theories used but differmainly in the
literaryand culturaltexts under analysis. If there were strong reservations
about, and resistance to, Western theory in Chinese studies in the 1970s,
by the 1990s, Western theory has come to occupy a uniquely privileged
position in Chinese intellectualcircles.
However,it is importantto qualifythe above remarks by pointingout
that, strictly speaking, contemporary theory should no longer be labeled
as "Western"-that is, Anglo-European-especially in the cases of post-
colonial and feminist theories, to which critics of diverse ethnic and cultural
origins have made important contributions. Edward Said, Homi Bhabha,
Partha Chatterjee, Appiah, Chow, Trinh,and Spivak are only a few of those
we mightname. They represent a growingnumberof critics in the West who
come from biculturalor multiculturalbackgrounds that significantly shape
their theoretical perspectives and account for the contributions they are
able to make. However, scholars in Chinese literaryand cultural studies
generally make no distinction between those who come from non-Western
backgrounds but achieve distinction in the West and Anglo-Europeancrit-
ics. Both groups are categorized as Western. In other words, when critical
theory, as mediated by scholars in the West, is used by the Chinese, it
almost always takes place in a dualistic frameworkof "East versus West"
(Dong/Xi) or "Chinaversus the West" (Zhong/Xi).The lack of precise differ-
entiation is not due to ignorance but is noteworthybecause it is embedded
in a particularcultural psychology, which will be the focus of the ensuing
discussion.
If contemporary theory can be regarded as a culturalsign, then its
role must be defined in relationto other signs in the semiotic system, which
in this case is China. It is understandable, and even predictable, that in
China, a cultural system vastly different from that of the United States,
France, or Germany, theory plays a differentrole and has a differentfunc-
tion. Or, to use another analogy, we may find a parallel between popular
culture and theory in China. Although the globalization of theory can be
seen as part and parcel of the culturalglobalization (of which American-
ization is a major element) I mentioned earlier, its consumption inevitably
displays local variationsthat serve local agendas. Ratherthan seeing China
as a passive consumer of Western theory, we may ask how Western theory
is appropriatedfor Chinese purposes.
"Whatcan and does Western theory do in the culturaland political
environment of China?"When Zhang Longxi posed this question in 1992,
his answer was wholly positive: "Alltheories willy-nillyfound themselves to
be both foreign and Western and thereby acquired an oppositional status
with radicallysubversive implications."10The government clearly recognized
the subversive implications of Western theory and sought to contain its
influence, as was evident in such nationwide political campaigns against
intellectuals, known as the Anti-SpiritualPollutionCampaign of 1983-1984
and the Anti-BourgeoisLiberalizationCampaign of 1987. Ina more system-
atic analysis, Chen Xiaomei defines Occidentalism as the Chinese discur-
sive construction of the West, which is "markedby a particularcombination
10. LongxiZhang,"WesternTheory,"129.
Theoryandthe Transnational
Yeh / International Critic 201
16. Xu Ben, "'Third-World 17.The last quotationin this paragraphis also from
Criticism,'"
this essay, 27.
17. I thankProfessorWen-hsinYehforremindingme of the joke.
204 boundary2 / Fall1998
the American to openly criticize his president in Washington, D.C., for the
Russian to criticizethe American president in Moscow is wholly conformist
and patriotic,given the open rivalrybetween the two nations duringthe cold
war era. The joke reminds us how crucial it is, when we study cultures other
than our own, to understand their practices and representations. It also
serves as an analogue to Zhao's and Xu's arguments summarized above.
When Western theory is transported to the Chinese context (that is, China
in the 1990s), its culturalsignificance undergoes a transformationand takes
on new meanings that are not only differentfrom, but even opposite to, the
original.
Another irony underscores the foregoing discussion, which derives
from the fact that the analytical frameworkof Zhao and Xu is basically no
different from that of Chen and Zhang. All of these critics recognize the
primacy of context in transculturaland transnational situations, and all of
them focus on the meaning of Western theory in Chinese contexts. The fact
that Zhao's and Xu's essays set off a widespread controversy both in and
outside China over the latest phase of Chinese appropriationsof Western
theory is in sharp contrast to the absence of controversy with regard to
Chen's and Zhang's studies a few years earlier.The contrast is a telling clue
that perhaps the Chinese geopolitical space in the 1990s is significantly
differentfrom that in the 1980s. Whereas Zhao suggests that culturaldis-
courses in China are shiftingfrom liberalismto conservatism, Xu interprets
the change as indicative of acquiescence on the part of Chinese intellec-
tuals to officialideology, of which nationalism is a pronounced component.
