The Issue of Gender Identity in Contemporary Western Feminist Research

What is woman? For modern women, what kind of life and choices constitute happiness? Is gender based on biology, or is it socially constructed? What social problems will gender pluralization bring? What is the ultimate goal of women’s liberation? These are all issues that contemporary feminist research must confront. This article, grounded in the issue of gender identity in contemporary feminist research, discusses how women or gender are defined, solidified, and subsequently deconstructed from the perspectives of biology, social construction, and psychoanalysis, and finally touches on several questions worth exploring in feminist gender identity politics.

何为女性？对于现代女性来说，什么样的生活和选择才是幸福的？性别是以生物学为基础，还是被社会建构的？性别多元化会带来怎样的社会问题？女性解放的最终目标是什么？这些都是当代女性主义研究需要面对的问题。本文立足于当代女性主义研究中的性别身份问题，分别从生物学、社会建构、精神分析学等方面论述女性或性别是如何被定义、被固化、进而被解构的，最后再谈谈女性主义性别身份政治中几个值得探讨的问题。

I. The Biologically Defined Woman

一、生物学意义上的女性

What is “woman”? When this question arises, many people conjure a caricatured image of female characteristics. The definition of women based on biological sex differences, grounded in bodily sexual distinction, not only dominated traditional patriarchal societies but also has many adherents in modern society. The ethical norms of the “three obediences and four virtues” [1]1 “Three obediences and four virtues” (三从四德): A set of Confucian ethical codes for women in feudal China, prescribing obedience to male authority and specific behavioral standards. for women in Chinese feudal society precisely embody this biological essentialist view. The “three obediences” for women are: obeying the father before marriage, obeying the husband after marriage, and obeying the son after the husband’s death; the “four virtues” are: female virtue, female speech, female appearance, and female accomplishments. Women who conformed to these ethical norms and adhered to these moral principles were regarded as “good” women. This definition, based on physiological differences between the sexes, held that women should possess traits such as strong reproductive capacity, dignity, gentleness, virtue, filial piety, and obedience. The political and cultural extension of these traits enabled patriarchy to rationally realize male domination and oppression of women. With the advent of industrial society, the Western equal rights movement, the rise of feminist movements, and various anti-traditional social movements, this traditional and backward concept of women has significantly declined. In a sense, during the 1960s and 1970s, women in both the East and West achieved great liberation. In that revolutionary era, schools of thought such as Marxist feminism, liberal feminism, and radical feminism emerged. They conducted in-depth investigations into the economic roots of women’s oppression, gender hierarchy, and biological factors.

什么是“女人”？一想到这个问题，很多人的脑海中会出现漫画式的女性特征。建立在生物学意义上的、以身体性别差异为基础的女性界定，不仅在传统的父权制社会中占主导地位，而且在现代社会中也有很多拥趸。中国封建社会中针对女性的“三从四德”的伦理规范正体现了这种生物学本质主义的观点。女性的“三从”是指未嫁从父、已嫁从夫、夫死从子，“四德”是指妇德、妇言、妇容、妇功。符合这些伦理规范、遵守这些道德原则的女性才被视为好“女人”。这种界定以两性生理差别为基础，认为女性就应该具备生育能力强、端庄、温柔、贤惠、孝顺、服从等特质，这些特质在政治和文化上的延伸促使父权制合理地实现了男性对女性的支配与压迫。随着工业社会的来临、西方平权运动的开展、女性主义运动的兴起以及各种反传统的社会运动的出现，这种传统、落后的女性观念已经显著衰微。从某种意义上说，1960—1970年代，东西方女性都获得了极大的解放。在那个革命的年代，涌现出马克思主义的女性主义、自由主义的女性主义以及激进女性主义等流派。它们对女性受压迫的经济根源、性别等级制、生物学因素进行了深入的探究。

In response to the patriarchal thought of biological essentialism, the claims of radical feminism appear particularly extreme. The feminists holding this position are mostly highly educated white middle-class Western women. They argue that liberal feminism, which advocates gender equality, is too moderate, and its ideas and values remain within the framework established by men. Radical feminism, in contrast, advocates creating a unique feminist theory “completely without traces of patriarchy.” This theory holds that male oppression of women is primarily physiological oppression; male domination and rule over women originate from the institution of heterosexuality. This institution of heterosexuality is established through the penetration of ideology, biological assumptions, and channels such as the family, society, and religion, thereby enabling men to conquer women physically, ideologically, and culturally. Radical feminism believes that these social institutions cannot be reformed and must be uprooted entirely; it is necessary not only to destroy their legal and political structures but also their social and cultural structures, including the family, society, and schools, which are sites that train social members to develop gender biases.

针对生物学本质主义的父权制思想，激进女性主义的主张显得尤为极端。持这种主张的女性主义者大都是受过高等教育的西方白人中产阶级女性。她们认为，主张性别平等的自由主义的女性主义过于温和，其思想和价值观还处于男人确立的框架之内。而激进女性主义主张创造一种“完全没有父权制痕迹”的独特的女性理论，这种理论认为男性对女性的压迫主要是生理上的压迫,男性对女性的支配和统治源于异性恋制度；异性恋制度又是通过意识形态的渗透、生物学的假设以及家庭、社会、宗教等渠道建立起来的，从而使男性得以在肉体上、思想上和文化上征服女性。激进女性主义认为，这些社会制度不可能被改造，必须连根铲除; 不仅要摧毁它的法律和政治结构，而且要摧毁它的社会和文化结构，包括家庭、社会和学校等训练社会成员产生社会性别偏见的场所。

Radical feminists believe that the cause of women’s oppression lies in their physiological structure. The use of medical science and technology, including contraceptive technology, in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and asexual reproduction, can liberate women from the physiological function of childbirth (social reproduction) that oppresses them. Shulamith Firestone, in her book *The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution*, argues that the reproductive mechanism and male control over sexual life and reproduction are the roots of women’s oppression. To this end, she proposes reconstructing the reproductive physiological mechanism so that reproduction can occur outside the female body, liberating women from this physiological role and thereby fundamentally changing the system of gender oppression.

激进女性主义者认为，女性受压迫的原因在于其生理结构。而医学科学技术的使用，包括避孕技术、试管婴儿、人工授精及无性繁殖可以把女性从生育（社会再生产）这一压迫她们的生理功能中解放出来。舒拉米斯·费尔斯通（Shulamith Firestone）在其《性的辩证法：女性主义革命的案例》（The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution）一书中就提出，生育机制以及男性对性生活和生育的控制是女性受压迫的根源，为此需要重建生育生理机制，使生育得以在女性体外进行，让女性从这一生理角色中解放出来，从而彻底改变性别压迫制度。

It is not difficult to see that radical feminism is also a biological essentialism of gender identity. It holds that women’s physiological structure, along with the sexual patterns, child-rearing patterns, and family structures it brings, is the root of their oppression. Therefore, its liberation target is the female body, its object of critique is the male group, and it negates traditional gender identity, marriage patterns, and family structures.

