Me too Movement
Recently the Me too movement has swept into China, and that is an encouraging thing; I only hope it won’t die young.
As for Me too, I mentioned it in passing on Weibo, but Weibo’s limitations make it hard to fully articulate a point of view. I hope my remarks will not be too hastily interpreted as a rejection of Me too. In fact, of course I welcome Me too with both hands; even though I have raised the need to be wary of a Chinese-style slippery slope, in fact, even if it really did develop into some kind of “overdone” state, that would still be better than having no such movement at all. In correcting an excess, some overcorrection is hard to avoid; in a movement, excess is hard to avoid too. At least as things look now, in China it is still far too luxurious to talk about how to prevent the Me too movement from becoming excessive.
For example, to believe overall that shock therapy is beneficial to restoring health does not mean that one thinks “shock” is a good thing. I think an excessive movement may be beneficial to rebuilding order, but that does not mean celebrating excess. The reason excess is unavoidable is that we are not God; we cannot demand that a movement propelled by countless scattered individual forces always grasps the best measure. It is like production: by-products, impurities, pollution—these are all hard to avoid. We pursue A and B, and often what we get is A, B, and C; that C, as a by-product, may be an unavoidable result of pursuing A and B, but that does not mean we should also like C. A and B are good, while C is bad; but if I can only choose between “having all of ABC” and “having none of ABC,” I would still rather have ABC, while at the same time never forgetting that I must keep striving to remove this superfluous C.
My stance on Western political correctness, anti-discrimination, feminism, Me too, and so on is more or less the same: each contains something very important and good, but each also falls into the danger of expansion and excess.
In short, when evaluating a “movement,” one should first confront squarely the possibility and inevitability of “collateral damage.” The fact that a movement is bound to cause collateral damage does not mean the movement must be rejected wholesale. The key lies in two points: first, compared with the main effects it brings about, whether the loss from collateral damage is negligible; second, whether that collateral damage can be properly limited and remedied, so that it does not end up usurping the main role.
The Me too movement certainly has collateral damage; the controversy lies in which cases are collateral damage and which are the focal point. If you don’t care at all about the distinction between the focal point and the margins, and simply lump all targets together and whip them indiscriminately, then of course you are heading down the wrong path.
In my view, the objects Me too criticizes should of course be sexual harassment and sexual assault (what exactly counts as sexual harassment will be discussed later). As for clumsy, awkward romance, opportunistic ambiguity, consensual sex work, crude remarks or dirty jokes, and so on, these all fall within the category of “collateral damage.” Of course, these behaviors can also be resisted and criticized, and one can regard them as products of patriarchy too, but I think those are other issues, not the issue of sexual harassment. For example, a scumbag who cheats on both sides of a relationship certainly deserves criticism and contempt, but to put him together with a rapist and criticize them as one would be indulgent toward the rapist.
But the focal point of the Me too movement is not actually rapists and sexual assailants either; it is aimed more at indifferent ordinary people. They have not directly committed violations, but through deliberate or inadvertent influence, they abet the violator and obstruct the victim’s resistance and voice. The logic of “making a big issue small” and “keeping the peace,” along with remarks like “you’re making a fuss over nothing,” “you can’t take a joke,” and “you’re not innocent either,” all become accomplices of the violator without anyone noticing. And the Me too movement first and foremost seeks to break this widespread silence, to reshape the public climate, and to give victims the courage to speak. After more and more victims bravely speak out, more victims who had previously shrunk back can step forward in the form of “me too”; that is the true aim of the Me too movement.
The above involves the distinction between specific content and media form. Take the printed book as an example: after the first printed books appeared, their content of course concerned the Bible, but in social terms they were by no means limited to the Bible; they also concerned the overthrow of traditional authority, the reconfiguration of power relations in the realm of knowledge, and so on. The aim to be achieved through this form, and the content carried by any specific medium—these two levels do not coincide. When we come down to a particular printed book, we still need to ask whether this book was printed correctly and accurately, whether there were errors, omissions, or distortions; we cannot let the general social effect of printed books excuse the examination of specific problems.
