In early 20th-century China, anarcho-feminist He Zhen emerged as a powerful voice challenging both traditional gender roles and Western colonial ideologies (Rošker, 2022). Amid China’s significant socio-political transformations during this time, she critiqued the patriarchal structures of Chinese society and the imposition of Western feminist ideals. Her name itself, meaning ‘to shake up,’ symbolizes the radical rethinking of what feminism means in a Chinese context, and her philosophy is closely interlinked to the broader concept of Sinologism (Rošker, 2022). Sinologism distorts Chinese knowledge through a Western lens, oversimplifying Chinese philosophical, social, and cultural traditions and perpetuating colonial perspectives (Zhou, 2019). It is not just an academic issue, but a broader reflection of how Western hegemony shapes cross-cultural knowledge production. It is especially relevant in feminist discourse, where Western feminist theories are often imposed upon non-Western contexts without considering local particularities (Zhou, 2019). But how does the concept of ‘Sinologism’ reflect the Western distortion of Chinese feminism, and how can He Zhen’s anarcho-feminist critiques provide strategies for addressing this distortion within feminist discourse?

Sinologism is situated within the larger geopolitical context, paralleling the concept of Orientalism. Both theories address the pervasive idea of Western cultural superiority, wherein the West defines and distorts non-Western cultures, portraying them as stagnant, or even inferior. However, it is important to note that many aspects that are criticized in Sinologism go beyond Orientalism ​(Zhou, 2019). This global imposition of cultural narratives and frameworks can act as a form of ‘academic colonization,’ where Western academic models are applied to interpret the world and how modernity is understood (Morris-Suzuki, 2000). Western scholars have historically approached Chinese history, philosophy, and society with preconceived notions, often misinterpreting key aspects of Chinese culture. For example, Chinese intellectual traditions, particularly in philosophy and gender relations, are frequently oversimplified or viewed through a Western-centric framework. This is exemplified by early Sinologists like Montesquieu and Hegel, who viewed Chinese governance and social structure as inherently despotic, ignoring the nuance of Confucian principles such as the Mandate of Heaven​ (Gu, 2013). Similarly, Chinese philosophies like Confucianism and Daoism are often dismissed as primitive or static, failing to acknowledge their depth and influence on Chinese society and values. These distortions persist in various forms, from labeling Chinese political systems as tyrannical to dismissing Chinese scientific achievements as inferior ​(Gu, 2013). As a result, Chinese gender relations are also often simplified through a Western feminist lens without acknowledging the cultural context of, for example, Confucianism’s gender roles​. 

From He Zhen’s perspective, Confucianism is a system that rigidly reinforces traditional gender roles through its emphasis on family hierarchy and the subordination of women. Confucian values such as sancong or the ‘Three Obediences’ dictate that a woman must obey her father before marriage, her husband after marriage, and her son after her husband’s death (Rošker, 2022). He Zhen also emphasizes that Western feminist frameworks are not suitable for addressing the unique socio-political structures in China for this reason and therefore also not suitable for universal application. Western feminism, emerging from a specific cultural and historical background, is deeply rooted in the experiences of women in Western societies, where patriarchal oppression has different manifestations than in China. Throughout history, women’s oppression in China has not solely been based on gender hierarchies but has also been deeply intertwined with Confucian traditions and broader socio-economic structures (Rošker, 2022). Moreover, He Zhen emphasized that Western liberal feminism, which often centered on personal emancipation and legal equality, could not fully engage with the collective and community-oriented nature of Chinese society. In her view, true liberation for Chinese women required addressing the systemic issues of economic exploitation and class oppression. This was reflected in her anarcho-feminist philosophy, which called for a complete overhaul of both the patriarchal and capitalist structures that oppressed women. By advocating for women’s liberation alongside broader social revolutions, He Zhen provided a distinctly Chinese feminist alternative that did not align with the Western feminist focus on individual rights and liberal democracy​ (Zarrow, 1988).