不难看出，激进女性主义也是性别身份的生物学本质主义。它认为，女性的生理结构及其带来的性模式、抚养模式、家庭结构是其受压迫的根源。所以，其解放目标是女性的身体，针对的对象是男性群体，否定的是传统的性别认同、婚姻模式和家庭结构。

Whether it is the overly conservative and backward traditional patriarchy or the overly extreme radical feminism, both are gender essentialisms based on biology (whether male-centered or female-centered). This binary oppositional view has been criticized by contemporary feminists. Undoubtedly, women’s physiological structure and other biological factors are indeed an important factor influencing women’s gender identity and life circumstances. But as Simone de Beauvoir said: “The body of woman is one of the essential elements in her situation in the world. But that body is not enough to define her as woman.” [2]2 This is a paraphrase of Beauvoir’s argument; the exact quote from *The Second Sex* is: “The body is not a thing, it is a situation: it is our grasp on the world and our sketch of our project.” So, what is woman? We still need to seek answers elsewhere.

无论是过于守旧落后的传统父权制，还是过于极端的激进女性主义，都是以生物学为基础的性别本质主义（无论是以男性为本，还是以女性为本），这种二元对立的观点遭到当代女性主义者的批判。毫无疑问，女性的生理结构及其他生物学因素，确实是影响女性性别认同和生活处境的一个重要因素。但正如西蒙·波伏娃所说：“女人的身体是限定她在世界上的地位的主要因素之一，然而她的身体不能充分地解释为何她是女人。”所以，女人是什么？我们还需要在别处探寻。

II. The Socially and Culturally Defined Woman

二、社会文化意义上的女性

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” [3]3 This is the famous opening line of Book Two of *The Second Sex*. This is the core argument of French existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir in her work *The Second Sex*. In this book, hailed as the “Bible” of the contemporary Western feminist movement, Beauvoir points out that woman is not a second sex naturally inferior to man, but is later shaped (man-made). From an existentialist perspective, she argues that explaining women’s subordination solely from the perspectives of biology, psychoanalysis, and historical materialism is incomplete; we need to consider the specific content of the body, sexual life, and technological conditions from the perspective of human existence in its totality. She believes that women’s three traditional roles—maternity, wifedom, and daughterhood—are all acquired later. Women are not born knowing how to be mothers, wives, and daughters; the obligations and traits associated with these roles are prescribed by the norms, rituals, and customs of each society.

“一个人不是生为女人，而是后来变为女人。”这是法国存在主义哲学家波伏娃在其著作《第二性》中的核心观点。在这部被誉为当代西方女性主义运动的“圣经”的著作中，波伏娃指出，女人并非是天生就劣于男性的第二性物种，而是后天被人塑造的（man-made）。她从存在主义的视角出发认为，仅从生物学、精神分析学和历史唯物主义的视角对女人的从属性做出解释是不全面的，我们需要从人的全方位生存方面考虑身体、性生活以及技术条件等具体内容。她认为，传统女性的三种角色，即母性、妻性、女儿性，都是后天造就的。女性并非生下来就知道如何做母亲、妻子和女儿，这些角色所承担的义务和特质是每个社会的规范、礼仪和习俗所规定的。

In the 1950s and 1960s, Beauvoir’s views undoubtedly heralded the second wave of the feminist movement. Women are not innately formed but are later constructed as the second sex. This view, which distinguishes social gender (gender) from biological sex (sex) and holds that gender is constructed by society and symbols, belongs to the social constructionist school of feminism. This theoretical school holds that the physiological structural differences between male and female are merely the foundation for establishing social gender; a person’s gender identity is not innate but is acquired in the process of growth. Although biological sex is innate, social gender is neither internal nor fixed, but a product of interaction with society. Representatives of gender constructionism include scholars such as Alison M. Jaggar, Lynn Hankinson Nelson, Judith Lissauer Cromwell, Gayle Rubin, and Germaine Greer. They all believe that the distinction and definition of male and female, as well as the formation of masculinity and femininity, are constructed on the basis of biology through social and human intervention. The following section focuses on the gender construction thought of Judith Butler, the theoretical pioneer of the American queer movement.

在1950—1960年代，波伏娃的这些观点无疑为第二波女性主义运动拉开了序幕。女性并非是先天生成的，而是后天被建构为第二性的。这种把社会性别（gender）与生物学上的性（sex）区分开来并认为性别是由社会和符号建构而成的观点属于性别的社会建构主义的女性主义。这一理论派别认为，生物学意义上的男女生理结构差异只是社会性别建立的基础，人的性别认同或身份不是天生的，而是在成长过程中获得的；虽然生理性别是天生的，但是社会性别既非内在的，也非固定的，而是与社会交互影响的产物。性别建构主义的代表人物包括阿莉森·贾格尔（Alison M.Jaggar）、林恩·汉金森·纳尔逊（Lynn Hankinson Nelson）、朱迪斯·利绍尔·克伦威尔（Judith Lissauer Cromwell）、盖尔·鲁宾（Gayle Rubin）、杰梅茵·格里尔（Germaine Greer）等学者，他们都认为男女性别的区分、界定，以及男性气质和女性气质的形成，是在生物学的基础上由社会人为干预建构起来的。下面重点介绍美国酷儿运动的理论先驱朱迪斯·巴特勒（Judith Butler）的性别建构思想。

