Translating "Homosexuality" Into Modern China:Reconceptualization Of The Republican Discourse Of" Tong Xing Ai"("Same-sex Love") From The Perspective Of Translingual Rewriting,1911-1949

The Chinese parlance "tong xing ai"("tong xing lian" or "tong xing lian ai""same-sex love") is widely assumed to be the equivalent translation of the modern Western coinage of "homosexuality". The origin and validity of this supposition, nevertheless, have escaped many scholars’research. As a matter of fact, efforts devoted to trace down the genealogy of tong xing ai would bring it to the surface that the phrase only took residence in the Chinese repertoire as a neologism in the Republican era. What’s even more intriguing from the closer investigation is that the emotional intimacy and modality of love, which could hardly be detected from "homosexuality" with the emphasis put on sexuality, were imposed on the Chinese translated terminology. It suffices to argue that with the arrivals of European-Japanese modern sexological paradigms, the discourse of homosexuality was simultaneously imported, translated and localized by the Republican elites, reshaping the social epistemology of gender relations, sexuality, education, etc. This being said, the examination that centers on the process of translating and distorting "homosexuality" into the modern China constitutes the focus and priority of the paper.Taking interest in this marginalized topic, the paper aims to reconstruct the discursive formation and evolution of tong xing ai in the Republican period in the light of the postulation of "translation as a form of rewriting" put forth by Andre Lefevere and the theory of "translingual practice" articulated by Lydia Liu. Given the assumption that the Republican urban periodicals and magazines provided an ideal platform for intellectuals to voice individual opinions and have vibrant debates over public issues, it is worthwhile and rewarding to elicit changes in the public attitude towards tong xing ai from studying the periodical articles. For this reason, it is expected that a critical and scrutinized analysis of the periodical writings that touched upon the matter of same-sex love in1911-1949can shed light on the interactive relations between translation appropriations and public’s modernized perceptions of homosexuality.The historicized and gender-oriented study with a period-specific timeline reveals an alternative nature of translating discourse on homosexuality in the Republican China from the perspective of translational manipulations and appropriations. Specifically,1) thanks to the conceptual linkage with the Japanese discursive construction of doseiai, female homosexuality and schoolgirls were consistently put under the spotlight in the discursive discussion of "same-sex love", mainly blaming it on women’s over-sentimentality and emotionality. This conception, to a great extent, explains the phenomenon that new meanings of "love" and "affection" were constantly assigned to the Chinese conceptualization of homosexuality with the carnal and physical intimacy largely downplayed;2) homosexuality was continuously distorted and categorized as an acquired habit or a fashionable vogue rather than a fixed sexual orientation or preference in the Western sense, which can be ascribed to the impact of Chinese indigenous understandings of sexuality and identity;3) the prevalent occurrences of schoolgirls and schoolboys falling into the same-sex love in the Republican sex-segregated institutions and the widespread understanding of homosexuality as a temporary sexual stage prompted the longstanding advocacy of coeducation. In all, all these three prominent factors add up and constitute the unique discourse on homosexuality in the Republican era.The time frame in question can be roughly divided into4phases, each decade marked with distinct tendencies and altogether witnessing the evolutionary progression of the discourse, that is,1)1910s:debut of female same-sex love in the hush of homosexuality Debate;2)1920s:glorifications of homogenic love and coeducation in an uproar;3)1930s:stigmatization and criminalization of tong xing ai;4)1940s:discursive reiterations of tong xing ai in decline. Finally, what is noteworthy is that the4-stage survey would go hand in hand with the detailed descriptions and tentative explanations of translational appropriations and legitimizations with an aim to offer some insights into the cross-border cultural contacts, confrontations and negotiations that arose in Republican China.