ACROSS4SEAS.COM

Ryan Christopher Insley

The Patriarchal Definition of Success: A Response to And the Spring Comes and Mona Lisa Smile

“I am a big source of many people’s deep confusion about themselves…I find I am just like a fishbone caught in their throats.” This self-description – spoken by Mr. Hu Jinquan, a ballet instructor at the City Art Center in And the Spring Comes – is illustrative of many of the core characters in both films. The confusion and suffocating effect Mr. Hu ascribes to himself derives, I argue, from a patriarchal definition of success which pervades his hometown of Baotou. By a patriarchal definition of success, I refer to traditional norms upheld by a male-dominated society which prescribe which type of behavior (enacted by both men and women) will be praised and which will be condemned. The nature of these norms and the way in which they are upheld are demonstrated in both verbal and non-verbal expressions, namely through a notion of proper conduct (a form of 礼 [li]) for both sexes, a conception of what labor is credible (ethos) for both sexes, and fashion and advertisement as applied to both sexes.

Mr. Hu’s predicament of identity is particularly illuminating regarding these themes. Mr. Hu is single, aging, and without any romantic prospects; he instructs a ballet class of women and performs Western ballets (viz. Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake”) in public; and there are several suggestions throughout the film that Mr. Hu is homosexual (e.g. when Mr. Hu is referred to as a “pervert” by a man on the street without any provocation or reason for it, a term often used as a slur against gay men both now and especially some decades ago). The patriarchal social conditions in Baotou, China were thus adverse to Mr. Hu’s identity, lowering his status (ethos) and placing him under ostracization and derision for being without a wife, for pursuing a career associated with femininity, for dressing in traditional ballet clothing (which they find laughable in the film), and for being attracted to men in a time of deep homophobic aversions. Wang Cailing (alt. Wang Tsai-ling), an aspiring opera singer working at the Teachers’ School and the main protagonist in And the Spring Comes, experiences similar shaming for being single, for not being beautiful, and for not wearing cosmetics or caring about her skin. Success is therefore defined by matrimony, beauty, and fulfilling one’s proper role according to sex in the film, and neither Wang nor Hu meet expectations.

Comparably, women face similar struggles as Wang Cailing and are the main victim of the patriarchal definition of success in Mona Lisa Smile, an American film. Most notably, they are placed under a male-centric view of what a woman should look like and what role a woman should serve. In a powerful scene, Katherine Ann Watson, an art professor at the all-women Wellesley College, flips through a slide show of advertisements directed at women before her class. As “a portrait of women” in the 1950s, they feature products displayed by housewife caricatures, including a cleanser, an ironing table, ketchup for meatloaf, and a girdle. In another scene, featuring student Betty Warren and her husband, Betty takes couples’ photos in which she is cooking, ironing, and vacuuming, while her husband is reading or standing by. Both parts of the film are indicative of the patriarchal position that women are to remain at home, as caretakers of children, as preparers of meals, and as essentially housemaids. As another example, there is displeasure expressed by student Joan Brandwyn’s husband when (initially) she wishes to go to Yale Law School rather than only serve as a housewife. Prof. Watson herself is the target of some suspicion and ridicule due to her status as a single woman who refuses to abide by conventional notions of women’s roles, with her students questioning her reasoning as it is a rare sight for them. Her views and the views of other controversial women like Amanda Armstrong are labeled “subversive” and pressed against by the establishment throughout the film.

Overall, then, there is a thread in both films about what defines proper conduct exclusively for women (e.g. wearing make-up), what defines a socially credible person (e.g. a housewife who is married, a man with a “masculine” job), and what is appropriate fashion for the sexes (e.g. men are not to wear ballet shoes, women are to wear girdles).

Good job, Ryan. Your essay has a clear focus. I like the way you argue for your views. You use the words spoken by Mr.Hu in the And the Spring comes and it is really a fascinating start. Your language is also very nice.