Following Beauvoir’s view, Butler likewise holds that woman is not born but socially constructed. However, unlike Beauvoir, Butler argues that biological sex is not innate and fixed either; “the body itself is a construction,” and women’s bodies are shaped from the outset by power mechanisms such as discourse, politics, and production. She opposes treating the body merely as a passive medium or tool awaiting activation by an immaterial will, instead seeking to reveal how the body is gradually formed through gender markers. She attempts to reconstruct the body through a genealogical discourse of the body, transcending the currently prevalent and oppressive categories of biological sex. To this end, she puts forward her famous “performative” theory. Butler states: “The view that gender is performative seeks to show that what we take to be an internal essence of gender is manufactured through a sustained set of acts, posited through the gendered stylization of the body. In this way, it shows that what we take to be an ‘internal’ feature of ourselves is one that we anticipate and produce through certain bodily acts, at an extreme, an hallucinatory effect of naturalized gestures.” [4]4 “Phallogocentrism” (菲勒斯中心主义) is a term derived from Jacques Derrida’s critique of Western metaphysics, combining “phallocentrism” (the privileging of the phallus as a symbol of power and meaning) and “logocentrism” (the privileging of speech and reason as the ground of truth). In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the “phallic signifier” (菲勒斯能指) denotes the primary signifier of lack and desire in the symbolic order, structuring sexual difference and social relations. “Jouissance” (享乐) is a Lacanian term for a form of excessive, often painful pleasure that exceeds the pleasure principle and is tied to the real. That is, gender is formed through post-hoc performance and imitation. Individuals, by repeatedly enacting masculine or feminine ways of speaking, dressing, and behaving, and even certain personality traits and spiritual temperaments, shape “gendered” characteristics that appear externally as natural. In Butler’s view, this is entirely the product of compulsory heterosexuality and the sexual economy set by human society for reproduction and production, the combined result of power, discourse, and politics. To this end, she draws on the postmodernist and poststructuralist views of Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and others, using a deconstructive, decentered, fluid conception of gender identity to subvert and transcend the binary structures of body and spirit, sex and gender, nature and culture, subject and object, freedom and determinism, thereby holding that categories such as woman, gender, identity, and subject are not fixed, substantive existences but rather relative, situational positional categories. Gender identity should be an open, pluralistic, fluid signified. Especially in contemporary Western society, the awakening of self-awareness and the assertion of rights by sexual minorities—homosexuals, transsexuals, cross-dressers, transvestites, and others—further reveal the “unnatural” nature of gender ontology and heterosexual hegemony. Butler agrees with Monique Wittig’s view that lesbians constitute a third gender. They are neither men nor women, but a third gender transcending traditional male-female gender and the heterosexual system. In Butler’s view, performative identity can both establish heterosexuality as a norm and reveal its fictional essence. Lesbians do precisely this: on the one hand, they parody the norms of heterosexual culture, and on the other, they subvert it.

承接波伏娃的观点，巴特勒同样认为女人不是天生的，而是由社会建构的。但是，与波伏娃不同的是，巴特勒认为，女性的生物学性别也不是生就的和固定不变的，“身体本身就是一种建构”，女人的身体从一开始就受到话语、政治、生产等权力机制的塑造。她反对将身体仅仅看作一种被动的媒介或工具，等待着非物质的意志去激发，而是试图揭示身体是如何通过性别（gender）标志逐步形成的。她试图用身体的谱系学话语重新建构身体，使之超越现在流行的、压迫性的生理性范畴。为此，她提出了著名的“述行性”（performative）理论。巴特勒说：“认为性别是述行性的观点，试图指出我们所以为的性别的内在本质是通过一套持续的行为生产对身体进行性别的程式/风格化而稳固下来的。这样看来，它显示的我们以为是自身的某种‘内在’的特质，其实是我们期待并通过某些身体行为生产的，推到极致来说，它是一种自然化的行为举止的幻觉效果。”也就是说，性别是通过后天的表演和模仿而形成的。个体通过不断地重复男性或女性的说话方式、穿着打扮和行为举止，甚至某种性格特征和精神气质，从而塑造出从外表上看非常自然的“性别化”特质。在巴特勒看来，这完全是强制性的异性恋和人类社会为繁衍、生产而设定的性经济活动的产物，是权力、话语、政治共同作用的结果。为此，她引用了雅克·德里达、米歇尔·福柯等人的后现代主义及后结构主义观点，用一种解构的、去中心的、流动的性别认同观，颠覆和超越了身体与精神、性与性别、自然与文化、主体与客体、自由与决定论的二元论结构，进而认为女人、性别、认同、主体等范畴并不是固定的、实质性的存在，而是一种相对的、情境性的位置范畴。性别身份或认同应该是一个开放的、多元的、流动性的意义所指。尤其在当今西方社会，同性恋者、性倒错者、跨性别者、异装癖等性少数群体的自我意识觉醒和权利要求凸显，更显示出性别本体论、异性恋霸权的“非自然”性质。巴特勒认同莫妮克·维蒂格（Monique Wittig）的观点，认为女同性恋者就是第三种性别。她们既不是男人也不是女人，是超越传统男女性别和异性恋制的第三种性别。在巴特勒看来，述行认同既能用于建立作为规范的异性恋，也能用于揭示其虚构的本质。女同性恋者就是这样做的，她们一方面戏拟异性恋文化的规范，一方面颠覆它。

Butler’s startling claims have sparked considerable controversy. On the one hand, many believe she is too radical, denying the biological materiality of women’s bodies; for if everything is determined by cultural symbols and language, does women’s body still matter? On the other hand, the LGBTQ groups that have suffered discrimination and oppression argue that the recognition of multiple genders brings them freedom and liberation, since if heterosexual norms and traditional gender identities are all shaped by culture and language, then changing the cultural context can secure equal and lawful treatment for sexual minorities.

巴特勒的这些惊世骇俗的言论引起了极大的争论。一方面，很多人认为她过于激进，否决了女性身体的生理物质属性，因为如果一切都是由文化符号、语言决定的，那么女性的身体还重要吗？另一方面，那些饱受歧视和压迫的LGBTQ群体则认为，对多种性别的承认使他们获得了自由和解放，因为既然异性恋规范和传统的性别身份都是由文化语言塑造的，那么只要改变文化语境，就可以让性少数群体得到平等、合法的对待。

In sum, on the question of gender identity, neither biological essentialism nor social constructionism can clearly explain the complex process of women’s transition from “sex” to “gender.” Several categories are involved here: body, sex, gender, subject, and identity. The relationships among these categories are the core issue of debate within feminism. Some scholars even divide modern human gender into DNA sex, bodily sex, social gender, and relational gender, to demonstrate the complexity of contemporary gender identity. It is reported that official U.S. statistics recognize 97 genders. [5]5 Toril Moi (1953–) is a Norwegian-born feminist literary critic and theorist, known for her work on Simone de Beauvoir and feminist theory. Under conditions of such gender diversity, highly developed science and technology, and more inclusive conceptions of gender, whether the body’s physical attributes still hold significance for gender identity has become a questionable issue. Of course, in exploring the mechanisms of gender identity, we must analyze not only the biological basis of sex and the sociocultural level, but also the deep level of unconscious desire.

