Refining and Reshaping the Critic:
An Intersectional Analysis of Sionil Jose’s Tong
ABQ
Literary Theory and Criticism
December 15, 2015
In the initial analysis of Sionil Jose’s “Tong,” a short story of subordination and domination in Chinese-Filipino culture in which gender, class, race, and ideology intersect as structures of oppression, I used a particular theory that can tackle class distinctions and how one’s existence and experience are shaped by capitalism—the Marxist theory. Upon doing my initial analysis, I intended to discuss tenuously how the theory addresses all the representations that the author foregrounds in his story since I followed the rule seriously; using my own schema without strictly referring to any sources. My idea at that time of using the Marxist approach to my analysis was grounded in the discussion of class stratification in Chinese-Filipino culture alone.
However, now that I am allowed to do further research about the theory, I become more adept at the theory and its implication as reflected in literature. For instance, to do a Marxist criticism is to ask the following questions as indicated in the Purdue Online Writing Lab (“Purdue OWL,” 2010): “What social classes do the characters represent? How do the characters from different classes interact or conflict? Which class does the work claim to represent? What values does it reinforce? What values does it subvert? What conflict can be seen between the values the work champions and those it portrays?” (The Revolution section, para. 2) In my initial analysis I was able to address some of the questions but not in a manner in which I was able to logically present the connection of each point for a more concrete explanation of what the answers implied. If I had formulated these questions, I would have shown a clearer take on the author’s representation and ideology.
Analyzing the story again given those questions, I should have interpreted the story using the Marxist approach this way: Each character represents a particular social class since the author highlights different class distinctions. Alice Tan, the main character and a Chinese-Filipino, represents the Ongpin Chinese—the lower class. Her uncle, though he owns an electrical shop, belongs to the same class. The other Chinese in the story, the old rich Chinese to whom Alice is arranged in marriage, represents the higher class. The Chinese who live in Greenhills are the ones who belong to this elite group.
The social distinctions of Chinese-Filipinos in the story are categorized by location. The other lead character, Conrado Lopez, is a Filipino who has become class conscious after he falls in love with Alice Tan. This shows that Filipinos are represented in the story differently from the Chinese-Filipinos. Unlike the former, the latter are not class conscious. However, there is a racial prejudice or stereotype against them, which is emphasized by the way the Chinese-Filipinos regard them as a race. For the Chinese-Filipinos, Filipinos are lazy and stupid. They know nothing about business. Therefore, Filipinos are frowned upon on such terms.
Conrado, however, looks at the Chinese-Filipinos as clannish and exploiters. Both Conrado and Alice belong to the poor class in their respective race. The story then represents the oppression of two people who both belong to the lower class. In this context, they are two individuals who struggle in love because of the conflict of class. In Alice’s case, she is arranged in marriage to a Chinese-Filipino of a higher class. The major conflict in the two main characters’ relationship is the aspiration of Alice’s uncle for material accumulation to belong to a higher class.
In this story, the two main character’s freedom to choose who to love is reinforced regardless of their class, race, and culture. Emancipation of women may also be the value being emphasized. On the other hand, the value being subverted in the story is how class and tradition should not be tied to people’s ideology and should not repress people of the lower class, especially women. Alice is a victim of traditional practice. This oppression is a reflection of the domination of Confucian ethics in Chinese life which is patriarchal in nature. As stated by Qing (2014), Confucius regarded women as absolutely inferior to men thus firmly separating women from men in which assigned duties were those only limited to serving their husbands and parents, looking after the household, and bearing healthy male children. In the story, Alice’s parents passed away and she is left with no choice but to obey her uncle. Consequently, she adheres to their traditional practice of obeying and respecting the ones who have reared them.
The dominant ideology of the Chinese limits Alice’s actions. As mentioned by Mouzelis (1980), Marxist theory explains how the economic, political, and ideological sets limit to a collective action while at the same time class, social movement etc. react to these limitations which are either changed or maintained. In the context of the story, the Chinese-Filipinos’ adherence to traditional practice sets limit to their choices especially women in which social classes react to these limitations. Alice is of inferior class in terms of capital and gender and the ideology of Confucianism which is patriarchal. She is left with no choice but to adhere to their ideology. She becomes a tool for her uncle’s accumulation of capital.