I suggest you to go deeper in some points. For example, why does the patriarchal definition of success appear and exist? How do we deal with it? Why should we do that?

Good luck

-Xie (or you can call me Mia)

I really like the focus of your essay, patriarchy is indeed the same cultural background of these two films. But I believe that it would be better for you to analyse why Hu Jinquan, Wang Cailing and Watson had different fates later.

Good luck
Jiancai(or you can call me Kevin)

Dear Xie,

Thank you for taking the time to offer your comments and critiques of my essay. I appreciate the compliments. I agree with your response that I should deepen my analysis on some of the points. Please allow me to address some of the questions you raised.

Why does the patriarchal definition of success appear and exist?

This is a difficult philosophical question. There are many different ways of approaching it. One could offer an evolutionary perspective, for example, about how our history as a species developed rigid gender roles that may have been relevant to survival at one point in our lineage, but no longer prove as useful. One could also offer a religious analysis, in which, due to the pervasive influence of Christianity in the west, and the patriarchal themes throughout, misogyny became institutionalized and justified through Biblical references. One could conduct a psychological investigation, in which we could review how different hormones affect the minds of both sexes and may render men more aggressive or domineering. So, overall, it would depend on what perspective you wished to apply or which you believed was most credible.

How do we deal with it?

I think the best response to this question is to (1) Support a cultural movement of feminist deconstruction of patriarchal norms and (2) Replace the patriarchal system with one that has a more expansive sense of success. Neither of these responses are easy to accomplish. Many of the ideas of what defines a successful man or woman are deeply engrained in our societal constructs. But recent history has proved that rapid social change is possible (attitudes on drug use, attitudes on same-sex marriage, etc.). I think men need to be permitted to enter traditionally feminine roles (e.g. care-givers, nurses, etc.) and women need to be permitted to enter traditionally masculine roles (e.g. engineering, military, etc.). Once this happens, it will normalize their presence in those fields and inspire others to do the same.

Why should we do that?

I believe this is a worthwhile project because of the abuse that many experience for having "unconventional" interests, or the feeling of being an outcast or a freak because of their pursuits. Those feelings are not wholesome, productive, useful, or moral to induce in another person. No one should feel less credible or valuable simply because their professional paths do not fit some arbitrary patriarchal standard. Also, by denying them entry into their preferred fields, or discouraging them, we may lose the talent and creativity that they could contribute to their community (we tend to perform well in areas in which we are more passionate). This may also reduce suicide attempts, violence, and depression amongst those who currently feel belittled or left-out.

Thank you again!

Sincerely,

Ryan Insley

Dear Jiancai,

I appreciate you taking the time to read my essay and offer your comments. Please allow me to address your core question: Why Hu Jinquan, Wang Cailing, and Watson had different fates.

I think one way of addressing this question is by noting the context in which each character resided. Prof. Watson's character existed in the mid-20th century United States. This was a time in which feminism had developed to such a point, and opportunities had opened for women to such a point, that she was able to educate young women to the extent that she did. She was able to speak from a feminist tradition that preceded her and critique the institutions surrounding her (albeit with some institutional push-back, of course). Her success was captured in her ability to educate, inspire, and change attitudes, and she had an entire class of educated women, most of whom were willing to listen to her once she found the proper way to reach through to them. Now compare this with Wang Cailing. Cailing's success involved becoming an opera singer in Beijing, being married, having her own children. These are, arguably, more difficult and life-changing goals than those pursued by Prof. Watson. Cailing had less resources, exposure, and opportunity to achieve her goals than Watson did. Hu's situation was not much better. Hu wished to be a dancer of Western ballets and be accepted as a homosexual man. There was little precedent for him to pull from, as homophobic attitudes were deeply engrained in his community, along with an aversion to men serving as dance instructors. Overall, then, Watson existed in a more progressive time with more resources than Cailing and Hu found themselves in.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Ryan Insley

Dear Ryan,

Thank you for spending time answering my questions. I do really agree with your ideas. Actually there are atill many discriminations all over the contemporary world. And I disagree with these discriminations and stereotypes. I think that we should always have the aspiration for equality and do our best to break these norms.