总之，在性别身份或认同的问题中，无论是生物学本质主义，还是社会建构主义，都无法清楚地诠释女性从“sex”到“gender”过渡的复杂过程。这里存在着几个范畴：身体(body)、性（sex）、性别（gender）、主体(subject)、身份认同（identity）。这些范畴之间存在着怎样的关系，是女性主义者内部争论的核心问题。甚至有学者将现代人类性别分为DNA性别、身体性别、社会性别、关系性别，以显示现代性别认同的复杂性。据称，美国官方统计在册的性别就有97种。在性别如此多元、科学技术如此发达、人的性别理念更为包容的条件下，人的身体属性对于性别认同是否还具有重要意义，已经成为一个值得怀疑的问题。当然，对于性别认同机制的探寻，我们不仅要从性别的生物学基础、社会文化层面来分析，还要从深层的无意识欲望层面来研究。

III. The Woman in Psychoanalytic Terms

三、精神分析学意义上的女性

For psychoanalysis, bodily difference plays only a secondary role. In Jacques Lacan’s view, “body jouissance” or pleasure is the key to understanding sexual existence and sexual difference. He holds that “body jouissance” is not what we commonly call “sexual pleasure,” but is “asexual”; this jouissance has no direct relation to the body’s organs, but is a pleasure mechanism at the level of the unconscious, closely linked to desire and anxiety. Sigmund Freud believed that the libido was the main cause governing human unconscious desire. Lacan rejects this view, which entirely determines unconscious desire by biological “libido.” He argues that the unconscious jouissance of the body is closely related to the signifier and the structure of language. His famous dictum is: “The unconscious is structured like a language.” That is, body jouissance, as an endless pursuit of desire, is intimately connected with the symbolic signifiers of the linguistic world or the “big Other” of the symbolic order. Among the signifiers from the “big Other,” the most representative or privileged is the “phallus” signifier.

对于精神分析学来说，身体差异只具有次要的作用。在雅克·拉康看来，“身体享乐”或愉悦才是理解性别存在、性别差异的关键。他认为，“身体享乐”并非我们常说的“性快感”，而是“无性的”(asexual)，这种享乐与人的身体器官无直接关系，是人的无意识层面的快感机制，与人的欲望、焦虑息息相关。西格蒙德·弗洛伊德认为，性欲本是主宰人的无意识的主要原因。而拉康摒弃了这种完全由生物学上的“力比多”来决定人的无意识欲望的观点。他认为，身体的无意识享乐与能指、语言结构具有密切的关系。他的名言就是：“无意识如同语言一样被建构。”也就是说，身体享乐作为一种对欲望的无止境追寻，与语言世界的符号能指或作为象征界的“大他者”密切关联。来自“大他者”的能指有很多，其中最具代表性或特权的是“菲勒斯”（phallus）能指。

“Phallus” originally refers to the male sexual organ, but in Lacan it primarily takes on a symbolic function, explaining the principle of desire and the mechanism of jouissance in the subject. Freud held that when boys and girls discover they have different physical organs, they become anxious about whether they “have” it or not. Boys develop castration anxiety, girls penis envy. The developmental process initially is no different for the two sexes: every infant must first pass through the oral stage of attachment to the mother’s breast,

“菲勒斯”本是指男性的性器官，但在拉康这里主要取其象征功能，以说明主体的欲望原理和享乐机制。弗洛伊德认为，当男孩和女孩发现自己拥有不同的生理器官时，他们就会为是否“拥有”它而焦虑。男孩产生了阉割恐惧，女孩则产生了阳具妒羡。发育过程一开始对于男女两性并无不同，每个婴儿必然先经过依恋母亲乳房的口腔期，再经过肛门期，最后是生殖器期。在生殖器期，两性才开始有了差异。弗洛伊德所阐释的女孩欲望诉求，成为女性主义者大加批判的内容，后者认为他的观点是一种“菲勒斯中心主义”。

Lacan inherited Freud’s “phallogocentric” position, that is, emphasizing the decisive role of the “phallic signifier” in the relationship between the sexes, and on this basis pointed out that women, founded on the logic of “non-whole” or “non-one,” possess a different kind of jouissance. Here, “non-whole” or “non-one” is relative to “whole” and “one.” In Lacan’s view, “whole” and “one” are the logical abstractions of patriarchy in modern society. The “phallic signifier,” as a privileged signifier, occupies a dominant position in the symbolic order or the “big Other.” “Phallic jouissance” is also recognized by the world and is spoken of in various discursive forms. If a man does not pursue “phallic jouissance,” or does not base himself on male identification in the symbolic order, he will be excluded by the male community. Women, by contrast, are gendered beings founded on “non-one”; they are different from men. They possess a choice: they can pursue “phallic jouissance” like men, or they can seek a different mode of jouissance. Anyone who possesses or yearns for this unspeakable, mysterious experience of jouissance, regardless of whether they are biologically male or female, can be called a woman.

拉康继承了弗洛伊德的“菲勒斯中心主义”立场，即强调“菲勒斯能指”在两性关系中的决定性作用，并在此基础上指出，建立在“非整体”或“非一”逻辑基础上的女性拥有一种别样的享乐。这里的“非整体”或“非一”是相对于“整体”和“一”。在拉康眼里，“整体” 和“一”就是现代社会父权制的逻辑抽象。“菲勒斯能指”作为一种拥有特权的能指，在象征界或“大他者”中占据了主导位置。“菲勒斯享乐”也被世人公认，并以各种话语形式被言说。男性如果不追求“菲勒斯享乐”，或者不立足于象征界中的男性认同，就会被男性共同体所排斥。而女性是建立在 “非一” 基础上的性别存在物，她与男性不同。她拥有一种选择权，既可以像男性一样追求“菲勒斯享乐”，也可以寻求别样的享乐方式。凡是具备或渴望这种难以言说的、神秘的享乐体验的人，无论他在生物学上是男性还是女性，都可以称之为女性。

Lacan’s psychoanalysis of the mechanism of feminine jouissance has won the attention and praise of many feminists. For Lacan, the cause of gender difference between men and women is neither biological genetic inheritance nor acquired sociocultural factors, but is related to the position of the “big Other” and the mode of one’s own jouissance. Men possess “phallic jouissance,” thus becoming the acceptors and maintainers of the social order; while women, as beings of the “not-all,” often reveal the finitude of the social order as the “One,” as the “whole.” In this way, Lacan subverts the traditional binary division model of male and female, providing important theoretical resources for the liberation and revolution of women, homosexuals, and other sexual minorities. At the same time, however, Lacan is also criticized by some feminists for being trapped in “phallocentrism” and mystifying the mechanism of feminine jouissance. Toril Moi, for instance, asks: since feminine jouissance transcends the “phallus” and is external to language, what exactly is this “specter” that has escaped language and other social structures? She questions: is feminine jouissance really more beyond language than capturing the fragrance of a rose? Indeed, even male psychoanalytic masters like Freud and Lacan cannot accurately capture and describe the mechanism of jouissance at the unconscious level of women.

