Xu Guangqi, the Seventh Commandment, and the Subaltern

Thou shalt not commit adultery

                                             - Exodus 20:14

Perhaps one excellent example of a happy intersection between culture, politics, and theology, is the Chinese polymath and politician Xu Guangqi, also known by his Latin name Paul.  Paul is from Shanghai; today, his tomb still exists in the area of Shanghai known as Xujiahui (the area of the Xu family).  Interestingly, in my view, Paul's witness in Chinese society would impress Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, whose recent book, An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization, argues in favor of the humanities in today's educational milieu.  Paul was an original and creative thinker.

Some of his contributions to Chinese literature was a collaboration between the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci.  The two Christians translated Western classics such as Euclid's Elements and the Bible into Chinese.  He was an agricultural economist as well, with books on irrigation, agriculture, and basic economics.  On top of that, he was able to discuss military matters, which gained him a position in the court of the Ming Emperor.  Indeed, he served two portfolios: Culture and then as Deputy Prime Minister.  To this day, along with Yang Tingyun and Li Zhizao, he is one of the "three pillars of Chinese Catholicism."

The Gospel first entered China by way of missionaries who found parallels in the ethical teachings of Confucius and the Decalogue.  Unlike the West, where Christianity first spread among the lower echelon of society, in the East Christianity spread first among the merchant classes and the nobility - because only they can read.  Indeed, most well-known Chinese Christians at the time were well educated.  But interpretive problems did surface.  We look at one example of such: the Seventh Commandment.

In ancient China, concubines were normal for the wealthy and powerful.  Even today, successful men often - and surreptitiously - have mistresses.  Of course, the immediate response from the Christian could be that of disgust, but instead of resting with superficialities, let us consider the deeper reasons behind it.  Now the sociology of concubinage in China is something beyond my competence, but so far as I can gather there can only be two reasons - from a Chinese perspective - behind why a man would only desire mistresses.  The first is , I would surmise, a perennial reason exclusive of culture: the quest for youth.  I haven't heard of older men having women their ages as concubines; quite oppositely, I've heard of older men having young women as such.  Such concubinage was practiced even in the Old Testament times. (let's not forget, righteous King David had many concubines!) Of course, such a mentality occurs because we always have, I suppose, an innate desire over reliving our younger days.  I have my thoughts on that, but it is tangential, so let us move on.  Suffice it to say that such lusting for youth is not commensurate with God's calling for those of us who are growing older.  To age gracefully and grow in wisdom and patience is a privilege; to lust for youth when one is not young is a silly romanticization.  Really?  You want to live through your days with a Tiger Mom?

The second reason for having mistresses is that having multiple women is an economic status symbol.  Because I have more money, I can please more women.  My brother's girlfriend works at a bank and tells us of Chinese men (this is Malaysia) who come in to open accounts for their secret mistresses.  The Great Rumor Mill of China often describes Communist higher-ups who routinely have huge bank accounts for their many (often up to twenty!) mistresses.  Now, to have an exalted status symbol could oil the cogs when it comes to getting lucrative deals signed.  Indeed, this was not unique to China.  The kings of Israel, including righteous David and wise Solomon, all had concubines.  But we must remember concubines were political tools.  David and Solomon, we can suggest, did not actively seek out concubines out of lust or for sexual purposes; the women were often offered to David in marriage by foreign kings as a matter of political allegiances.  The exception with David was Bathsheba, which was a matter of lust, and David learned the hard way the price of adultery.

Of course, when we lean the practice of concubinage against the commandment against adultery, we should realize that it is a non sequitur.  The Decalogue, as we know, is not prescriptive but descriptive. The commandment against adultery is not really about extramarital sex, so much as it is about the condemnation of dehumanizing others.  Of course, there are many ways of dehumanizing others, but one very damaging way of doing so is through sexual means.  The underlying motive of sexual harassment, if you think about it, is dehumanization in order for the offender to get what he (or she) desires.  Sexual attacks, such as rape, do not easily escape the conscience of the victim.  Thus, the Decalogue serves as an indictment against the dual lusts for status and youth.  It also brutally interrogates the notion - one that is often perpetrated in history - of women as usable people, as tools to be used in advancing the financial and social agenda of men.  Indeed, the commandment in question is merciless - and should be indeed so - in disclosing such a notion to foreclosure.

Which takes us back to Xu Guangqi's dilemma.  One of the challenges that he faced was Matteo Ricci's insistence that he send away his concubines, in accordance to the commandment.  Now we should not demonize Ricci as some Western imperialist, even though quite a few missionaries at the time were more colonizers than really missionaries.  For his time, Ricci was unique in asserting the importance of respecting local culture; so seriously did he take that principle that he learned Chinese, dressed up as a Chinese, and lived among them.  That Ricci remains a well-regarded figure in the mainland should serve as a lesson for us in taking seriously the role of cultural theory in missiology.  One of my great unease with missionary activity in China is whether American missionaries are really interested in spreading the Gospel, or unwittingly spreading Americanism encrouched in Christian rhetoric.  In my view, if it is the former, what we need is not missionaries, but theologians going in and partnering with existing pastors (of which there are many) with the exegetical and theological tools in equipping Christians.

But Ricci, for all his attributes, could not look past his patriarchal worldview, which meshed quite well with the Chinese culture that shares a similar Weltanschauung.  Back then, as it still is today to a lesser extent, men rule over the household.  A patria potestas mentality dominates based on the cultural notion that the state is the family writ large.  Just as the father rules over the household, ensuring discipline and providing the means for family members to enjoy living in the household, so does the state rule over all households.  The father plays chess, his family members but mere chess pieces.  And like chess pieces, they have no voice.

This is where subalternity enters.  The term subaltern, properly deconstructed, means "under Other."  This is not a discussion on the "face of the Other," because the Other doesn't have a face, at best.  It doesn't have a face and, at worst, the other had better not have a face.  We can't be repulsed because we either don't know that they exist, or don't want to know that they exist.  By the subaltern, we are not referring mainly to the poor or marginalized.  Indeed, as Spivak notes herself, many groups want to claim subalternity.  Many minority groups in the United States are marginalized, knowingly or unknowingly, but they have a voice.  The subaltern, for one reason or another, do not have a voice, and the only time they have a voice is when their voice serves some purpose in advancing the cause of the privileged.

That is why, in Spivak's essay, the subaltern is best rhetorically described as "...". Whenever a quote includes a "..." some information is foreclosed, and we have no way of knowing its content unless we track down the source itself.  Now, you can argue that the author includes a "..." to gloss over unimportant parts of quotations, but the ability to substitute a "..." infers a judgment by the author on the importance of that part of the quote.  But the one who is being (mis)quoted is not subaltern, at least as long as the footnote or in-line citation exists.  One can argue, perhaps, that the fascination over plagiarism is really a guard against subaltering people, some of whom have passed away and, thus, cannot answer to any (mis)quotations.

We were not told what happened to Xu Guangqi's concubines.  All we know is that they have been sent away, ostensibly into poverty since Chinese concubines usually cannot "marry up" and, thus, are restricted to "marrying down."  Otherwise, they are unwanted, often cast as "dirty rags."  In the end, Xu Guangqi comes out as the righteous one who is concerned about following the law of the Lord, never mind the fate of his concubines.  Again, there are many possibilities to what may have happened. Perhaps Xu Guangqi did take care of them after all.  But written records do not indicate that, and its omittance signifies the relative unimportance of the topic in the eyes of the historian.  All we can do is infer based on the written evidence available to us.

This constitutes a surprising oversight on the part of Ricci.  Being a contextual missionary himself, he should have found a way for the concubines to be cared for.  He should, in other words, have been the voice for them, and not the voice against them.  Sure, Xu Guangqi should not consort with his concubines anymore, but as someone responsible for placing them in their social location, he should care for them instead of releasing them into poverty without any means of self-sufficiency.  Let us not forget that the Decalogue empowers the subaltern by way of how it is structured.  Consider the fact that when people give in to idolatry (first/second commandments) they block out the voice of God, as if God never really mattered.  Or, at best, God is ancillary to human concerns.  The commandment after prohibits the substitution of the human voice in place of God's by forcing God to speak what I want God to speak.  The commandment against the misuse of God's name is the prohibition against the foreclosure of significance of the identity (this is, by the way, a culture where name and identity are closely linked).

Why this is important can be seen when we consider the possibility of a Chinese American reading of the Decalogue.  Texts are never read in isolation from our cultural Weltanschauung; it is only a matter of whether we are aware of it or not.  That is why a synchronic hermeneutic is valuable in the toolset of the exegete and theologian, for hearing or reading another interpretation to a classic avails us to the possibility that we may be missing one piece of the interpretive mosaic.  In the case of a Chinese American (or, Chinese-American) reading of the Decalogue, we must be aware of the marginalization of one interpretation over the other.  When Tiger parents recklessly employ the fifth commandment to justify blind obedience, what they are doing is subverting one interpretive approach in favor of another (namely, their own), and using culture to reinforce the subversion.  This, furthermore, encourages children to employ the same recklessness in enlisting other Scriptural passages to bolster their cause.  The Scriptures, in the end, become a tool to accrue authority and power to justify one's own perspective.

Ironically, it is not people who become subaltern, but the Bible itself, being reduced from being the Word of God to a long "...".