Queer comrades: gay identity and tongzhi activism in postsocialist China: by Hongwei Bao, Copenhagen, NIAS Press, 2018, 277 pp., £22.50 (paperback)
Queer comrades: gay identity and tongzhi activism in postsocialist China: by Hongwei Bao, Copenhagen, NIAS Press, 2018, 277 pp., £22.50 (paperback)
复制标题
酷儿同志：后社会主义中国的同性恋身份和同治主义行动：包宏伟，哥本哈根，NIAS Press，2018年，277页，22.50英镑（平装本）
DOI：
10.1080/10357823.2019.1673928
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Madson, Nathan H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Madson, Nathan H.
在《同志亦凡人》一书中，包宏伟通过当代中国同性恋身份和酷儿行动主义的透镜，分析了“社会主义的'同志'如何成为后社会主义酷儿主题的基础和催化剂”（第5页）。这个雄心勃勃的项目跨越了学科和理论谱系。鲍的主要数据来自于在北京、上海和广州进行的两年（2007年至2009年）的民族志田野调查，但他也包括对重要的中国酷儿术语的词源学和文学分析，对同性恋转换治疗日记的仔细阅读，以及对酷儿电影制片人崔子恩作品的检查。以中国最近的新自由主义为背景，鲍认为，“通过战略性地利用身份形成和基层经验以及对一个更加平等的社会的渴望，今天中国的酷儿们已经开始对一个压制性国家的行动和它现在提倡的新自由主义资本主义愿景做出激进的回应”（第4页）。然而，这不是通过跨国酷儿运动（酷儿运动本身很难定义），而是通过借鉴中国的社会主义历史来实现的。然而，在他提出这一观点之前，鲍康如首先转向了考古学任务，为他的批评术语“同治”下了定义。同志性主体性是鲍彤论证的基础，也是酷儿自我认同的一种方式。鲍还追溯了这个词在前共和时代的历史演变，直到它在毛泽东时代的鼎盛时期，在那里它有了“同志”的含义。在随后的后社会主义时期，这个词被香港的酷儿活动家挪用并重新定义，以“表达一种后殖民和华语酷儿政治”（第65页）。自该词在中国大陆被采用以来，
In Queer Comrades, Hongwei Bao analyses “how the socialist ‘comrade’has become a foundation of, and a catalyst for, the postsocialist queer subject”(p. 5) through the lens of gay identity and queer activism in contemporary China. This ambitious project stretches across disciplines and theoretical genealogies. Bao’s primary data comes from two years (2007 to 2009) of ethnographic fieldwork in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, but he also includes etymological and literary analyses of important queer Chinese terminology, a close reading of gay conversion-therapy diaries, and an examination of the opus of queer filmmaker Cui Zi’en. Set in China’s neoliberal recent present, Bao argues that “by drawing strategically on identity formation and experiences of grassroots and longings for a more egalitarian society, queer people in China today have begun to construct a radical response to the actions of a repressive state and the neoliberal capitalist vision it now promotes”(p. 4). That is done, however, not through the transnational queer movement (which is itself difficult to define), but by drawing on China’s socialist history. Before he can make this point, however, Bao first turns to the archeological task of defining his critical term: tongzhi. The tongzhi sexual subjectivity that is the foundation on which Bao builds his argument is but one way for queer people to self-identify. Bao traces the historical evolution of the term in the pre-Republican era to its heyday in Maoist China, where it took on the meaning of “comrade”. In the subsequent postsocialist period, the term was appropriated and redefined by queer activists in Hong Kong to “articulate a postcolonial and Sinophone queer politics”(p. 65). Since its adoption in mainland China, the term has referenced a “homonormative