Best whishes!

Ryan I. wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:40 am Dear Jiancai,

I appreciate you taking the time to read my essay and offer your comments. Please allow me to address your core question: Why Hu Jinquan, Wang Cailing, and Watson had different fates.

I think one way of addressing this question is by noting the context in which each character resided. Prof. Watson's character existed in the mid-20th century United States. This was a time in which feminism had developed to such a point, and opportunities had opened for women to such a point, that she was able to educate young women to the extent that she did. She was able to speak from a feminist tradition that preceded her and critique the institutions surrounding her (albeit with some institutional push-back, of course). Her success was captured in her ability to educate, inspire, and change attitudes, and she had an entire class of educated women, most of whom were willing to listen to her once she found the proper way to reach through to them. Now compare this with Wang Cailing. Cailing's success involved becoming an opera singer in Beijing, being married, having her own children. These are, arguably, more difficult and life-changing goals than those pursued by Prof. Watson. Cailing had less resources, exposure, and opportunity to achieve her goals than Watson did. Hu's situation was not much better. Hu wished to be a dancer of Western ballets and be accepted as a homosexual man. There was little precedent for him to pull from, as homophobic attitudes were deeply engrained in his community, along with an aversion to men serving as dance instructors. Overall, then, Watson existed in a more progressive time with more resources than Cailing and Hu found themselves in.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Ryan Insley

Dear Ryan,
Thank you for your response, I really agree with you. And I also wonder if Wang Cailing hadn't given out all her money to help Gao Beibei, she might realize her dream of living in Beijing. You know Wang had spent much money in purchasing a Beijing residence permit, but her efforts were in vain because she decided to help Gao Beibei to realize her dream of getting into the national singing contest. So I think if Wang Cailing hadn't helped Gao Beibei, maybe she still has opportunity to change her fate.

Sincerely,
Jiancai

The Patriarchal Definition of Success: A Response to And the Spring Comes and Mona Lisa Smile
Final Draft

“I am a big source of many people’s deep confusion about themselves…I find I am just like a fishbone caught in their throats.” This self-description – spoken by Mr. Hu Jinquan, a ballet instructor at the City Art Center in And the Spring Comes – is illustrative of many of the core characters in both films. The confusion and suffocating effect Mr. Hu ascribes to himself derives, I argue, from a patriarchal definition of success which pervades his hometown of Baotou. By a patriarchal definition of success, I refer to traditional norms upheld by a male-dominated society which prescribe which type of behavior (enacted by both men and women) will be praised and which will be condemned. The nature of these norms and the way in which they are upheld are demonstrated in both verbal and non-verbal expressions, namely through a notion of proper conduct (a form of 礼 [li]) for both sexes, a conception of what labor is credible (ethos) for both sexes, and fashion and advertisement as applied to both sexes. 

Mr. Hu’s predicament of identity is particularly illuminating regarding these themes. Mr. Hu is single, aging, and without any romantic prospects; he instructs a ballet class of women and performs Western ballets (viz. Tchaikovsky’s “Swan Lake”) in public; and there are several suggestions throughout the film that Mr. Hu is homosexual (e.g. when Mr. Hu is referred to as a “pervert” by a man on the street without any provocation or reason for it, a term often used as a slur against gay men both now and especially some decades ago). The patriarchal social conditions in Baotou, China were thus adverse to Mr. Hu’s identity, lowering his status (ethos) and placing him under ostracization and derision for being without a wife, for pursuing a career associated with femininity, for dressing in traditional ballet clothing (which they find laughable in the film), and for being attracted to men in a time of deep homophobic aversions. Wang Cailing (alt. Wang Tsai-ling), an aspiring opera singer working at the Teachers’ School and the main protagonist in And the Spring Comes, experiences similar shaming for being single, for not being beautiful, and for not wearing cosmetics or caring about her skin. Success is therefore defined by matrimony, beauty, and fulfilling one’s proper role according to sex in the film, and neither Wang nor Hu meet expectations.

