Author(s)
The Taiping Rebellion is often recognised by historians as the beginnings of feminism and the emancipation of women in China.[1] This was largely consistent with the official narrative of the Taiping leaders, in which they were committed to and championed the movement regarding gender equality and liberation of Chinese women from traditional roles of subservience. This literature review analyses the historiography of women and gender equality in both Taiping ideology and practice. More specifically, this literature review considers the two conflicting views held by historians, in which one view acknowledges the Taipings’ fulfilment of their mission in liberating women while the other refutes it, citing continuities with the very traditions they sought to deviate from. First, I analyse the perspective that the Taiping’s were essentially China’s first feminist movement and that they fought for the cause of emancipating women from subordination and subservience. Next, I explore the works by historians who challenge this view and present larger implications and contradictions behind the official Taiping narrative. Finally, I address the discourse which asserts that the Taipings did no more for Chinese women than mainstream Confucian society did, instead maintaining the attitudes which relegated women to roles of subservience in the first place.
First, I explore the dominant view held by historians as stated above, in which the Taipings are considered “liberators of Chinese women [and] destroyers of Confucian tradition.”[2] Across the board, historians generally agree that the Taipings made significant progress in abolishing traditional practices which perpetuated the subordination of females. This includes foot binding, concubinage and polygamy, prostitution,[3] dowries, arranged marriage and wife purchase.[4] Additionally, historians also agree that the Taiping women enjoyed equal opportunities in the distribution of land, education and civil service examinations, assuming office in government as well as military conscription.[5] Shih (1972) particularly emphasises the theoretical equality of men and women in Taiping ideology, attributing it to the influence of Hakka tradition and society, of which majority of the Taipings had roots in or were affiliated with.[6] Lindley 1866) emphasises that the Taiping departure from a culture“[7] that had oppressed and degraded Chinese women since antiquity” was to be applauded and recognised as their success in championing feminism and gender equality for the first time in China’s history. Hence, it is clear that there was a widely held view among historians acknowledging the success to which the Taipings abolished subservient traditional practices, as well as paved the road for women’s departure from the domestic domain and entry into the outside world.
However, some historians put forth the argument that the seemingly egalitarian outlook of the Taipings’ ideology was, in fact, supplied by larger economic motivations and were laced with significant contradictions. Essentially, the mission of the emancipation of women undertaken by the Taipings was driven by economic motivations of the time, instead of a genuine desire to free an oppressed community. Kilcourse (2016) highlights that the prohibition of foot binding was motivated by the economic benefits brought about by allowing women into the workforce, thereby increasing labour and productivity of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom.[8] Abolishing foot binding also allowed for women to become physically able to join the military, strengthening the Taiping army.[9] Furthermore, Shih (1972) reveals the contradictions and inconsistencies between Taiping ideology and Taiping practice, arguing that the gender equality championed by the Taiping leaders was merely propaganda and an empty promise. Significantly, the Taiping treatment of women varied largely. Whereas Kwangsi women were generally regarded as equals to men, women from other regions did not enjoy such treatment.[10] For example, the Taiping army captured “hundreds of thousands”[11] of Hupeh women, of which a selected number were sent into the palaces to become concubines of the Taiping leaders.[12] It becomes clear that the Taiping leaders were inconsistent in their attitude towards monogamy. On one hand, they positioned the practice as one that contributed to and reinforced the subordination of women, hence leading to the abolishment of monogamy and concubinage for the general Taiping followers, among other traditional Chinese practices. On the other hand, the Taiping leaders were forcing women into the subservient positions of concubines instead of liberating them from the role of a secondary sex. The T’ien Wang and Tung Wang were allowed to keep up to six concubines, while the Pei Wang and I Wang were allowed to keep up to two and one women respectively.[13] Shih (1972) describes the situation of outlawing monogamy as one that was driven by poverty and economic considerations in the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, suggesting that the promotion of polygamy was, in fact, “a matter of necessity rather than of principle”.[14] Hence, it is apparent that the Taiping leaders’ practice of concubinage and polygamy were inconsistent with their laws and official narrative, since monogamy was still practiced by the elites whenever their wealth and status allowed for it. Moreover, the motivations behind abolishing traditional Chinese practices relegating women into subservient positions, which the Taipings are often applauded for, are revealed to be driven by economic considerations, rather than a genuine humanitarian concern for liberating women.
Finally, I consider the perspectives of historians who posit that, contrary to popular belief, the Taipings practiced and promoted a Confucianised Christianity in which women were still relegated to roles of subservience. Additionally, the Taiping treatment of women had obvious consistencies with the Chinese mainstream society which they sought to depart from. Kilcourse (2016) argues that Taiping leader Hong Xiu Quan had never viewed men and women as equals.[15] Instead, his attitude towards women was one that was heavily influenced by Confucianism and was a product of his background as a scholar of the classics.[16] Hong’s works in poetry and official Taiping publications reveal his continued emphasis on conservative feminine virtues such as quietness, submissiveness and chastity, highlighting continuities with mainstream Chinese society regarding patriarchy and women’s status in the social hierarchy.[17] Hong’s collection of poems, Poem of the Heavenly Father, outlines numerous codes of conduct and disobediences for women, emphasising on servitude and submissiveness to men. Poem 197 “instructed women to bow their heads, lower their eyes” when meeting with Hong.[18] Poem 238 specifically emphasises the importance of being quiet and speaking in “a delicate voice”.[19] Contrary to the Taiping propaganda and official narrative of championing the emancipation of women, Poems for the Young, one of the Taiping’s early official publications, explicitly endorsed the subordination of women. It underlined the importance of the three obediences (sancong) in which women “have no right to independence”[20] and individuality, instead having to doubtlessly obey the men in their lives. This was an obvious continuation from Confucian beliefs which were prominent in Chinese society, signalling Hong’s and the Taiping’s “continued attachment to Confucian morality and the gender orthodoxy of late imperial China.”[21] Additionally, Hong’s personal treatment of and attitude towards the palace women is seen to be a further reinforcement of his patriarchal outlook. They served as personal servants to the Heavenly King, performing all kinds of functions such as dressing him, keeping his physical appearance neat and tidy, monitor his temperature and adjust his clothing accordingly.[22] Poems 416 in Poems of the Heavenly Father even went on to describe that wives were suited to servile work, which was buttressed by poems 422 and 423 which detailed how Hong’s female attendants served as carriage pullers for him.[23] Thus, it is evident that the Taiping attitude towards women had, in fact, never deviated from imperial Chinese society despite the leaders’ efforts to frame their movement as anti-Confucian and anti-patriarchal.
In actuality, the Taiping’s official publications had sanctioned the subservience of women no less than mainstream Chinese society did, if not more, especially since disobedience and insubordination were punishable with execution in Taiping society. The themes evaluated in this literature thus underscore that Taiping’s official narrative of gender equality and liberation of women was merely propaganda to amass support for their rebellion. Whereas it is still important to acknowledge the progress that the Taipings had made with regards to abolishing oppressive traditional practices, it is also necessary to identify this progress against a wider background of economic motivations and persistent patriarchal attitudes. The gap in literature is thus presented as a general focus on the Taipings achievements, such as by Bohr (2001) and Moeller (2003). A select group of historians such as Shih (1972) and Kilcourse (2006) present alternative viewpoints which invalidate the Taiping’s successes and motivations in championing gender equality, offering deeper insights into the gender landscape of late imperial China.
Endnotes
[1] Karilyn Moeller, “Chinese Women Unbound: An Analysis of Women’s Emancipation in China,” Inquiry: The University of Arkansas Undergraduate Research Journal 4, no. 1 (January 1, 2003), 71. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/inquiry/vol4/iss1/13.
[2] Carl S. Kilcourse, “Poetry and Patriarchy in the Heavenly Palace,” In Taiping Theology, by Carl S. Kilcourse, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2016), 175. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53728-7_7.
[3] Moeller, “Chinese Women Unbound”, 71.
[4] P. Richard Bohr, “Taiping Religion and Its Legacy,” In Handbook of Christianity in China, by N Standaert, (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2001), 384. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391857.
[5] Bohr, “Taiping Religion and Its Legacy”, 384-5; Moeller, “Chinese Women Unbound”, 71; Vincent Y. Shih, The Taiping Ideology: Its Sources, Interpretations, and Influences, 2nd ed. Publications on Asia of the Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies 15, (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Pr, 1972), 47-62.
[6] Shih, Taiping Ideology, 60-314.
[7] Augustus F. Lindley, Ti-ping Tien-kwoh; The History of the Ti-ping Revolution, Including a Narrative of the Author’s Personal Adventures, London: Day & Son, 1866.
[8] Kilcourse, “Poetry and Patriarchy,” 168.
[9] Shih, Taiping Ideology, 226.
[10] Shih, 72.
[11] Shih, 69.
[12] Shih, 69.
[13] Shih, 56.
[14] Shih, 314.
[15] Kilcourse, “Poetry and Patriarchy,” 155.
[16] Kilcourse, 170.
[17] Kilcourse, 157-61.
[18] Kilcourse, 162.
[19] Kilcourse, 162.
[20] Shih, Taiping Ideology, 195.
[21] Kilcourse, “Poetry and Patriarchy,” 174.
[22] Kilcourse, 167.
[23] Kilcourse, 168.