In terms of the conflict between what the author advocates and what his character portrays, Alice regards custom and tradition to be the major hindrance with her relationship with Conrado. The author, however, tries to prove that the Chinese-Filipinos’ racial prejudice and materialism are the true hindrance in their relationship. This is shown in how Conrado suddenly became class conscious after realizing that the Chinese have class distinctions in the country. Moreover, if the story is an issue of tradition or clannishness, why does the author mention an exception to the Chinese traditional practice, that is, the emphasis on Chinese-Filipino men in the country being able to marry Filipino girls? It is clear on the basis of Confucianism that there is a bias given to Chinese-Filipino males. The concept of clannishness means preferring a wife of their own group. Why then are men exempted from the strict rule of marrying a member of their own group?
Having these assumptions about the story, I figured, even if Marxist theory can discuss issues on class and ideology it fails to account for gender relations; for the oppression of the female character in the story. This is the blind spot of my initial analysis. I dismissed from mind the oppression of the female character. This is the flaw of my analysis as well. How can I use a Marxist approach that accounts to gender and race?
As what Jackson and Jones (1998) made clear, a considerable modification to Marxist theory is required to account for gender relations since it fails to accommodate feminism and focuses only on capitalist class relations and the exploitation of the proletariat. However, as noted by Humm (2013), Marxist theory can contribute to feminism by means of historical contexts since it can link the evidence of women’s oppression and the repression of women in writing can be expressed thus social patterns can be represented. Moreover, it explains how literature may be the source of historical ideas, feelings, and values and how its forms have a direct relationship to the ideological world. As expounded by Eagleton (2006), Marxist criticism aims to explain the literary work as a product of a particular history.
I thereon tried to read more on the different feminist theories which are the extension of Marxist theory.
Gimenez (1998) stated that there are four main factions with feminist thoughts. The first one is Marxist feminism which focuses mainly on understanding the capitalist sources of the oppression of women. The second is liberal feminist who are concerned with attaining economic and political equality within the context of capitalism. The third one is the radicals which regard men and patriarchy as the main cause of the oppression of women. The fourth one is the socialist who are critical of Marxism and capitalism and which postulates various forms of interaction between capitalism and patriarchy.
Gimenez also explained materialist feminism which I thought could account to my analysis. To support this, Jackson and Jones (1998) presented a very comprehensive explanation of materialist feminist as championed by Christine Delphy, Annete Kuhnn, Marie Wolpe, Michelle Barrett, and Mary MacIntosh who favor the term Materialist Feminism over Marxist feminism since Marxist feminism is inadequate in addressing women’s exploitation and oppression unless it accounts for sexual division of labor.
Materialist contributed to the development of theories of patriarchy and ideology elaborating more specific understanding of the operation of power in the symbolic order and other material practices. However, although materialist feminism accommodates gender, it still will not be able to fully explain another aspect in my analysis—race. As noted by Gimenez (1998), materialist feminist fails to recognize ideologies of race. It focuses more on women’s lives as affected by patriarchy and capitalism. This may explain how Alice’s life is affected by patriarchy in their ideology but this fails to account for the oppression of Conrado as a person of different race.
Since Marxist theory and materialist feminist neglect race which is significant to my analysis, I tried to look at other theories which include race in the discussion of oppression. I stumbled upon the theory of intersectionality. In Lloyd, Few, and Allen (2009), the theory of intersectionality is another perspective advanced by multiracial feminist family studies scholars which explains how racial, political, historical, economic, and ideological intersect to produce diverse expressions of lived reality and experiences of family life.
The term intersectionality was first coined by the scholar Kimberlê Crenshaw and gained prominence when sociologist Patricia Hill Collins used the idea in her discussion of Black Feminism. Collins (2000) described several components of intersectionality which states that the very notion of intersections of race, class, and gender emerged from the recognition of practitioners of each distinctive theoretical tradition that inequality could not be explained by race nor gender framework only. The macro-level connections linking systems of race, class, and gender which describe social positions and the notion of intersectionality on the micro-level process or how individual and group occupies a social position within interlocking structures of oppression described by the metaphor of intersectionality together shape oppression.