So, with regard to the Me too movement, there is also this distinction between two levels: the content expressed by each individual victim, and the social effect brought about by the movement as a whole. At the level of social effect, “collateral damage” is hard to avoid, because many behaviors, though widely differing in seriousness, nevertheless share certain patriarchal cultural notions, and thus it is only natural that they be struck down together. But commonality at the level of cultural roots does not mean commonality in the nature of the behavior itself. The influence of Me too can be generalized, but the concept of “sexual harassment” should not be generalized. In every specific accusation, one should still clearly distinguish the boundary of “sexual harassment.” I have always believed that things like being a flirt, flirting, ambiguity, and so on cannot be counted as sexual harassment.
Interfering with Others’ Freedom
I approach sexual harassment and the Me too movement entirely from a liberal, not a feminist, standpoint.
Behind harassment and rape there are certainly elements of chauvinism and patriarchal culture, and of course I also support many basic demands of feminism. But in my view, the elevation of women’s status is a necessary by-product of modernization and of liberal and pluralist culture. What is called freedom and pluralism means acknowledging that people can freely choose all kinds of personal images and personal affiliations, and freely compete for all sorts of different social statuses and social roles. For example, I can take on the image of a submissive gay man, and I can also pursue the image of a strong, assertive woman; I can be a domineering CEO, and I can also be a stay-at-home housewife. So long as all kinds of choices and all kinds of images receive respect and tolerance, that is enough. The difference between me and many feminists lies in my attitude toward “stereotypes.” The stereotypes of traditional culture are generally: male = active, masculine, domineering, gentlemanly… female = passive, feminine, gentle, ladylike… In the eyes of most feminists, these stereotypes of course need to be broken urgently; but in my view that is by no means necessary. After we allow people to choose homosexuality, of course we still allow people to choose heterosexuality; after encouraging customization for left-handers in certain fields, of course we must still allow designs made specifically for right-handers. What I support is only opening toward diversity, not opposing the old tradition. Acknowledging homosexuality does not mean denying straight men; acknowledging women’s status does not mean denying differences between men and women. Of course many differences are culturally shaped, but human “culture” is originally the construction of difference, originally tattooing and labeling; in a certain sense, “culture” is “stereotype” itself. So a cultural tradition of gender difference in itself is not wrong; so long as that culture has enough openness and inclusiveness, that is fine.
As for the issue of cultural pluralism, I will talk about it later; for now let me not wander too far. Here we will discuss the issue of sexual harassment only from the angle of “freedom.”
What is called harassment is nothing more than interference with another person’s freedom. You have freedom of speech, but you cannot exercise your freedom of speech at will in a library, because such behavior will interfere with the free activities of others who are quietly reading. You have the freedom to eat so as to keep yourself from hunger, but you also cannot casually eat leek boxes in a subway carriage.
Even the most basic freedom, in principle, still needs “good judgment” when exercised; in other words, it requires “reading the air.” No action can be detached from its corresponding setting and atmosphere and be judged abstractly for whether it is appropriate. Whether an action is appropriate must be evaluated within the corresponding atmosphere.
Atmosphere and Tacit Understanding
So I do not agree with some simplistic formulations, such as “without consent it is rape,” because “consent” is contextual. Lovers who are deeply in love may be just one thin layer of paper away from each other, and then a look can accomplish mutual communication; but in other situations, even if someone writes down in black and white “I am willing to sleep with you,” it may in fact still be unwillingness, only a yielding under the pressure of power and authority. Not only is the “no” in a girl’s mouth Schrodinger-like; any person’s “yes” must also be considered in relation to the atmosphere. One cannot say that because the other party did not say “yes,” the act was coercion; nor can one say that because the other party did say “yes,” the act is innocent.
Apart from interpersonal relations, the physical environment is also part of the atmosphere. For example, if male and female classmates are chatting together in a soft-sleeper train compartment, then “going to bed” most likely just means “going to bed.”
However, while “atmosphere” is something we must take into account when communicating with each other and expressing our wishes, this does not mean that we can always use “atmosphere” to excuse the perpetrator. The way those violators defend themselves is, for the most part, also an appeal to “atmosphere” — he thinks it was a tacit understanding of mutual willingness, while she thinks it was coercion and submission. If we exclude the possibility of post hoc lies, then this is simply a divergence in the two sides’ reading of the “atmosphere.” “Unwritten rules” are of course also part of “atmosphere”: one side thinks the other has already tacitly accepted the unwritten rules, while the other side does not want to at all.