Throughout Chinese history, women have actively participated in intellectual and philosophical discussions, even in the face of patriarchal oppression. The perception that Chinese philosophical traditions are male-dominated is overly simplistic and biased, often resulting from a lack of comprehensive historical understanding (Rošker, 2022). Contrasting the dualistic approach common in Western philosophy, Chinese philosophy, grounded in the concept of yin and yang, promotes a fluid understanding of masculinity and femininity. Unlike the strict dichotomies seen in western philosophies, it advocates for a balanced and complementary relationship between these aspects (Rošker, 2022). Although the concept of yin and yang has Daoist origins, it was incorporated into Confucianism during the Han dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE) (Rošker, 2022). Early Confucian texts, such as those from the pre-Qin period (before 221 BCE), advocated for gender equality and promoted equal access to education. During this time, the term nannü, literally translated to ‘man’ and ‘woman’, referred to socially constructed distinctions between the two. However, during the Han dynasty, scholars like Dong Zhongshu reinterpreted nannü by linking it to a cosmological hierarchy based on a selective reading of the concept of yin and yang. This reinforced a rigid and patriarchal hierarchy that was further institutionalized during the Song dynasty (960-1279 CE) (Rošker, 2022). It is essential to differentiate between the ethics of classical Confucian philosophy and the later Confucian state doctrine, which institutionalized a more rigid, hierarchical gender system through official examinations and other mechanisms (Rošker, 2022).

In response to these hierarchical interpretations, He Zhen reinterpreted nannü as an independent analytical concept that transcends the typical Western distinction between sex and gender. The concept of biological sex was unfamiliar in classical Chinese philosophy, which can be understood as a form of social constructivism. For instance, the Confucian Analects, explicitly rejected the idea that innate, biological differences held any significance between individuals. Instead, cultivation and education outside of biological sex were central to pre-Qin Confucian social and ethical thought, a worldview that profoundly influenced He Zhen’s own perspectives and intellectual development (Rošker, 2022). He Zhen emphasizes that the terms ‘male’ (nanxing) and ‘female’ (nüxing) do not carry any inherent natural meaning, as these categories result from different socialization processes rather than innate qualities. She suggests that if sons and daughters were treated the same and given equal education, their rights and responsibilities would also be equal, rendering the distinctions between male and female unnecessary. Within this context, she views the concept of nannü as a central element of patriarchal discourse in China, which has historically justified the oppression of women. She treats nannü as a sophisticated philosophical and moral concept that has reinforced male dominance over millennia (Rošker, 2022). Instead of applying Western values, concepts, and analytical methods to the study of Asian countries, in this case China, it is essential to analyze and explain regional phenomena by taking into account the specific cultural and historical characteristics of the region (Amako, 2017). A decolonized feminist discourse should recognize local traditions and histories, enabling non-Western feminist movements to define themselves on their own terms. This would free them from the distortions of Sinologism (Zhou, 2019). He Zhen is an example of how one can have a distinctly Chinese approach to feminism in a ‘colonized’ academic world, fostering the reinforcement of multidisciplinarity and inherently ‘decolonizing’ Chinese feminism in her way. This not only encourages collaboration but also the coexistence of diverse perspectives without forcing them into a single framework (Chen, 2021). 

He Zhen emphasizes the importance of collective liberation, intertwining gender equality with economic and social revolution. By doing so, she provides a distinctly Chinese alternative that resists the individualism of Western liberal feminism and addresses the complexities of gender oppression within China’s unique socio-political context. He Zhen’s critiques offer significant insights into the complexities of gender and societal structures. By reinterpreting traditional frameworks of gender, He Zhen advocates for a radical transformation of these structures. This perspective underscores the importance of multidisciplinary approaches and suggests that more research and discourse are necessary to ensure a more comprehensive representation of Chinese feminist discourse. Only by engaging deeply with such perspectives can feminist theories evolve to more accurately reflect the lived realities of women across different societies, classes, and identities.

Amako, S. (2017). Methods for area studies and contemporary China study. 6(1), 2-28.

Morris-Suzuki, T. (2000). Anti-area studies. Communal / Plural: Journal of Transnational & Crosscultural Studies, 8(1), 9-23.

Rošker, J. S. (2022). He Zhen and the decolonialization of feminism. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 49(1), 22-35.

Sobral, P. (2023). With what voice does China speak? Sinology, Orientalism and the debate on Sinologism. Journal of Chinese Humanities, 9(2), 215-243.

Zarrow, P. (1988). He Zhen and anarcho-feminism in China. The Journal of Asian Studies, 47(4), 796-813.

Zhou, X. (2019). The problems of Sinologism and strategies to cope with them. 

Contemporary Chinese Thought, 49(1), 71-80.