Comparably, women face similar struggles as Wang Cailing and are the main victim of the patriarchal definition of success in Mona Lisa Smile, an American film. Most notably, they are placed under a male-centric view of what a woman should look like and what role a woman should serve. In a powerful scene, Katherine Ann Watson, an art professor at the all-women Wellesley College, flips through a slide show of advertisements directed at women before her class. As “a portrait of women” in the 1950s, they feature products displayed by housewife caricatures, including a cleanser, an ironing table, ketchup for meatloaf, and a girdle. In another scene, featuring student Betty Warren and her husband, Betty takes couples’ photos in which she is cooking, ironing, and vacuuming, while her husband is reading or standing by. Both parts of the film are indicative of the patriarchal position that women are to remain at home, as caretakers of children, as preparers of meals, and as essentially housemaids. As another example, there is displeasure expressed by student Joan Brandwyn’s husband when (initially) she wishes to go to Yale Law School rather than only serve as a housewife. Prof. Watson herself is the target of some suspicion and ridicule due to her status as a single woman who refuses to abide by conventional notions of women’s roles, with her students questioning her reasoning as it is a rare sight for them. Her views and the views of other controversial women like Amanda Armstrong are labeled “subversive” and pressed against by the establishment throughout the film. 

Overall, then, there is a thread in both films about what defines proper conduct exclusively for women (e.g. wearing make-up), what defines a socially credible person (e.g. a housewife who is married, a man with a “masculine” job), and what is appropriate fashion for the sexes (e.g. men are not to wear ballet shoes, women are to wear girdles). There are notable differences, though, in what each character in each film has to face with respect to these norms. Prof. Watson was given a privileged position as a professor at a major educational institution, and although she had to fight and struggle to express her positions freely, she ultimately was able to advance a feminist tradition that preceded her and critique the institutions surrounding her. Her success was captured in her ability to educate, inspire, and change attitudes (in contravention to the patriarchal definition of success pervasive in the institution), and she had an entire class of educated women, most of whom were willing to listen to her once she found the proper way to reach through to them. In Cailing and Hu’s situations, however, they possessed less resources, exposure, and opportunity to achieve their goals. They struggled to connect with their community in any meaningful way, being mocked and derided as outcasts. Cailing was never given a genuine chance to become an opera singer as no one would allow her to audition and she was not able to secure housing in Beijing. Hu, though he was able to put-on praise worthy performances through his students, he was never able to garner any respect or admiration of his individual performances from the public. Both remained trapped.

The origin of the norms of success expressed in both films remains a matter of debate, with competing theories in evolution, psychology, sociology, anthropology, religious studies, women’s studies, and the like. One theory I would propose in relation to these films is a feminist critique that men wish to remain in positions of power, comfort, and privilege by assigning constricting personalities, behaviors, and roles to the sexes and sexualities. This allows men to more easily control and organize society to their ends (e.g., women care for their domestic needs so they can run the business and political world, or men exclusively have romantic interests in women so men do not need to address homoerotic feelings that render them uncomfortable). Cultural movements such as feminism and the fight for LGBT rights attempts to deconstruct these norms and replace them through legislation, deliberation, media, and exposure, with some notable successes. In doing so, they begin to reveal that their feelings of being alienated are valid and their demeaning stations in society are immoral, and so we as a community have an ethical responsibility to erase our prejudices and inequities in treatment. The two films help push us toward that understanding.

Reflection on Border Crossing Activity
Ryan Christopher Insley

My expectation for the activity was, primarily, that the students in our partnering Chinese class would be approaching the films under a different political, cultural, and interpretative lens. Given that each of us were raised under a different form of government, in a country following a different history, and under an education system with perhaps different structures and areas of focus, I believed our contexts would influence the way in which we viewed the themes in both films. These expectations actually proved to be overzealous and exaggerated. There actually were very little differences between our analytical approaches, and our geographical distances did not seem to deeply influence any apparent distinctions in our perspectives. In other words, I could have expected similar essay responses written by American students as the ones I received from Xie J. and Jiancai X.