Belkhir (2001) has welcomed the emergence of class, race, and gender perspective. He states that inequality matters to the fact that everybody’s lives are affected by class, gender, race/ethnic structures, and other sources of inequality and we live our lives at the core of intersection of a number of unequal social relations. He is critical of feminist theories which ignored class, racial, and ethnic divisions among women and men and theories of patriarchy that ignored how most men under capitalism are relatively powerless.
As explained by Belkhir, cited in Collins (2000), the objective in intersectionality is to intersect race, gender, and class as a system of a whole to understand oppression. The intersection of structures of inequality and oppression with identity or the individual who understands who they are with the assumption that everyone deploys those identities in the course of social interaction so that all exchanges are raced, gendered, and classed.
Applying the theory of intersectionality to my analysis and understanding oppression by intersecting class, gender, and race, Alice deploys her identity or her understanding of herself, how her traditional practice is rooted in the strict rules of Confucianism which is patriarchal in nature. From here it can be inferred why her interaction with Conrado is raced, given all the racial prejudice of their race against the Filipinos. Her interaction with her uncle as well as the Greenhills Chinese is both classed and gendered since she knows where she is in their culture—an absolutely inferior woman based on their Confucian tradition.
As a woman, she must obey her uncle who just treats her as a tool for accumulation of capital. Her uncle’s treatment of her is gendered since as a woman, she amounts only to do the household chores and obeys her husband in the future when she marries the rich Greenhills Chinese. If her uncle has a high regard for her as a woman, he will not force her to an arranged marriage to improve their class. On the other hand, the old Greenhills Chinese will not be complicit with her uncle if he considers women as equal to their status in their society who are given freedom to choose their partner and who are seen as people who can improve their lives without depending on the husband’s social status.
Conrado’s interaction with Alice is also classed and raced but this came later on when he realized how class-conscious Chinese-Filipinos are. He just realized his identity after learning the conflicts in their relationship. That is why he kept on asking Alice if the main reason why he is not allowed to see her is his race, that is, his being a Filipino. His interaction to Alice’s uncle is also raced and classed in which he knew how he is inferior to them since he is not rich, not a businessman, and just a stupid Filipino for them. In addition, the Chinese-Filipino men’s privilege of marrying Filipino women is gendered. Even if in their traditional practice in Confucian ideology they are preferred to marry a woman of their own group—the fact that men are given premium in their belief—still they are allowed to marry a woman of their choice. This is especially true if they belong to the higher class.
Having these assumptions in the theory of intersectionality, it is more straightforward to explain the oppression the characters have experienced in the text. The theorists of intersectionality are the ones who influenced and inspired my reading and my analysis. I was able to grasp in its entirety how oppression shaped the logic of intersecting—different aspects of race, gender, and class to the characters’ ideology and self-identity. Given the clarity of this theory, I would take my final analysis in this new direction in which I can also account for the oppression of the male character, Conrado. I could have only focused on using a feminist approach to my analysis. However, Conrado is also an oppressed character. If I focused on the feminist approach, I could have only accounted for the oppression of the female character in the Chinese-Filipino culture.
Nevertheless, there are two cultures emphasized in the story. There are two races that are in conflict with each other in terms of class, race, and ideology. These are implied in the author’s foreshadowing technique in the story in which the lead character, Alice, mentioned, “The lines should never get mixed up. When the covering is worn out and they cross each other, that’s when trouble starts.” This can refer to the two of them of different races and cultures. The covering signifies their respective identities which include their ideology and how they think about themselves and each other.
Thus, when they try to amalgamate, conflicts arise. This means that the story does not only aim to explore the oppression in one culture, but also a certain culture can be oppressed by the other culture’s ideology, class, and race. In the story, Conrado, a Filipino, is oppressed by the oppression of Alice in their Chinese culture. If only Alice were not oppressed in their culture, she could have had the power and freedom to choose her own partner in a relationship. Even so, as suggested by the title and the ending of the story, tong, a word that has been repeated in the story refers to the bride’s dowry. The dowry, according to Chinese-wedding-guide.com (n.d.), is given by the bride’s parents to the groom. This is similar to the bride’s price which the groom has to pay to the family of the bride. Dowry in this story refers to Alice’s sacrifice of her freedom, a result of her uncle’s greed for wealth and also a result of the iron-fisted ideological hold to patriarchal Confucianism.
The theory of intersectionality is the best theoretical position that might work to make my next draft more substantial. Through this approach, I was able to see the logical flaws, blind spots, and gaps in my initial analysis. I also realized how I failed to present my arguments in a coherent way, guided by the appropriate theory. My line of reasoning was also flawed in my initial analysis. I tried to analyze my story having in mind that the problem in the story was only class-related and the only theory that I could best use is the Marxist theory. However, through my research about how Marxist theory would account for the issues that I want to clarify, I found out that it is also important to include the oppression of the female character.
I realized then that I forgot one significant aspect in my analysis and that was to use a feminist approach. While trying to look at how the conflicts in the story interact with each other, I again realized that all the feminist theorists who extend Marxist theory fail to account for the issue of race. By researching further, I finally found the theory which intersects the issues of class struggle, the emancipation of women, racial prejudice, and patriarchal ideology to analyze the oppression in the text.
My initial analysis focused more on the analysis of the theme based on the story’s structure and form. The meaning, however, was not analyzed well by not using the theory deemed most proper. Now I realized that by using a theory that accounts for all the issues in the story, it is a lot easier to explain how the author represents a particular experience in a particular society at a particular period. By the theory of intersectionality, I can see how the strict tradition of the Chinese-Filipinos in Manila, under the auspices of Confucian ideology, allows only Chinese-Filipino males to marry Filipino women and by patriarchal nature subordinating them.
This is particularly true in part in which Chinese-Filipino women are strictly not allowed to marry a man who does not belong to their own group. The economic system, how Alice’s uncle is characterized by racial prejudice, prefers a rich Greenhills Chinese over a Filipino, how the Chinese-Filipinos look at Filipinos who are lazy and stupid in business dealings clearly show the conflict in the story; oppression in the characters as race, gender, class, and ideology intersect.
The intersectionality in the story reflects the social construction of the author on the Chinese-Filipino culture in the Philippines. It shows how Filipinos are being construed by the Chinese-Filipinos and vice versa. Sionil Jose’s writing upholds social justice and the morals of the Filipinos which usually centers on Philippine history especially on colonialism in the country. This short story about the conflict between Filipino and Chinese culture is probably a reflection of his feelings towards the Chinese-Filipinos. Even up to this day, Sionil Jose’s attitude and perception towards the Chinese-Filipinos are reflected in his commentaries. As stated by Jose (2015, July 26), they have great strength because they have the money; they are not a powerless minority. He is tagged as a racist and anti-Chinese-Filipino. Nevertheless, according to him, “This anti-Chinese feeling could fester and grow, depending on how our ethnic Chinese behave. It is their duty to stop it from growing. And they can do this by integrating fully with Filipinos, and in the process, help resist China’s recalcitrance.” (Believe It or Not section, para. 5) Moreover, he points out one very important point that the Chinese-Filipino is alienated from the people in a fool’s paradise like many other affluent Filipinos. His point is always to remind the Chinese-Filipinos that either they recognize their loyalty to China than go to China, or integrate in the Philippines. He wants the Chinese Filipinos to use their money here to help the country develop since the Chinese Filipinos invest so much of the money they made here in China.
Their control of 60 percent of the economy shows that they are a powerful minority in the Philippines. By affirming the statement of Amy Chua (Chua, as cited in Jose, 2015) in “World of Fire,” he made a point that is significant to the analysis of the story since it is a reflection of the rich-poor binary. He said millions of Filipinos work for the Chinese and it was never the other way around. The Chinese are the ones who dominate industry and commerce in the country and all the menial jobs are filled by Filipinos. He also made a strong argument not to be mistaken for the love of country for racism since for him he is not a proponent of anti-Chinese feelings; he just wants to emphasize our victimhood because we are poor and the Chinese are rich. For him, this is a moral issue and not a political one.
By reflecting on the author’s feelings towards the Chinese, I realized that it is also possible that the oppression in the story points to the oppression of the poor people, which manifests itself in the context of the Philippines; between the Chinese-Filipinos and Filipinos, the Filipinos are absolutely the ones who suffer. In this case, considering how the author feels towards the Chinese-Filipinos, the story then should be analyzed by using Marxist criticism alone wherein the question at hand—the author’s class—is significant.