拉康对女性享乐机制的精神分析赢得了许多女性主义者的重视和赞许。因为在拉康那里，男女性别差异的原因既不是生物学的遗传基因，也不是后天的社会文化因素，而是与“大他者”的位置、自身享乐的方式相关。男性拥有“菲勒斯享乐”，所以变成社会秩序的接受者和维护者；而女性作为“非整体”的存在物，往往揭示出作为“一”、作为“整体”的社会秩序的有限性。这样，拉康就颠覆了传统的男女两性二元划分模式，为女性、同性恋者及其他性少数群体的解放与革命提供了重要的理论资源。但同时，拉康也因囿于“菲勒斯中心主义”和神秘化女性享乐机制而遭到部分女性主义者的批判。托里尔·莫伊（Tolil Moi）就认为，既然女性享乐超越了“菲勒斯”，外在于语言，那么这种逃离了语言与其他社会结构的“幽灵”到底是什么呢？她质问道：难道女性享乐比去捕捉玫瑰花的芳香更在语言之外吗？确实，即便弗洛伊德、拉康这样的男性精神分析大师也无法准确地捕捉和书写女性无意识层面的享乐机制。

IV. How to View the Relevant Debates on Contemporary Gender Identity Politics

四、如何看待当代性别身份政治的相关争论

From biological sex, to the cultural construction of gender, to the psychoanalytic mechanism of unconscious jouissance—what is the decisive factor of female gender identity? Contemporary Western feminist researchers debate this endlessly. Since the 1980s, the question of “what is woman” has never reached a final conclusion. However, the focus of the debate surrounding this issue has gradually become clear, and some basic consensus has begun to take shape. For example, scholars have largely abandoned the concept and method of simply defining women or gender by the physiological structure of the body. The progress and civilization of modern society, along with developments in biology, psychology, and the modern humanities, have made us realize that the definition of gender identity is a complex and pluralistic issue.

从生物学意义上的性，到社会性别的文化建构，再到精神分析学的无意识享乐机制，究竟何为女性性别身份的决定性因素？当代西方女性主义研究者对此争论不休。自1980年代以来，关于“何为女性”的问题，始终没有形成最终的定论。但是，围绕此议题展开的争论焦点逐渐明晰，一些基本的共识初具模型。比如，学者们基本上抛弃了那种只以身体的生理结构简单地定义女性或性别的观念和方法。现代社会的进步和文明，生物学、心理学和现代人文科学的发展，让我们意识到性别身份的界定是一个复杂和多元的问题。

First, the relationship between “sex” and “gender” and its role in the struggle over gender identity.

首先，关于“sex”与“gender”之间的关系及其在性别身份斗争中的作用。

Regarding the interrelationship between biological sex and sociocultural gender, there are at least three theoretical schools: biological essentialism, dualism, and radical social constructionism. Biological essentialism holds that the biological attributes of the body are decisive; a person’s genes and physiological structure (especially the reproductive organs) determine gender attributes. Radical social constructionism, represented by Butler, goes to the other extreme, arguing that both the body and gender are socially constructed, jointly shaped by mechanisms of discourse, power, production, etc. There is no pure body that exists without being inscribed by society. Traditional dualism, on the other hand, asserts a hierarchical relationship between body and spirit, nature and culture, subject and object, sensibility and rationality, female and male. Although Beauvoir also emphasizes the shaping role of acquired factors in the formation of women, she does not deny the material attributes of the female body, instead treating the physiological structure of the female body as an important factor in its gender constitution. This is a moderate social constructionism, which is criticized by contemporary radical feminists for adhering to traditional dualism. Most contemporary feminist scholars have undergone the spiritual baptism of postmodernism and post-structuralism, maintaining a constant ideological vigilance on the issue of gender identity, opposing traditional, rigid norms of gender identification, and advocating for the inclusive and equal treatment of diverse gender subjects, reflecting respect for different individuals and the Other. This undoubtedly has progressive and liberating significance. Butler’s theory of performativity is highly inspiring and influential in breaking modern people’s outdated gender concepts, criticizing the compulsory heterosexual system, and legitimizing sexual minorities such as homosexuals. But the question is: is our gender really entirely the result of factors such as culture, symbols, discursive practices, and power? “If biological sex difference indicates a natural distinction, then is gender difference a social manifestation of this natural distinction, or is there a more complex relationship between the two?” That is to say, although gender is a construction of sociocultural symbols, is this construction based on biological sex difference? Because nature and culture are not two completely separate domains. In the view of Somer Brodribb, overemphasizing gender while neglecting biological differences between men and women is a denial of the female body, and thus is sexism rather than women’s liberation.

在生物学意义上的性与社会文化意义的性别的相互关系上，至少存在三种理论派别：生物本质主义、二元论和激进的社会建构主义。生物本质主义认为，身体的生物学属性是决定性的，人的基因和生理结构（尤其是生殖器）决定了性别的属性。以巴特勒为代表的激进社会建构主义则走向另一个极端，认为无论是身体，还是社会性别，都是社会建构的，是社会的话语、权力、生产等机制共同塑造的。不存在一个没有被社会刻画的纯粹身体的存在。而传统的二元论主张身体与精神、自然与文化、主体与客体、感性与理性、女性与男性之间存在着一种等级制关系。波伏娃虽然也强调后天因素对女性养成的塑造作用，但她并没有否认女性身体的物质属性，而是将女性身体的生理结构视为其性别构成的重要因素。这是一种温和的社会建构主义，它因为坚持传统的二元论而受到当代激进女性主义者的批判。当代女性主义学者大都经受了后现代主义、后结构主义的精神洗礼，在性别身份的问题上始终保持着一种意识形态的警惕，反对传统的、固化的性别认同规范，主张包容和平等地对待多元化的性别主体，体现了对差异个体和他者的尊重。这无疑具有进步和解放的意义。巴特勒的述行思想在打破现代人陈旧的性别观念、批判强制的异性恋制度、为同性恋等性少数群体正名等方面都极具启发性和影响力。但问题是，我们的社会性别真的完全是由文化、符号、话语实践、权力等因素作用的结果吗？“如果生物学意义上的性别差别表明了一种自然的分别，那么社会性别的差异究竟是这一自然分别的社会表现呢，还是两者之间存在着更为复杂的关系？”也就是说，社会性别虽然是社会文化符号的建构，但这种建构是不是建立在生物学的性别差异基础上？因为自然与文化并不是截然分开的两个领域。在索梅尔·布罗德里布（Somer Brodribb）看来，过于强调社会性别而忽略生物学上的男女差别，是对女性身体的否定，因而是性别歧视而非妇女解放。