One notable element that struck me was Jiancai’s comment “I am sorry for my poor English, sometimes I couldn't express what I think accurately, I should work hard to improve it.” I actually believed Jiancai’s grammar was excellent for someone studying English as a second language, and only made minor corrections in order to demonstrate areas of improvement. He had no need to be so apologetic and self-effacing — he is far more impressive than I am for being able to communicate so effectively in a non-native tongue. Another notable element that struck me was Xie’s excellent exmplanation of symbolism with respect to winter and spring in “And the Spring Comes.” Xie made an intriguing connection between the economic state of China in the 1980s as being like winter time, being dormant, things left undeveloped, the people forlorn and awaiting renewal. They are all awaiting spring to come to see the fruits of their labor. He noted that art “developed in the progressive country,” that the Chinese people came to appreciate the art they derided in the 1980s, and hence spring did arrive. A third notable element that struck me was the fact that both Jiancai and Xie dedicated writing space to include the background details of the films, including the years they were made, who it was written and directed by, and where the movies were shot. Normally, when I conduct a movie-based analysis, I launch directly into the content and my theories surrounding it, rather than noting information about its creation. Perhaps they were instructed to give some more external context to the film rather than focus only on its content? Perhaps they are not instructed to use opening hooks, topic sentences, quotes, or other introductory ideas as we are instructed here? That is not to suggest it is incorrect in some way, only that it is different.

In the final version of my essay, I decided to incorporate both Xie and Jiancai’s comments into my text, specifically by making some additions to the end of my essay. As for Xie, he requested that I incorporate more contextualizing and philosophical analysis as to why the patriarchal definition of success exists, how we should deal with it, and why we should do that. This analysis added a somewhat personal element to the essay, but also helped give it a sense of how the ideas in the film could be translated into further contemplation and action in our present world (i.e., how do we understand and respond to patriarchy in 2019?). Jiancai suggested I offer more supportive analysis of both films by noting how the experiences of Prof. Watson contrasted with those of Hu and Calling in terms of success. I thought this was an intriguing exercise which actually enhanced my review of the films and gave me more to consider.

If I could provide three adjectives to describe my feelings about the activity, I would choose constructive, engaging, and insightful. The activity was constructive because it allowed me to expand upon my understanding of the films by pursuing a form of analysis suggested by Jiancai and by reviewing their analyses (e.g., they both addressed how the aesthetic aspects of the film affected tone). The activity was engaging because I was able to provide and receive feedback about where I could improve and where I believed they could add more to their pieces (e.g., I suggested to both expanding upon their details regarding the tones of the film). The activity was insightful because it allowed me to realize that Chinese students seem to approach the project of English analysis in a way that is highly comparable to our own systems of review.

I think this activity was beneficial to me because it enhanced some skills in commentary and revision I began learning as a literacy tutor last year. While typing my comments, I had to be careful how I worded my criticisms so as to complement them on their strengths but also be constructive on where they could improve. I also had to pay close attention to the content of their essays and come-up with possible ways to expand upon and develop the ideas further, so as to provide them something to contemplate. These skills are useful moving forward as I peer review or support other students in improving their essays.

One final comment I wish to add is to point out a notable difference in approach that came-up in my review. I have a background in philosophy through my education here at Penn State, and this background has taught me a particular approach to analysis. Namely, I am adamant about semantics and definitions, about defining one’s terms ahead of time and being very clear about the thesis one is advancing. I made a comment to this effect on Xie’s essay, noting that she should define Freedom and Fate more clearly. While I maintain this is a helpful practice, I do believe that some people use an essay to explore the ideas of Freedom and Fate as they apply to their own experiences, rather than give a full-length explanation of their possible objective meanings, and I should be mindful of that moving forward.