So how do we bridge the divergence? Some people think we must appeal to precise language, which is roughly the original hope of analytic philosophers—everyday language is ambiguous and contextual, so let us try to get rid of these things as much as possible. For example, eye contact as tacit understanding certainly will not do; even words like “go to bed” and “sleep” have ambiguities, so why not just say “sexual intercourse” directly? In exchanges like this, “May I have sexual intercourse with you? … Yes.” can be taken as confirming consent.
Of course, many people will say that although this reduces ambiguity, it also loses romance and charm. That is certainly one aspect; but on the other hand, I would even say that this method may not actually reduce ambiguity. “Let’s have sexual intercourse together” and “Let’s fuck” do not mean the same thing at all, and the relation between them is not at all one of precision versus vagueness. The meanings of these two phrases are simply different. “Fuck-fuck-fuck,” “hee-hee-hee,” “crosses and circles,” “let’s do the things people do when they make love,” “let’s get shameless together”… all kinds of coded expressions come with an entire cultural atmosphere of their own. No sentence can be detached from context and analyzed on its own; the “problem” itself is already part of the whole context or atmosphere. For example, perhaps if you ask me whether you can “plap-plap,” I will agree, but if you ask me whether we can “have sexual intercourse,” I will refuse, because the former wording brings us closer, whereas the latter reveals your rustic awkwardness. If you ask in English whether you can fuck, then it is even less a matter of increasing precision; it may instead make people think you are a fake foreign-obsessed eccentric speaking in a sinister tone. And if it is Latin? Then what needs to be considered is even less whether Latin is more precise than English, and more whether something has gone wrong with your brain.
There is no language that is absolutely precise in an absolute sense. Reaching a consensus on how to understand the same sentence also requires a certain “atmosphere.” The most precise expression within one circle is, outside that circle, instead ambiguous and unclear. For example, young people (actually even that’s already out of fashion; I don’t understand the trending words of the next generation either) hear “plap-plap” and instantly know what it means, but hearing “let’s go breed” instead leaves them baffled, as if perhaps I’m being taken to visit a pig farm. Fans of Japanese anime culture are familiar with the expression “first base, second base, home plate”; the meaning of “reach home plate” is very precise, but outside the context it becomes incomprehensible.
The more diverse a culture is, the more little circles of all kinds there are, and the more cases of tacit understanding and lack of tacit understanding there will be. And people naturally always hope to have relations with those with whom they can be as tacit as possible; in dealing with others, the only rule is that the more you deal, the more tacit you become. If after talking for ages you still cannot be sure of mutual tacit understanding, and cannot be certain the other party understands what you mean, and yet you insist on adding a “precise contract” to confirm the other party’s willingness, then this is not just a matter of “spoiling the mood”; it is also a trampling of tacit understanding. The very act of asking this question may itself be another kind of forceful “harassment” — “I simply do not recognize this culture, I do not want to understand this language at all, I do not want to go deeply into your circle, I do not care about establishing tacit understanding with you, I just want to have sex with you, so just agree, and then I can be free of a lawsuit.”
Of course, it is not impossible that some people can also derive a romantic feeling from so-called “precise language,” which is why I said from the beginning that this is not at all a question of romance, but of precision itself. This is because they, too, belong to certain shared cultural circles—for example, both parties are within the cultural atmosphere of Western left-wing movements—so it just so happens that what looks like the most precise language is also the most precise within that circle. But the precision of “sexual intercourse” for that group is not necessarily any higher than the precision of “home plate” for another group. So asking a so-called precise question is still also a way of confirming the shared atmosphere and tacit understanding of both sides. The act of asking, like eye contact and the like, does not seek a result akin to a true-or-false answer on an exam. What both sides try to confirm through these behaviors is the “atmosphere,” not the truth value of a scientific proposition.
The Freedom to Refuse
So did the violators’ defenses succeed? Since one cannot cross divergences through “precise language,” what should one do? Are we doomed to nothing but each side claiming to be in the right, and to pin the blame on “misunderstanding” and “lack of tacit understanding”?
Not at all. What I am stressing is only that there is no one-shot, forever-neutral, precise language that can cross all contexts. But we can continue communicating, can’t we? Atmosphere is not a monolithic slab; it is constantly flowing. If tacit understanding is not enough, that is fine—either you can detach from the communication at any time (stop dealing with you), or you can further integrate through continued communication, or seek a common denominator. “Incommensurability” means that no final, fixed common denominator can be found, but that is precisely what means communication can continue indefinitely.
