criticism
of sexual "morality" in China should be perceived
as veiled political critique. For example, while
conservatives in the United States tend to focus
very much on the perceived problems of youth, the
focus of conservative reaction in China has been
on a rise in prostitution and the phenomenon of
keeping mistresses.
These are practices
associated with increased wealth, increased
geographic mobility, and huge gaps in income. All
of these concerns have a very obvious political
dimension, because they
are
all associated with the neo-liberal, market-driven
policies of the Chinese government and the
perceived prevalence of corruption among
government officials. Corrupt officials are widely
associated with keeping paid mistresses.
As for the connection to sexual disease, I
refuse to see the sexual revolution as the "cause"
of the rise in venereal diseases and HIV infection
rates in China or in any other country, any more
than increased education opportunities for
children should be considered the "cause" of the
chicken pox or measles. To say so simply implies
that the solution is to stop people from having
sex (or going to school).
I consider
sexual choice, even for college students, a
question of human rights, and would argue that
what is needed is greater education about the
means to prevent infection, including condom use.
Of course, some individuals may choose to limit
their sexual exposure, and that may be a good
choice for them. The "sexual revolution" that I am
talking about is not about advocating sex, but it
is about advocating sexual rights. This includes
obviously the right to say no to unwanted sex and
the right to sexual health.
DS: You have argued that
these developments signal a positive development
in the level of freedom in China's society. Tell
me about that.
JF: I believe
that sexual rights are fundamental human rights
and also are closely related to other political
and social rights. Practically speaking, the
rights to sexual privacy, to free choice of
partners before marriage, and to freedom of
divorce after marriage have all expanded greatly
in China. This has been an important factor in the
increase in the quality of life of Chinese people
over the past 20 years.
DS:
What is the theoretical or statistical link
between sexual freedom and other freedoms in
society?
JF: Showing a
statistical link might require an
operationalization of the terms of my discussion.
What I am talking about is a causal and
institutional link. Rights to sexual privacy for
example are directly related to basic changes in
urban governance in China. It used to be that your
"work unit" and the leadership of your residential
compound had a great say in how you conducted your
private affairs.
Now, your "company"
(almost no one says "work unit" anymore) scarcely
bothers with your private life, unless you happen
to be a young rural-to-urban migrant in which case
such interference by bosses is still a problem.
Residential compounds also are now more concerned
about maintaining property values than about how
many girlfriends or boyfriends you have. These
fundamental changes in urban social governance
have led to greater rights to privacy in all areas
of life.
Greater freedom of sexual
expression also is related to greater freedom of
expression in other matters. This conference I
attended is a good example, but an even better
example is the amount of self-expression on the
Internet. Sexual expression is one example, but
there are many areas of personal and social
experience in which people can express their views
with little fear of provoking a response from the
state.
Censorship is prevalent and
sometimes harsh, and state censors are constantly
improving their techniques. But the sheer volume
of discourse is so great that the space of
discourse can only grow. Take the example of
homosexuality. It was virtually a taboo topic in
the Chinese media until the advent of the
Internet.
Now there are numerous sites
devoted exclusively to gay issues, and the sphere
of gay discourse is growing steadily, despite the
skepticism and lack of support from the Chinese
state. To some extent the sheer volume of sexual
discourse has made the topic more acceptable.
DS: What does all of this
suggest for the future of China?
JF: What I suggest is that
[philosopher Jurgen] Habermas is perhaps right.
The growth of a public sphere is perhaps the
central development in advent of a modern
political subject who develops a sense of his or
her rights and responsibilities as a citizen by
participating in these public discussions. Unlike
some skeptics, I believe the Internet is playing
this role in China, but also so are many
face-to-face discussions in a wide array of social
spaces.
People should not forget that even
the Communist Party itself is a very large and
heterogeneous organization, which also allows for
a great deal of internal discussion of social and
political rights. There were many party members
present at the conference I attended, taking all
sides on the issues that were discussed.
Finally, no one at this small conference
was advocating systemic political change. That
would be a foolhardy and probably a rather
unpopular idea. Both Chinese public opinion and
the party state remain deeply conservative and
cautious. We also should not overestimate the
party.
A single-party state is powerful
when it comes to maintaining order, but limited in
staking new claims on contentious public issues.
It is likely that progress in China in human
rights will take place in the arenas in which
there is a very wide public consensus and in which
a large number of urban dwellers have a personal
stake. Sexual rights is a good example.
In
the area of sexual rights, points of general
consensus now include the right to no-contest
divorce and the right to have intimate
relationships before marriage. The right to
divorce was present in the early egalitarian
visions of Chinese socialism, but recent changes
in the law represent a more liberal and
individualistic approach that has developed in the
past 20 years.
The rights of homosexuals
to marry are not included in this social
consensus. But there seems to be ever-greater
consensus around the rights of homosexuals not to
marry people of the opposite sex just out of
social and familial pressure and the rights of
homosexuals to live their lives undisturbed by
law-enforcement.
Other sexual rights that
were debated at the conference include discussions
of the rights of prostitutes. Here public opinion
is very split, and the state is likely to remain
very cautious about making any changes in laws
governing prostitution or pornography, or other
issues on which social consensus is lacking.
Devin T Stewart is director of the Global Policy
Innovations program at the Carnegie Council for
Ethics in International Affairs.
(Published with permission of the
Global Policy Innovations
program at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in
International Affairs.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