Ironically,if nationalism is subject to constant critical scrutiny and decon-
struction in contemporary theory in the West, the same theory seems to
provide many Chinese intellectuals with a rationalefor culturalnationalism.
In a 1994 interview in the state-run journal Strategy and Manage-
ment (Zhanlue yu guanli), Wang Hui repeatedly warns against the "merg-
ing" of Western theory and Chinese nationalism: "When[postcolonialism]
is transplantedto the unique context of China, it quite naturallymerges with
the indigenous traditionof nationalism."Nationalism,according to Wang, is
a conscious culturalchoice made by those who are deeply committed to
national interests. "Introducedto China in the early 1990s, radicalWestern
theory reinforcesthe mainstream discourse,"namely, "theculturalnational-
ism of some Chinese intellectuals."18 Why is it "natural"for Western theory
"intuitive"grasp of the true spiritof Chinese culture and then to those out-
side China. But according to this mode of thinking,emigre Chinese schol-
ars should be placed in the second circle, outside the innermost one of
the natives; after all, they come from China and, generally speaking, have
closer personal and culturalties to China than non-Chinese sinologists. Yet
in the prolonged debate in Twenty-FirstCentury,they receive the harshest
criticism. Although it is true that location alone is not the basis of criticism,
when an emigre Chinese scholar criticizes China he or she is criticizedfor
being ill-intentioned,"pedagogical,"and complicitous with the West. The
reason, I reiterate, is that the real issue here is not scholarship but cultural
identity,or, more specifically, Chinese cultural identity,which is perceived
as feeble and diluted.
China's identitycrisis began with its unequal and asymmetrical en-
counters with Western imperialists in the second half of the nineteenth
century. Faced with the grim possibilityof fallingunder foreign domination,
China embarked on a long, tortuous course of self-strengthening that was
filled with tension and contradictions.Ying-shihYu views modern Chinese
intellectualhistoryas a continuing"process of rapidradicalization,"from in-
terpretationand discovery at the turnof this century to wholesale radicalism
from the May Fourth period onward. In the first phase, the Chinese dis-
covery of the West was disguised as a reinterpretationof China behind the
theory of "Chinese origins of Western learning."Inthe second phase, radi-
calism takes the form of "incessantly seeking to importthe latest products
in the culturalmarketfromthe West,"or "neoterism,""a mentalityobsessed
with change, with what is new."31
Yu sees the two phases of radicalizationof modern Chinese intel-
lectuals as distinct, but it is not clear why and how one gives rise to and is
eventually replaced by the other. I would suggest that they are coexistent
and interdependent rather than distinct from each other. Throughoutthe
modern period, radical reformis propelled, above all, by nationalist agen-
das not only to make China "prosperous and strong" but also to restore
China's status as a center of culture comparable to that of leading West-
ern nations. The dilemma that Chinese intellectuals face is this: Ifto import
Western learning enables China to catch up with the West, borrowingit
also makes China always one step behind. Thus, as China learns from the
West, it is necessary at the same time to emphasize the Chineseness of
spite their own histories, are simply denied identityand validityin the eyes
of the People's Republic."45
Althoughthe domains that Chow mentions are all "Chinese,"to sub-
sume them under such a rubricas "CulturalChina"is dangerous so long
as it presumes the centralityof mainlandChina, thus puttinga culturalhier-
archyfirmlyin place that is at least potentiallyrepressive. The culturalhege-
mony that Chow critiques is unfortunatelyevident in the transnationalfield
of Chinese literaryand cultural studies, anywhere from college curricula
to scholarly publications having to do with modern China. The absence, in
most cases, of Taiwanand Hong Kong is simply taken for granted. To cite
two specific examples, despite the increasing attention to popular culture
in mainlandChina, few scholars study it alongside Hong Kong and Taiwan,
even though, as Thomas Gold has pointed out, the popularcultureof Hong
Kong and Taiwan-"Gangtai"-has been a major influence on mainland
China and is "corrosiveand potentiallydestabilizing"to the establishment.
Anotherexample would be the critiqueof modern Chinese poetry launched
by the poet-criticZheng Minin 1993-1994.46Zheng dismisses modern Chi-
nese poetry in toto on the ground that it severs itself fromthe linguisticand
literaryresources of classical Chinese. Her historicalsurvey of modern Chi-
nese poetry encompasses the MayFourthpioneers, the experimentalpoets
of the 1930s-1940s, the bleak poetry scene duringthe Mao period, and the
rejuvenationof poetry in the 1980s-1990s. Nowhere in her discussion, how-
ever, does she consider the remarkableartistic innovations in Taiwanand
Hong Kong. Regardless of the genre or topic, Hong Kong and Taiwanare
simply nonexistent in many literaryand culturalstudies of modern China.