As I said earlier, questions in the course of communication are not “propositions” with truth values, so responses to questions are by no means limited to “yes” and “no.” For example, one can also reply: “What do you mean?”, “Dream on,” “Don’t be so sanctimonious,” “Let me think about it,” and so on. When even saying “don’t” can produce ambiguity, one can still say “get lost.”
Of course, the greater responsibility lies on the active side. The party that actively requests further intimacy (whether touching or going to bed) does not necessarily need to pose a precise question, and may not even need to pose a question at all; he can summon tacit understanding through eye contact, gestures, or any other form of “language.” But whatever form the invitation takes, it should leave room for “refusal” and “misunderstanding.”
In other words, you may presuppose or expect the other party to form tacit understanding with you, but you cannot leave the other party only that one choice. Even if the other party has had some tacit understanding with you before, you still have to leave her the option of “withdrawing” at any time. If the whole situation constituted by the environment and the demands leaves the other party no way to refuse at all, then that demand is inappropriate.
Unwritten rules cannot acquit a sexual assailant. Not to mention that many people simply do not understand unwritten rules at all: even if she understands the unwritten rules, and even if she has tacitly acquiesced up until the very moment you take off your pants, as long as she ultimately objects, you should swallow it back down and continue communicating. Even if the “don’t” she says actually means “pretend to refuse while meaning to accept,” if you cannot be certain of that, you should clarify the misunderstanding through communication.
The active party occupies the active position in the relationship, and therefore bears more responsibility, because the active party controls the ability to stop at any time, whereas the passive party cannot guarantee that the deepening of the relationship can stop at any moment. So if they are even deprived of the right to express refusal at any time, then this kind of relationship is undeniably one of power.
The active party has an additional responsibility, which is to create space for refusal. This is why sexual relationships between teachers and students or between superiors and subordinates are especially sensitive. I do not object to teacher-student romance, but one must admit that the power held by the person in the superior position within the teacher-student relationship will, to a greater or lesser extent, always suppress the “space for refusal.” In other words, the person in the inferior position will find that the cost of expressing refusal is exceptionally high. Even if the person in the superior position does not necessarily wish to impose these pressures, in reality those pressures do indeed squeeze out the room for refusal. Then the active party has the responsibility, after as far as possible removing various pressures, to proceed with the act of active pursuit. For example, waiting until the student graduates, or changing one’s position oneself. In fact, social currents including the Me too movement also help open up the space for refusal, because the more obvious the hostility toward sexual harassment in public opinion, the lower the cost for the person in the inferior position to express refusal. Although power in the school rests with the teacher’s side, public opinion gives students more strength and resources, enabling them to face without fear the extra pressure brought by the teacher’s status. If the situation reaches that point, then I think there is no need to worry about teacher-student romance at all.
Even now, if a student takes the initiative in an affair between teacher and student, and the space to refuse is left on the teacher’s side, then it really can work; even if the student hopes to use the relationship to gain certain benefits for herself, that is still a freely negotiated transaction, beyond reproach. So I do not object to teacher-student relationships, superior-subordinate relationships, director-actor relationships, and so on, so long as the lower-status party takes the lead, and so long as the space to refuse is guaranteed, one can confirm that the choice is voluntary; what remains is simply free communication and free choice on both sides.
Misunderstanding and False Accusation
I respect any relationship that arises through mutual consent and free choice. The issue is whether, in choosing and refusing, people can express themselves fully and freely, while being disturbed as little as possible. In this respect, the party who takes the initiative has the responsibility to ensure ample room for refusal.
But the problem is that “taking the initiative” also seems to be a vague concept. On the one hand, there is the possibility of lying after the fact: for example, a woman who actively pursued a relationship in order to secure some hidden advantage, only to turn around and bite back when the relationship breaks down; or again, a woman who clearly did not express any initiative, but is misread as having actively solicited the relationship (for instance, some people think that if a woman dresses a little more revealingly, that counts as an active invitation); or again, as the relationship gradually progresses, the roles of active and passive shift back and forth in turn…
But the way to resolve this is nothing more than “keep communicating.” Misunderstandings can happen at any time, but after a misunderstanding is discovered, there is still always an opportunity to correct it, and there is still room for further communication. For example, if she bites back at you, you can also make a solemn defense; if you mistakenly thought she was being proactive, but after you respond you find that she instead indicates rejection, then you can step back and re-examine your previous understanding; moreover, no matter how tangled and alternating the relationship may be, the moment either side expresses refusal, that side immediately assumes the role of the passive party.