As a representative of most poor Filipinos, the author wants to point out how the Filipinos are servants of the Chinese-Filipinos as the latter are the ones who are in power in industry and commerce. However, it is quite hard to relate this kind of oppression to the context of a love story. Why then does the author use a Chinese-Filipino woman who is oppressed by the same race? If the author used a rich Chinese-Filipino woman, how will it change the story?
By pondering on this, I figured the link that can substantiate how the story’s possible meaning and the remarks of the author aforementioned are related. The author puts into context something about collaboration. He wants the Chinese-Filipinos to integrate with the Filipino identity. That probably is the significance of using two races in the story. This integration or collaboration is hindered by the ideology of Confucianism as well as the stigma against the Filipino race who are lazy and stupid in business dealings. Even if the Filipinos in the story see the Chinese-Filipinos as exploiters, they still want them to integrate. This is shown by using a male character, Conrado Lopez, to represent Filipinos, who in spite of feeling little compared to the Chinese-Filipinos still hopes that Alice will choose to go with him.
In conclusion, the theoretical position that I take which I think is the best approach to analyze the story in my next draft is the theory of intersectionality, an approach that can touch on all the issues related to oppression in the story such as ideology, race, gender, and class. Materialist feminist theory could have been relevant as an approach if the oppression of the woman in the story is related to patriarchy and capitalism. However, the author establishes the oppression of two characters of different cultures, races, and classes; thus, the intersection of these issues should be dealt with.
My assumption of the theory of intersectionality is it is the most suitable theory to explain the oppression of the characters in the story through the interconnection of the issues which hinder their unification such as ideology, gender, class, and race. This theory implies that to understand oppression is to consider the amalgamation of social and cultural categories as well as other aspects of identities. The theorists of both Materialist Feminist such as Christine Delphy, Rosemary Hennessey, and Steve Jackson and the theorists of intersectionality such as Kimberlê Crenshaw, Patricia Hill Collins, and Jean Belkhir are the ones who inspired and influenced my reading and critique.
Kimberlé Crenshaw is also a prominent scholar of Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory or CRT, as introduced in the Purdue OWL, examines how race and racism manifest across dominant cultural modes of expression. It attempts to explain how the cultural perception of race affects the victims and how these victims present themselves to oppose prejudice. The CRT scholars position an individual’s identity and experience of the world in his class, gender, nation, sexual orientation, and racial identifications.
For them, diverse cultural texts are proof that there are institutionalized inequalities, racial groups, and individual experiences every day. This theory is one of the possible theoretical positions that might work in my next draft since it demonstrates why racism denies people constitutional freedoms. Moreover, it advocates various components which shape individual identity which is a way to understand how race interacts with other identities like gender and class. It can also adopt theories from other related fields like women's studies and history according to Kimberlé Crenshaw and Patricia Williams.
Another possible theory that can be used to analyze the story is Feminist Criticism. In a webpage from Purdue OWL (2010) where I found the most comprehensive discussion of literary theories, feminist criticism explains how the oppression of women is reflected in literature. Moreover, it posits that women are oppressed by patriarchal ideology—politically, socially, economically, and psychologically. It is also concerned with the less obvious form of marginalization of women. The story absolutely reflects the marginalization of women in terms of romantic relationships and marriage rooted in the patriarchal ideology of her culture.
By taking into account the author’s attitude and perception towards the Chinese-Filipinos though, I can see how Marxist theory is suitable also for the analysis. The author represents the lower class in the story, that is, the oppressed and marginalized class. This may be symbolic in effect that it refers to Filipinos alone. The other side, the dominant side, is obviously the Chinese-Filipinos who are represented by the author as racists, if not class conscious. The theme is also easily foregrounded using the Marxist approach which points to the unacceptable unification of two races due to ideology and class.