Furthermore, exploring the mechanism of gender formation cannot rely solely on the single gender dimension from “sex” to “gender.” The abstract, capitalized “Woman” does not exist. Women are concrete gendered individuals, but also members of various communities such as class, religion, race, and ethnic group. The establishment of female identity and the liberation movements it unfolds cannot be separated from various real social conditions of constraint. Marxist feminism, Black feminism, postcolonial feminism, digital feminism, ecofeminism, global feminism, and other schools have respectively elaborated on the social roots and paths of liberation for modern women’s exploitation and oppression from perspectives such as economy, race, colonial rule, the digital age, ecological crisis, and capitalist globalization. Currently, various phenomena of right-wing populism, racism, and nationalism have emerged in Europe and the United States, and economic austerity policies have also been implemented, all of which have prompted Western societies to introduce some conservative policies that are anti-genderism and anti-feminism. For example, in 2022, 22 U.S. states passed comprehensive abortion restriction bills. In this context, the close connection between current gender identity politics and factors such as the modern capitalist system, racism, and nationalism deserves even more reflection.

此外，探讨社会性别形成的机制，不能仅仅有从“sex”到“gender”这个单一的性别向度。抽象的、大写的“女人”是不存在的。女人是具体的性别个体，但也是各种共同体如阶级、宗教、种族、民族团体中的一员。女性身份的确立及其展开的解放运动离不开各种现实的社会制约条件。马克思主义的女性主义、黑人女性主义、后殖民主义的女性主义、数字女性主义、生态女性主义、全球女性主义等流派分别从经济、种族、殖民统治、数字时代、生态危机、资本主义全球化等视角阐发了现代女性遭受剥削和压迫的社会根源和解放道路。当下，欧洲和美国出现了各种右翼民粹主义、种族主义和民族主义现象，经济上也开始实施紧缩政策，这些都促使西方社会出台了一些反性别主义、反女性主义的保守政策。比如，2022年，美国有22个州通过了全面限制堕胎的法案。在这种背景下，当前的性别身份政治与现代资本主义体系、种族主义、民族主义等因素的密切关联更加值得反思。

Second, the debate over whether a unified concept of “woman” is needed.

其次，关于是否需要一个统一的“女性”概念的争论。

In the second-wave feminist movement that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, the concepts of “woman” and “women’s rights” played an important role in unity and guidance. Under the call to pursue and safeguard women’s equal rights in economic, social, and political spheres, countless women waged arduous struggles on social issues such as workplace equality, equal pay for equal work, marriage and family, anti-sexual harassment, and women’s education. However, in the third-wave feminist movement characterized by difference, the concepts of “woman” or “women’s rights” were met with disgust and resistance from many feminists. In the preface to the 1999 edition of *Gender Trouble*, Butler points out that traditional feminist theory assumes the existence of an identity called “woman,” who shares common interests and goals and is the agent of feminist political movements, but is the category “woman” a natural existence? Is there a special female culture independent of male culture? “Is there a specific female domain, a domain that is both distinct from the male and recognized because of its difference, that is, an unmarked domain, and thus assumed to be the universality of ‘woman’?” Butler argues that the fixed, unified category of “woman” assumed by feminist politics inevitably leads to rejection by many, even if the construction of such theory or discourse has liberating aims, because it contains an exclusionary mechanism that excludes those women who cannot be represented within the category of “woman,” those filtered out by certain invisible powers. “Insisting on the coherence and unity of the category of women has effectively refused the multiplicity of cultural, social, and political intersections that construct the concrete ‘woman’.” In Butler’s view, an indeterminate, relative gender category can better unleash the liberating potential of contemporary feminist politics and release the power of coalition politics between feminism and groups such as homosexuals, transgender people, racial groups, and ethnic groups.

在1960—1970年代兴起的第二波女性主义运动中，“女人”及“女权”概念曾发挥了重要的团结和引领作用。在追求和维护女性在经济、社会、政治等方面的平等权利的号召下，无数女性在职场平等、同工同酬、婚姻家庭、反性骚扰、女性教育等社会问题上展开了艰苦卓绝的抗争。然而，在以差异为特点的第三波女性主义运动中，“女人”或“女权”的概念遭到很多女性主义者的厌恶和抵制。巴特勒在《性别麻烦》1999年版的序言中指出，传统的女性主义理论假设存在着“女人”这种身份，她们有着共同的利益和目标，是女性主义政治运动的行动者，但“女人”这个范畴是一种自然存在吗？有独立于男性文化的特殊的女性文化吗？“是否存在特殊的女性领域，一个既区别于男性、又因为其差异性而被承认的领域，即无标记的、因而被假定为‘女人’的普遍性的领域？”巴特勒认为，女性主义政治假设的这种固定的、统一的“女人”范畴必然会造成众人对它的拒绝，即使这种理论或话语的建构具有解放的目的，因为它含有一种排斥机制，将那些无法再现在“女人”范畴中的、过滤在某些隐形权力之外的女人排除在外。“坚持‘女人’范畴具有一致性和一体性，已有效地拒绝了那些建构各种具体‘女人’的文化、社会和政治等方面的交叉所具有的多元性。”在巴特勒看来，那种不确定的、相对意义上的性别范畴才能激发当代女性主义政治的解放潜力，释放女性主义与同性恋、跨性别、种族、民族等群体的联盟政治的力量。

Butler’s advocacy of coalition politics based on deconstructing the concept of “woman” has been criticized by many contemporary feminists. Among them, Iris Marion Young does not agree with abolishing the concept of woman; she argues: “In order to describe and explain the partial structures and processes that produce different opportunities and privileges in contemporary society, we cannot do without the concept of gender.” Feminism and queer theory need these concepts, but the concept of gender is not personal; it is a property of social structure. Seyla Benhabib also holds that the emancipatory project of feminism still requires some grand narratives centered on “woman.” Although the subject is determined by history, culture, and discursive practices, the subject “still strives to become autonomous.” In her view, without principles concerning the subject, autonomy, and the self, the feminist emancipatory project is hardly imaginable. Nancy Fraser criticizes this by stating that Butler only deconstructs the category of gender and does not propose constructive normative implications concerning women. At root, Butler merely wants women to be liberated from identity, because in her eyes identity itself is a form of oppression. Martha Nussbaum also criticizes this. She says: “Symbolic feminist thinkers seem to believe that the method of feminist politics is to use the word ‘woman’ in extremely obscure and contemptuous abstract academic publications in a subversive way. This cultural gesture, it is said, is itself a form of political resistance. So, in order to act boldly, people do not need to participate in messy things like legislation and movements.” In her book *Citadels of Pride: Sexual Abuse, Accountability, and Reconciliation*, she also discusses how proud American women are obsessed with identity competition, unable to see the full humanity in women, and completely ignorant of how to love; sexual partners are merely symbols of wealth and social status.