Precisely because misunderstandings are always unavoidable, correction and remedy are so important. The Me Too movement itself is also a kind of “remedy.” Many men may indeed have harassed women because they misunderstood their wishes at the time, but misunderstanding itself is a fault, and now of course there is a responsibility to correct and make amends. A sincere admission of fault is naturally the minimum; as for legal accountability, that is not unjust either. Whether by misunderstanding or by intent, if in fact you have done something that infringes on another person’s freedom, then you have simply done wrong.
What if the woman makes a false accusation? The key is still to leave room for further communication. We cannot use robber-baron logic like “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” to comment on victims, but we also cannot use the same logic to comment on perpetrators — whether it is a false accusation or not, once someone has been accused, there must be a problem, and to nail them to the pillar of shame is of course not right either.
Misunderstandings are hard to avoid. You may have taken the first “no” as coy refusal, but surely you should have understood the next “get lost,” right? If you did not hear the “get lost,” then surely you should have stopped at the next sign of struggle… In the Me Too cases that provoked public condemnation, very few were one-off accidents; many offenders often had continuous, repeated acts of violation, and often more than one victim. That is to say, he did not stop to reflect on whether he had misunderstood. The first misunderstanding may perhaps be forgiven (even so, forgiveness only comes after an admission of fault), but continuous, repeated “misunderstanding” cannot be used as a reason to defend oneself.
A sound legal system is also extremely important. On the one hand, sexual assailants should receive a fair trial, and the fairer the trial, the greater the chance that false accusations can be corrected. On the other hand, false accusers should also face serious punishment. If, like in staged accident fraud, one profits when one succeeds in extortion and feels no pain when one fails, then the whole environment will naturally deteriorate.
My Own Measures
As a teacher myself, although I have no intention of sexual harassment, this issue is still directly related to me. Fortunately, the one master’s student and one doctoral student I am currently supervising are both male, so no trouble has arisen yet — and yet, the moment I thought “fortunately,” trouble had in fact already appeared, because I might intentionally or unintentionally start leaning toward admitting only male students in order to avoid more trouble. That line of thought is very bad indeed, because it obviously creates, in a hidden way, unfair treatment for female students. Fortunately, this was only a fleeting thought, and I reflected on it in time…
The place where trouble could arise is my weekly reading group. This reading group has continued for many years. It was originally started when I was a postdoc, with two undergraduates and two master’s students as the core, and there have always been female members, but the main participants have always included both men and women, so there has never really been any problem. Now the reading group is held regularly in my Tsinghua private residence, where we read, eat, and play in cheerful harmony, and there is still no problem.
But old members gradually drift away. If new members turn out to be mostly women, and the men do not arrive early in advance, then situations may arise where one particular woman shows up first, and so on.
Since the activity is held in my private residence, such a situation is actually taboo for a teacher. Generally speaking, if a teacher is meeting an opposite-sex student for guidance, one should choose a public place, and the door should be left wide open. But if I hold it in my private residence, it is difficult to avoid moments when only women are present.
What to do? I do not want to make too many adjustments to the existing format of the reading group; if it really became that troublesome, then that “fortunately” would begin to rear its head again. The measures I can take are these:
1. For reading groups that involve male participants, encourage the men to arrive early, or encourage the women to come in pairs, so as to avoid situations where a lone man and a lone woman are alone together as much as possible;
2. All gatherings are announced publicly in the group chat; even if others are absent, they will know who will come during a certain time period. I will not secretly arrange one-on-one chats with women. If I am arranging a private meeting, I will choose a public place such as a café;
3. Trust each other as the main principle. Students need not be afraid of me, and likewise I need not be afraid that students will make false accusations. If the students I admit ultimately falsely accuse me of harassment, then that is simply my poor judgment; there is no one else to blame. In fact, male students may also make false accusations in other respects, or even seize upon certain remarks or conduct and selectively quote them out of context to report me, and that would be enough to make my life miserable. But there is no way to avoid this. All one can say is that one should be stricter at the entry stage: do not recruit people without suspicion, and do not recruit people whom one suspects.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply