Jiang Xiaoyuan: “Sex Appeal—A Cultural Interpretation”

6,059 characters2007.01.31

Jiang Xiaoyuan: “Sexiness—A Cultural Interpretation”

Xingding posted on 2007-01-31 20:05:58

Jiang Xiaoyuan: “Sexiness—A Cultural Interpretation,” Hainan Publishing House, July 2003

This book, just as Teacher Jiang says in the preface, is a “fun” book. Perhaps it also counts as a “sexy” book. Of course, it is somewhat unsuitable for children—at least R-rated, I’d say. I don’t often read this sort of thing, but I certainly don’t reject it; a fun book is a fun book.

And online, I actually found the complete electronic edition: http://lz.book.sohu.com/learning/serialize.php?id=1370

Among the “group” of scientific and cultural figures whom I deeply admire, Teacher Jiang is probably the “big boss.” He was the first doctor of history of science (history of astronomy) trained in China, a star pupil of Mr. Xi Zezong, the director of the Department of the History of Science at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, vice-chairman of the Chinese Society for the History of Science and Technology, and so on. But like that group in general, he especially likes “not doing his proper job.” For example, in the past he said he was doing research on science-fiction films, watching more than a hundred movies a year; now that was some delightfully fast research. As for “sexology,” that is Teacher Jiang’s “second specialty”; he is one of the initiators of the Chinese Society of Sexology, and he has also published several academic works in that area. “Sexual culture” also occupies a special section on the “Science · History · Culture” website run by Teacher Jiang: http://shc2000.sjtu.edu.cn/xwh.htm .

I am obviously a person with a strong sentimental attachment to antiquity, and in social matters I ought to seem extremely “conservative” as well. On questions of sex, it is quite possible that some people would see me as nothing more than a dull-witted simpleton, or as a conservative ascetic moralist. But in fact the opposite is true: on questions of sex I am quite “open” (I can’t find a better word). Incidentally, as for knowledge about sex, I know all the things I ought to know, and also the things I ought not to know; I just lack experience.

In fact, not only my view of love, but also my view of sex occupies a crucial place in my philosophy of life (so let me put it that way for now). In talking about life, one always runs into the relation between spirit and body, and cannot avoid the question of how to regard “desire.” And even if one does not go as far as Freud in saying that all desire is essentially sexual desire, sex is after all an inescapable topic.

As for my view of sex, although I am indeed very “open” (open in my views, but conservative in my behavior; I won’t discuss the specifics for the moment), it still bears a “retro” tinge. I am deeply dissatisfied with the so-called sexual liberation that is now flourishing with a spirit of obscenity and vulgarity. Modern people’s understanding of sexual liberation is often a negation of shame and a glorification of carnal appetite. When people mention sexual openness, they are likely to think of obscenity, vulgarity, crudity, and the like, and of people such as Mu Zimei and Li Zhiyan; of course, these are not things I admire.

That kind of understanding of openness toward sex is in essence still a continuation of asceticism—for ascetics, “the sage has no sex,” and anything related to sex is always something coarse, base, unsightly, and unbearably vulgar. And among many so-called advocates of sexual openness, these notions have in fact not changed either; they merely think that vulgarity and licentiousness are no big deal: “I’m a hooligan—who am I afraid of?” This sort of sexual openness actually goes hand in hand with vulgar culture and mass culture; they dislike “elegant” things, and just like ascetics they all believe that sex is, no matter what, something unfit for polite society. The only difference is that they simply do not care whether it is fit for polite society or not. In short, what those people call reform of sexual views is in fact a change in notions such as vulgarity and elegance; it has not brought much novelty at all to the understanding of sex.

Sexual desire is a human instinct; of course, it is also a kind of “animality.” But sex is special for human beings, so much so that humanity has long since surpassed animals even physiologically—only human beings have gone beyond animals’ “mating season” and gained the freedom to be aroused and make love at any time. As a kind of animality, we should restrain it with reason—but restraint does not mean repression; rather, it means uplifting and sublimating it. Any refined art is nothing but an expression made possible by the most primitive sensory stimulation; art is precisely the sublimation of mere sensory impulse into noble spiritual feeling. Sex is similar: to sublimate the discharge of sheer carnal desire into an intercourse in which spirit and desire are united could also be called “art.” Moreover, in my view, sex and love carry a certain sacred significance; at the very least, why shouldn’t we regard it a little more mysteriously?

2007年1月31日20时02分

This day in years past…

Read 310 times Comments 2 Personal homepage Throw a little note Folder: Reading—Buying Books

Favorites: QQ Bookmarks del.icio.us

Latest comments

UNIC

2007-01-31 22:47:53 [Reply]

1. “I obviously am a person with a strong sentimental attachment to antiquity, and in social matters I ought to seem extremely ‘conservative’ as well. On questions of sex, it is quite possible that some people would see me as nothing more than a dull-witted simpleton, or as a conservative ascetic moralist. But in fact the opposite is true: on questions of sex I am quite ‘open’ (I can’t find a better word). Incidentally, as for knowledge about sex, I know all the things I ought to know, and also the things I ought not to know; I just lack experience.”
2. “As for my view of sex, although I am indeed very ‘open’ (open in my views, but conservative in my behavior; I won’t discuss the specifics for the moment), it still bears a ‘retro’ tinge. I am deeply dissatisfied with the so-called sexual liberation that is now flourishing with a spirit of obscenity and vulgarity.”
3. “As a kind of animality, we should restrain it with reason—but restraint does not mean repression; rather, it means uplifting and sublimating it.”
4. “…Sex is similar: to sublimate the discharge of sheer carnal desire into an intercourse in which spirit and desire are united could also be called ‘art.’”
These three views are, for me, all identical to the extent of 100 percent. In fact, the words above are also what I have always wanted to say.
Looking more closely, in Chinese history it is not the case that there was always asceticism; in fact, in some dynasties, Chinese ideas about sex were ahead of their time and quite open by the standards of the world then.
I have always wanted to read relevant works by D. H. Lawrence. But right now it seems not very likely.
UNIC

2007-01-31 22:50:03 [Reply]

I made a typo; it should be “the above four views…”