巴特勒基于解构“女人”这个概念而倡导的联盟政治，遭到了很多当代女性主义者的批判。其中，艾瑞思·玛丽恩·杨（Iris Marion Young）并不赞同废除女人概念，她认为：“为了描述和解释当代社会产生不同机会和特权的部分结构和过程，我们不能没有性别概念。”女性主义和酷儿理论需要这些概念，但性别概念不是个人的，而是一种社会结构的属性。塞拉·本哈比（Seyla Benhabib）也认为，女性主义的解放事业还是需要一些以“女人”为核心的宏大叙事的。主体虽然被历史、文化和话语实践所决定，但主体“还是会努力变得自主”。在她看来，如果没有了有关主体、自主和自我的原则，女性主义的解放事业简直难以想象。南希·弗雷泽（Nancy Fraser）对此批评道，巴特勒仅有对性别范畴的解构，并没有提出有关女性的建设性规范含义。究其根源，巴特勒只想让女人从身份中解放出来，因为在她的眼里，身份本身就是一种压迫。玛莎·努斯鲍姆（Martha Nussbaum）也对此进行了批判。她说：“象征派的女性主义思想家似乎认为，女性主义政治的方法就是用颠覆性的方式在极其晦涩和轻蔑的抽象性学术出版物中使用‘女人’这一词汇。据说，这种文化姿态本身就是一种政治抵抗的形式。所以，人们为了大胆地行动，不需要参加那些如立法和运动等混乱的事情。”她在《傲慢的堡垒：性侵犯、问责与和解》（Citadels of Pride:Sexual Abuse, Accountability, and Reconciliation）一书中还谈到，骄傲的美国女性痴迷于身份竞争，无法看到女性身上的充分人性，并且完全不知道如何去爱，性伴侣仅仅是财富和社会地位的象征。

Thus, on the question of discarding the concept of “woman,” most feminists hold an opposing view, regarding it as a move divorced from social reality and politically naive. Whether academic feminist scholars or feminist activists, although they stand to varying degrees on an inclusive position of gender diversity, they consider the concept of “woman” a necessary categorical tool for criticizing patriarchy and other social conditions that oppress and exploit women.

可见，在摒弃“女人”这个概念的问题上，多数女性主义者持反对的态度，认为这是一种脱离社会现实、政治上幼稚的做法。无论是学院派的女性主义学者，还是女性主义活动家，虽不同程度地站在性别多元化的包容性立场上，但认为“女人”这个概念对她们批判父权制及其他压迫、剥削女性的社会状况是一个必要的范畴工具。

Finally, the goal of liberation in the struggle over gender identity.

最后，关于性别身份抗争的解放目标。

Against the backdrop of multiculturalism, the struggle for gender identity also faces the paradoxes and limitations of various identity politics—class, race, religion, culture, etc.—thereby confronting contemporary feminism with a choice between universalist equality and particularist difference. After the climax of the first and second waves of the feminist movement, women have already obtained extensive equal rights at the legal level. Social gender theory reveals the various roots of gender formation, making people aware that gender is socially constructed and has the possibility of diversity and fluidity. This social constructionist view of gender and the third wave of the feminist movement both advocate the diversity and difference of social gender. This is reflected not only in sexual minorities but also in differences among women due to factors such as race, ethnicity, and the division of labor. Like multiculturalism, this political demand for the diversity and difference of particular groups not only fragments and weakens the feminist movement, depriving it of its once considerable political efficacy, but also leads it into a “dilemma of difference”—that is, undermining the universal foundation of human rights in the name of special cultural rights.

在多元文化主义的背景下，争取性别身份的斗争也面临着阶级、种族、宗教、文化等各种身份政治的悖论和限制，从而使当代女性主义的解放目标面临着是追求普遍主义的平等还是特殊主义的差异性的抉择。因为，在经历了第一波和第二波女性主义运动的高潮之后，女性在法律层面已经获取了广泛的平等权利。社会性别理论揭示了性别形成的各种根源，让人们意识到性别是社会建构的，并存在多元化、流动性的可能。这种性别的社会建构论和第三波女性主义运动都主张社会性别的多元化和差异性，这不仅体现在性少数群体身上，而且还反映在女性内部因种族、民族、劳动分工等因素而形成的差异中。与多元文化主义一样，这种追求特殊群体的多元化和差异性的政治诉求，不仅使女性主义运动碎片化和弱化，丧失了以往颇具影响的政治效力，而且还让其自身走入了“差异困境”，即以特殊文化权利之名破坏了普遍的人权基础。

The gender policies introduced by the U.S. government in recent years have sparked considerable controversy. According to current policy, “Children should be able to learn without worrying about being denied access to bathrooms, locker rooms, or sports teams. Adults should be able to work without fear of being fired, demoted, or discriminated against for wearing clothes that do not match their sex.” However, some transgender individuals, or those who psychologically identify as a certain gender, can freely enter sex-segregated public spaces (such as bathrooms and toilets), which undoubtedly brings a certain potential danger and unease to others.

美国政府近几年出台的性别政策引起了很大的争议。根据现行政策，“孩子们应该能够安心学习，而不必担心是否会被拒绝进入洗手间、更衣室和参加运动会。成年人应该能安心地从事某种职业，因为他们知道，不会因为穿着不符合本身性别的衣服而被解雇、降职和受到歧视。”然而，一些跨性别者，或者心理认同自己为某一性别的人士，可以自由进入有性别分别的公共场所（如浴室、厕所），这无疑给他人带来某种潜在的危险和不安。

Moreover, in an environment of “political correctness,” topics concerning women’s rights and the rights of sexual minorities have become extremely sensitive and have generated new social problems in certain areas. In the United States, multiculturalism is a creed of political correctness rooted in education, academia, mass media, the entertainment industry, and other fields; any speech or action that violates or offends these creeds comes at a heavy price. For example, we often see news of a university professor or media host being forced to resign because of inappropriate remarks about women. Of course, this is a protection of women’s legitimate rights and a consensus of social civilization. But if this “political correctness” becomes dogmatic and goes to extremes, then this egalitarianism based on gender identity will turn into formalism, or even transform into a resistance to resistance. This is precisely why contemporary Western feminists such as Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard, and Nussbaum are extremely wary of multiculturalism and criticize the left-wing politics of gender difference. They all seek to transcend this “dilemma of difference” and establish a “post-difference” feminism, or a universalism that includes particularity. Among them, Nussbaum’s capabilities approach to feminism is one example. Nussbaum argues that we need to raise women’s “threshold capabilities” in areas such as education, employment, and the intervention of public power. These capabilities include ten aspects: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; living with other species; play; and control over one’s environment. Only under conditions where the state guarantees that women are not deprived of these threshold capabilities can women, through education and training, acquire the ability and freedom to intervene, participate in, and complete various valuable activities. Moreover, she believes that the problems faced by poor working women in developing and developed countries should be placed at the center of the agenda, and the special problems of middle-class women should give way accordingly. This points out the main direction of struggle for the current feminist movement.

此外，在“政治正确”的环境下，关于女性权益和性少数群体权利的话题变得极其敏感，并在某些方面产生了新的社会问题。在美国，多元文化主义是扎根在美国教育界、学术界、大众媒体、娱乐制造业等领域的政治正确信条，任何违背和冒犯这些信条的言论和行为都会付出惨痛的代价。比如，我们经常看到美国某一大学教授或媒体主持人因为对女性的不当言论被迫辞职的新闻。当然，这是对女性合法权益的保护，是社会文明的一种共识。但是，如果这种“政治正确”变得教条化并走向极端，则这种基于性别身份的平等主义就会走向形式主义，甚至转换成一种抵抗的阻力。这也是乔舒亚·科恩（Joshua Cohen）、马修·霍华德（Matthew Howard）和努斯鲍姆等当代西方女性主义者对多元文化主义极其警惕、对左翼所主张的性别差异政治进行批判的原因。她们都想超越这种“差异困境”，建立一种“后差异”或包含特殊性的普遍主义的女性主义。其中，努斯鲍姆提出的能力女性主义就是一个例证。努斯鲍姆认为，我们需要在教育、就业、公权力的介入等方面提高女性的“门槛能力”，这些能力共包括10个方面，它们是：生命，健康的身体，健全的身体，感知、想象和思考，情感，实践理性，归属，与自然和谐相处，娱乐，对外在环境的控制。只有在国家保障女性不被剥夺这些门槛能力的条件下，女性才能通过教育和培训具有介入、参与和完成各种有价值的活动的能力和自由。而且她认为，应当将发展中国家和发达国家贫穷劳动妇女遭遇的问题置于议题的中心，中产阶级女性面临的特殊问题理应为此让行。这就为当前女性主义运动指明了斗争的主要方向。

V. Conclusion

五、结语

In summary, contemporary Western feminist researchers still have significant disagreements on issues such as the body, the concept of woman, and the aims of the movement. Today, on the question of what constitutes woman, we can neither hold a purely biological essentialist view nor insist on a purely constructionist position. The author does not endorse the extreme claims of radical feminism—namely, using advanced science and technology to eliminate women’s reproductive role in order to escape gender oppression. Women’s physiological structure is something we should accept, appreciate, and embrace; but at the same time, we are not biological essentialists. Gender identity should be established on the basis of the mutual integration of biological, sociocultural, psychoanalytic, and other factors. Given the various problems brought by identity-difference politics, the diversification of gender identity, while culturally tolerable, still requires caution in social construction and legal policy. More importantly, feminism should transcend the horizon of gender identity politics, starting from the concept of social liberation or the cultivation of basic human capabilities, and focus on the situation of poor working women who are deeply exploited and oppressed.

总之，当代西方女性主义研究者在身体、女性概念、运动宗旨等议题上还存在着较大分歧。当今，在何为女性的问题上，我们既不可能持一种完全的生物学本质主义的观点，也不应坚持纯粹建构主义的立场。笔者不赞成激进女性主义的极端主张，即用先进的科学技术取消女性的生育角色以摆脱性别压迫的方法。女性的生理结构是我们应该接受、欣赏和包容的，但同时我们也不是生物学本质论者，性别认同应该建立在生物学、社会文化、精神分析等方面相互契合的基础上。鉴于身份差异政治带来的各种问题，性别身份的多元化虽然在文化上可以包容，但在社会建构和法律政策方面还需慎重。更为重要的是，女性主义应该超越性别身份政治的视野，从社会解放或培育人类基本能力的观念出发，关注那些深受剥削和压迫的贫穷劳动妇女的状况。

Unlike the Western liberal tradition that takes the individual as the basic unit, Chinese society places great emphasis on the value and honor of the family and the collective. Therefore, on the question of what a woman is, many Chinese people are still deeply influenced by traditional culture, believing that women should support their husbands and raise their children, becoming virtuous wives and good mothers. Of course, in modern metropolises, women who have received higher education, possess an independent economic base, and are influenced by Western thought have begun to doubt and break free from this role prescription and social norm. In fact, what is a woman? What counts as a woman living well? There are no absolute standards. The circumstances differ under different social, national, cultural, and religious traditions. Therefore, the definition of women and the goals of feminist liberation are never fixed; rather, they must advance with changes in social and historical conditions toward social goals that are more progressive and better able to unfold the richness of women. The ideal future society should be one in which women can freely choose and live with dignity, without having to submit to their gender identity and various external pressures.

与西方社会以个人为本位的自由主义传统不同，中国社会非常重视家庭和集体的价值和荣誉。因此，在何为女性的问题上，很多中国人还是深受传统文化的影响，认为女性就应该相夫教子、成为贤妻良母。当然，在现代化的大都市，受过高等教育、有着独立的经济基础、并且受到西方思想影响的女性，开始怀疑和挣脱这种角色规定和社会规范。事实上，何为女性？女性怎么样才算活得好，并没有绝对的标准。不同社会、民族、文化和宗教传统下的情形各自不同。所以，对女性及女性主义解放目标的界定从来不是固定的，而是要随着社会历史条件的变化，朝着更为进步、更能绽放女性丰富性的社会目标前进。未来的理想社会应该是女性可以自主选择并有尊严地生活，而无需屈从于自己的性别身份及各种外在压力的社会。

(Author’s bio: He Cuixiang, School of Philosophy, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

（作者简介：贺翠香，中国社会科学院大学哲学学院，中国社会科学院哲学研究所）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心