What do you think?
Rate this book
Fables for the Patriarchs: Gender Politics in Tang Discourse
Exploring issues of gender in Tang-dynasty literature and culture, Jowen R.Tung draws on a comprehensive range of historical, literary, and social texts to unravel the complex mechanisms of one of the world's oldest patriarchal systems. The author reveals the profound damage inflicted by the masculine state ideology on its subjects by illuminating the problematics of male sexuality under the hovering phallus of the emperor, the construct of male and female psyches within the pseudo-monogamous household, the logic of the collective unconscious in the literati's writings, and a female tradition desperately trapped inside the law of the father. Tung poses urgent questions about a civilization that builds itself upon the sacrifice of human lives and arrives at a rather dark interpretation of the Tang_for many the epitome of the Chinese empire. As such, the book moves beyond the confines of gender studies to propose a heightened agenda for feminist studies, which the author argues now stand at a critical conjecture.
224 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2000
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
December 2, 2021
Because this book has almost no reviews in support, I’m going to quote one from historian Beata Grant: “A completely engrossing, truly extraordinary work. There exists nothing in English on gender in Tang dynasty literature and culture that even remotely resembles this book, whether in terms of comprehensiveness, originality, or analytic depth. No one before has so confidently and persuasively applied feminist critical theory to the topic.”
I go along with that. Not that I am in the slightest acquainted with what else is written on the topic. But it’s the first time I’ve met this sort of radical critique as extended to Chinese culture. It was devastatingly on target. It isn’t only about women; as she says in her preface, “… the dualism of masculinity versus femininity damages both genders. Envisioning an emancipation of women through which men will also be liberated is an integral part of feminism that has not been sufficiently understood.”
It is written not as objective, dispassionate scholarship; on the contrary, it is passionate. I wondered whether I should call it protest scholarship. Added to that, it is written with craft – not in journalese, but in the passionate wish to persuade and in the conviction that the art and eloquence of sentences is not an irrelevance in her arguments. She even has brief fictions, from her own pen, at the heads of her chapters, and guess what? for me, these worked.
Its latter chapters focus on Tang poetry. ‘In Feminine Voice’ looks at what the female voice adopted by male poets meant, both for these poets – what of themselves did they so express? -- and for women who to an extent accepted these voices written for them, which influenced how they lived and felt.
I had to take a few leaps of faith to open this book (Derrida, lack of reviews, the ill-advised book description that to my chary eyes looks like a travesty of ‘feminist theory’). As soon as I did open it, I was astounded, and utterly seduced.
I go along with that. Not that I am in the slightest acquainted with what else is written on the topic. But it’s the first time I’ve met this sort of radical critique as extended to Chinese culture. It was devastatingly on target. It isn’t only about women; as she says in her preface, “… the dualism of masculinity versus femininity damages both genders. Envisioning an emancipation of women through which men will also be liberated is an integral part of feminism that has not been sufficiently understood.”
It is written not as objective, dispassionate scholarship; on the contrary, it is passionate. I wondered whether I should call it protest scholarship. Added to that, it is written with craft – not in journalese, but in the passionate wish to persuade and in the conviction that the art and eloquence of sentences is not an irrelevance in her arguments. She even has brief fictions, from her own pen, at the heads of her chapters, and guess what? for me, these worked.
Its latter chapters focus on Tang poetry. ‘In Feminine Voice’ looks at what the female voice adopted by male poets meant, both for these poets – what of themselves did they so express? -- and for women who to an extent accepted these voices written for them, which influenced how they lived and felt.
I had to take a few leaps of faith to open this book (Derrida, lack of reviews, the ill-advised book description that to my chary eyes looks like a travesty of ‘feminist theory’). As soon as I did open it, I was astounded, and utterly seduced.