In many cases, our understanding of China can benefit a great
deal from comparative perspectives across geopolitical boundaries. For in-
stance, almost all the critics who participatedin the debate in Twenty-First
Century, regardless of their positions and despite claims to the contrary,
operate in a dualistic frameworkof China versus the West, or indigenous
versus overseas, and show little critical awareness of its problematic as-
sumptions. Althoughit has become common among scholars to study post-
Mao literatureand culture in terms of the dichotomyof officialand unofficial,
hegemonic and oppositional, I doubt if the analytic scheme is as viable for
the 1990s as it has been in earlier eras. Inview of the rapidcommercializa-
tion, the rise of a vitalpopularculture,and the gradualformationof a private,
civic sphere in mainland China over the past decade, it is conceivable that
culturaldiscourses can no longer be adequately described withinthis kind
of framework,in which such scholars as Zhao, Xu, Chen, and Zhang base
their arguments. In her pioneering study of modern fiction in Taiwan,Sung-
sheng Yvonne Chang draws on Raymond Williams'swork on hegemony to
develop a tripartiteparadigmfor studying the culturaldiscourses in postwar
Taiwan.She differentiatesbetween the discourse created by the Nationalist
government as "hegemonic,"modernist literatureas "alternative," and nativ-
ist literatureas "oppositional."While the modernists of the 1960s "adopted
literaryconcepts developed in Western capitalist society" and shared the
government's drive toward modernization,they simultaneously harbored a
skepticism toward the dominant culture's neotraditionalistdiscourse" and
took "such bourgeois social values as individualism,liberalism,and ratio-
nalism as correctives for the oppressive social relations derived from a
traditionalsystem of values."47In other words, despite its divergence from
the oppositional discourse of the nativists in the 1970s, modernistdiscourse
was a subversive force vis-a-vis official ideology.
The Williams model that Chang develops in her book suggests an
alternative perspective from which to view Chinese literary and cultural
studies in the 1990s. Even ifwe agree with Zhao and Xu that some Chinese
critics, both in and outside China, display nationalisttendencies, this does
not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they endorse officialideology or
that they do not, in fact, try to develop an independent position that only
intersects with official ideology on the issue of nationalism. In other words,
a more nuanced study of culturaldiscourses in contemporary China may
requirethat we go beyond the dualisticculturallogic and pay more attention
to existing or emergent alternative positions.
Obviously, Taiwan is not the only vantage point from which China
may be studied comparatively.With regard to the debate in Twenty-First
Century, even a cursory glance at Russian intellectuals may yield mean-
ingfulcomparisons with China. When LiahGreenfeld gave a seminar at the
Davis Humanities Institute in 1994, I asked her about Russian intellectu-
als' reception of criticaltheory in the post-Soviet era. Greenfeld, who came
froma familyof Russian intellectuals, answered that in her frequent contact
with Russian academics, none of them showed any interest in contempo-
rarytheory. The sharp contrast with Chinese intellectuals could raise some
interesting questions.
Consider another comparative perspective. Local appropriationsof
Western theory in differentChinese contexts may providea unique perspec-
tive on Chinese societies and cultures. For instance, in Taiwan, feminism
and postcolonialism have been especially influentialnot only in intellectual
circles but also in the publicsphere in general. Besides books, magazines,
conferences, and newspaper columns devoted to feminist issues, feminism
has been a majorforce behind Taiwan'slegal reformand social movements.
In recent years, feminism in Taiwan has directed much attention to queer
theory; in 1995, a gay rights group advanced (or revived) the theory that
Qu Yuan (338-278 B.C.),"thefather of Chinese poetry,"was a homosexual.
As to postcolonialism in Taiwan, one of its agendas is to give voice to the
underrepresented aborigines against dominantethnic groups on the island,
includingthe Fukienese, the Hakka,and the Mainlanders(those who moved
from mainlandChina to Taiwanafter WorldWar II).
In contrast, both homosexuality and the empowerment of ethnic mi-
norities are still by and large neglected (forbidden?)areas of intellectual
inquiryin China. In comparison, postcolonialism plays a much more promi-
nent role than feminism in mainland China, despite the fact that feminism
has been around longer. According to a 1992 survey by Zhang Jingyuan,
while we find many histories and anthologies of women writers published
in mainlandChina, there are few books on feministtheory and criticism.Of
the three that she mentions, only one, published in 1989, "signal[s]the in-
dependence and maturityof Chinese feminist literarycriticism."48 Why has
feminism not made a more significant impact in mainland China? In what
way are feminist critiques undermined by the official, nationalist ideology
that, in claiming to subsume gender equality under its objectives, elides
it? What is the relationbetween feminism and "mainstream"scholarship in