This collaboration or integration which seems impossible is the one being upheld by the author since he wants the Chinese-Filipinos to integrate into the culture and also into the economy of the Filipinos, for they are the ones dominating the industry and commerce of the country. Thus, they are represented in the story as exploiters. I am just conflicted with the author’s use of a female Chinese-Filipino who is also marginalized and oppressed in the story. The other characters, Alice’s uncle and the rich Chinese Filipino can represent the Chinese Filipinos who are racists and exploiters. What then does Alice represent in the story? Is this just to point out the class distinctions and class struggles in the Chinese-Filipino culture? It seems to me that it is another issue to be dealt with. That is why I prefer the intersectionality theory to Marxist theory since I guess the author disregard the importance of woman in his story if I were to use this approach.
Reflecting on all the aspects I explored in analyzing the story and comparing my initial analysis to what I learned after my research, I realized the major logical flaw in my research. That is focusing more on the objectification of women by the way the author described her in the eyes of the male character. I also focused more on how the woman is oppressed by her class and by her culture which is explained by the Marxist approach as due to ideology, specifically patriarchal ideology in the Confucian belief of the Chinese.
The blind spot in my research is failing to account for the importance of race as a marginalizing category for the Filipino male character, Conrado, who apparently is also oppressed in the story. My initial analysis focuses more on materialism and capitalism and the social distinctions in the Chinese-Filipino culture. My idea at that time of a text which discusses class distinctions and material wealth is that there is no other theory that I can use to grasp its meaning but Marxist theory. It never came to me that there are also the Marxist feminist theory and other feminist theories which try to extend Marxist theory.
My initial analysis lacked depth because my arguments had no theoretical foundation. The whole analysis lacked critical content. My interpretation just went around in circles, focusing chiefly on the elements of the story such as the characters, setting, conflict, plot, and theme. My judgment at that time also lacked intellectual reasoning since there was no particular literary theory that could set forth a systematic line of reasoning to approach the text. Thus, my understanding of what the author really wanted to convey in the text was limited to the clues that I found in the story. However, I already had an idea of the ideology behind the author’s intended meaning although without research and a thorough understanding of the theory it was hard to argue and evaluate.
Understanding a literary theory is challenging because sometimes the way it is written by a theorist is unfathomable. It requires skills involving synthesis and evaluation of ideas. I have to stop and think of a more suitable theory from time to time. Moreover, occasionally, I am skeptical of the theory I already worked on when I chance upon different theoretical perspectives that might also work. For this analysis, however, for my next draft, I am certain that using the theory of intersectionality can interpret the core meaning of the text. I will guarantee that I will be able to demonstrate how all the social and cultural categories displayed in the story affect each other. In my next draft, I hope to show how the author created multiple forms of discrimination, oppression, and domination to show injustice in a multifaceted level to present a logical explanation of what he meant by his story, “Tong.”
References:
Brizee, A., Tompkins, C., Chernouski, L., & Boyle, E. (2010). Marxist criticism (1930s-present). Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/05/
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). NY: Routledge.
Eagleton, T. (2006). Marxism and literary criticism. London: Routledge.
Gimenez, M. (1998). Marxist / materialist feminism. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/mar.html
Hennessy, R. (1993). Materialist feminism and the politics of discourse. NY: Routledge.
Hennessy, R., & Ingraham, C. (Eds.). (1999). Materialist feminism: A reader in class, difference, and women’s lives. Retrieved from http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1118/1024
Humm, M. (2013). A reader’s guide to contemporary feminist literary criticism. NY: Routledge.
Jackson, S., & Jones, J. (Eds.). (1998). Contemporary feminist theories. UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Jose, S. (2015, July 26). To tell truth about Chinoys and love of country are not racist. INQUIRER.net. Retrieved from http://opinion.inquirer.net/87045/to-tell-truth-about-chinoys-and-love-of-country-are-not-racist
Lloyd, S., Few, A., & Allen, K. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of feminist family studies. CA: Sage Publications.
Mouzelis, N. (1980). Reductionism in Marxist theory. Retrieved from http://journal.telospress.com/content/1980/45/173.abstract
Plante, R., & Maurer, L. (Eds.). (2010). Doing gender diversity: Readings in theory and real-world experience. USA: Westview Press.
Purdue Online Writing Lab. (2010). Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/722/05/
Qing, C. (2014). China under western gaze: Representing China in the British television documentaries 1980-2000. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Note: I made this paper for my wonderful Literary Criticism class with three great professors.
Comments
Post a Comment