February 23, 2013
I came across this book at SOAS and was very excited to see a Tang dynasty book about women that I hadn't read yet. I did my MA dissertation on Taoism and women in the Tang so am always on the look out for more writing in this area. I bought myself a cheap copy on amazon and was looking forward to reading it. I read the introduction and realised that I think I HAD found this while I was studying at SOAS but the reason that I hadn't read it was because it wasn't very good.
I must admit that I gave up after 35 pages. The start of the book was full of all those post-modern buzz words which I find really annoying. (Complaining about how the "West" dominates scholarship while using post-modern critique seemed really odd). But I was willing to look past that if the book was good as I've enjoyed books with that style before.
The problem with this one was that it wasn't.
There were several problems.
She mentioned how the Tang is seen as China's golden age, but when you read the diary of the Japanese monk Ennin he talks about how awful it is. Of course Ennin visited at a time towards the end of the dynasty when it is acknowledged that it is not at it's best and during the midst of a Buddhist persecution. None of these really reflect on the earlier period.
She said how when you look at representations of women in art they show happy women with occupations however, when you look at writing by women (women's poems) they show that they are dreadfully unhappy. The point that she missed was that this "women's style" was something that had been invented by men. Men writing as women to express their own feelings of loneliness. The women's writings were this way because that was the cultural context for their poetry that existed because of male poets.
She was clearly biased in favour of Buddhism over Taoism. She made the division between "Philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism" something that modern scholarship has really brought into question. But not only did she see a difference but she thought the two were totally conflicting with each other. She talked about how Taoism sexualised women but how Buddhist women were able to be nuns (when Taoist women during this time also were able to be nuns). It was just all very confused.
She talked about how the problems of gender in the Tang led to further problems with women for women in the Song. She mentioned in the main text how in the Song dowerys increased which showed how women were increasingly "commodified". I questioned this immediately having read Patricia Ebrey's excellent studies that show how this actually showed a better valuation for women, and how the women were able to keep control of this money after marriage (unlike English wives even in the 19th century). I looked at her footnote and she said how Ebrey had also shown that this might have counter-acted the negative effect. To put something in a footnote that contradicts something you said in the main text seemed dubious.
I was quite disappointed with this. I am afraid I can't recommend it.
I must admit that I gave up after 35 pages. The start of the book was full of all those post-modern buzz words which I find really annoying. (Complaining about how the "West" dominates scholarship while using post-modern critique seemed really odd). But I was willing to look past that if the book was good as I've enjoyed books with that style before.
The problem with this one was that it wasn't.
There were several problems.
She mentioned how the Tang is seen as China's golden age, but when you read the diary of the Japanese monk Ennin he talks about how awful it is. Of course Ennin visited at a time towards the end of the dynasty when it is acknowledged that it is not at it's best and during the midst of a Buddhist persecution. None of these really reflect on the earlier period.
She said how when you look at representations of women in art they show happy women with occupations however, when you look at writing by women (women's poems) they show that they are dreadfully unhappy. The point that she missed was that this "women's style" was something that had been invented by men. Men writing as women to express their own feelings of loneliness. The women's writings were this way because that was the cultural context for their poetry that existed because of male poets.
She was clearly biased in favour of Buddhism over Taoism. She made the division between "Philosophical Taoism" and "religious Taoism" something that modern scholarship has really brought into question. But not only did she see a difference but she thought the two were totally conflicting with each other. She talked about how Taoism sexualised women but how Buddhist women were able to be nuns (when Taoist women during this time also were able to be nuns). It was just all very confused.
She talked about how the problems of gender in the Tang led to further problems with women for women in the Song. She mentioned in the main text how in the Song dowerys increased which showed how women were increasingly "commodified". I questioned this immediately having read Patricia Ebrey's excellent studies that show how this actually showed a better valuation for women, and how the women were able to keep control of this money after marriage (unlike English wives even in the 19th century). I looked at her footnote and she said how Ebrey had also shown that this might have counter-acted the negative effect. To put something in a footnote that contradicts something you said in the main text seemed dubious.
I was quite disappointed with this. I am afraid I can't recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews