A Walk Through Boston’s Chinatown: Modernity Photo Essay

It’s impossible to discuss modern Chinese society without considering the influence of life before the Chinese Cultural Revolution; the pre-modern and modern Chinese histories remain distinct but have become almost inextricable. How come?

Mao Zedong, the first chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and a founding father of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), had a vision to create a industrialized, modernized China, and he achieved this by shaking off what he viewed as the shackles of “old China” — “old” ideas,” “old culture,” “old customs,” and “old habits” — collectively known as the Four Olds. In truth, Mao’s crusade against the Four Olds aimed to erase the remnants of Chinese traditionalism in favor of his conception of Chinese modernism: one that embraced an ostensibly progressive identity defined by communist values.

But wander through Boston’s Chinatown on a Sunday afternoon and look closely. You might uncover a different narrative — there has been, in fact, a reunion with the very customs that were purged of in the name of modernity and progress. What I’ve found is precisely the opposite of Mao’s vision. The residents of Chinatown embrace the modern principles and society introduced by Mao’s modern China, surely, but they thoughtfully engage with the remnants of pre-modern China. They preserve the worthwhile aspects of their traditional society — such as religion and leisure — while also redefining certain modern principles — including what it means to be “Chinese.”

This photograph captures the northern face of the Chinatown Gate in Boston’s Chinatown adorned with two flags: the American flag and the Republic of China (ROC) flag. The gate features traditional Chinese architecture and is inscribed, “A world shared by all.” The Chinatown Gate is my first impression of Chinatown — and even of China herself. From the language and tea to the newspapers and even the cigarettes, everything seems authentically Chinese, at least to an outsider. However, this is not completely accurate. Looking closely, it’s evident to see Chinatown’s pushback against the late-modern expectations of nationalism. From my observations, the flags on the Chinatown Gate illustrate a two-fold pushback against this monolithic expectation of nationality and nationalism.

Two Nations Among One People

Nationalism arose in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when people’s identities shifted from familial ties to their nations, which was typically outlined by ethnicity. Today, the concept of a two-nation China challenges the modernist expressions of nationalism by presenting a scenario in which a single ethnicity and culture are divided and represented by (competing) legitimate governments, thereby defying the late-modern nationalist ideal that typically defines a nationality by a single ethnicity and culture under a some unified political authority. The PRC’s “One China” vision advocates for a unified national identity under Beijing, rejecting separatist or alternate national identities such as those represented by the ROC. Thus, by displaying the ROC flag, Chinatown’s residents openly defy the widely-held understandings of nationalism, aligning themselves more so with a perspective that has rejected this principle.

One People Among Two Nations

Moreover, the juxtaposition of the American flag beside the ROC flag calls for a discussion of pluralistic nationalism — it even defies the expectations of nationalism, which are often tied to a single ethnicity and culture. It shows that the residents of Chinatown embrace a dual identity that acknowledges Chinese and/or Taiwanese ancestry alongside their American environment, lifestyles, and perspectives. This pluralistic-nationality approach rejects the late-modern principle that nationality must be defined singularly by ethnicity or culture. It’s also important to acknowledge that the Chinatown Gate was itself a gift to the residents of Boston’s Chinatown from the Government of Taipei. This realization reveals that the Chinatown Gate was designed for Chinatown’s residents (who are mainly first and second-generation American immigrants) as a reminder of their heritage and to intentionally and outwardly foster this dual-identity — and not merely to “repurchase” the loyalty of these immigrants.

In a conversation with a Chinatown resident, I learned that the combined display of the flags resonated among some members of the community. Some members express a profound connection to their plural nationalities — they acknowledge their ancestral Chinese and/or Taiwanese heritages and also fully embrace their Americanness. He added, “This may be Chinatown, but we are still in the United States.” To me, this statement summarizes the nuanced identities in this community, emphasizing a pluralistic and ethnically inclusive approach to nationality that rejects constraints of late-modern conventions.

This photograph makes the nameless mural seem much smaller than it really is. In truth, it spans about 20 feet across and about 10 feet high. It was installed by the South Cove Community Health Center Tobacco Control to discourage tobacco usage among community members. Throughout the entire mural, subjects are swallowed by a sea of smoke, and faceless figures are depicted in despair — or perhaps, dilemma — as they deal with the withdrawals and temptations of tobacco use. Pictured at the center of this mural are three figures that are of tremendous influence to Chinese religion: Daode Tianzun (Left) Buddha (Center) and Confucius (Right) — respectively symbols of the major Chinese religions: Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism. What is their relevance to the Community Health Center’s agenda? It’s open to interpretation.

Secularization, the dissociation of religious and spiritual matters from all public affairs, was of prime importance to Mao Zedong’s modernization initiatives. Mao’s objective was to promote scientific reasoning and rationalism over religious and spiritual beliefs to create a classless society. And religion, after all, was considered “the opiate of the masses” and was used to rationalize the domination of lower classes in feudalistic societies, including the “old China.” Undoubtedly, some of the older members of Boston’s Chinatown community grew up in “old China.” And as the Chinese Cultural Revolution unfolded, they saw the erasure of some religious and spiritual remnants which were important parts of Chinese society. The mural’s illustration of Daoist, Buddhist, and Confucianist religious symbols confronts the secularization forced by the Cultural Revolution upon Chinese people and society in the name of modernity. At best, the act of placing such spiritual figures in a community mural might be attributed to a deliberate desecularization initiated by a public authority. But even at the very least, it represents the toleration of religious and spiritual symbols (for the sake of culture and history) among the Chinatown community. Regardless, it is a reminder of the secularized policies once imposed in China and also revives and honors the pre-modern spiritual traditions within the Chinatown community. But indisputably, the mural represents the Chinatown community’s willingness to resist secularization in some contexts, thus acknowledging the enduring influences of religion and spirituality in Chinese history and even in contemporary society.

My last photograph shows more than a dozen men intently watching a game of Chinese chess, or Xiangqi. Some of the men are hidden behind each other. Most of the men appear to be between their mid-50s or early-60s and they appear to be engrossed in the game. And unlike the throngs of men and women assembled around other tables in Mary Soo Hoo Park, these men are silent — there is no laughter, no taunting. When I returned to the table approximately 25 minutes after capturing this photo, many of the men were still there, still quietly engrossed in the Xianqi match, still drinking tea and smoking. I must admit, their enthusiasm was contagious — I found myself becoming interested in the game. It’s possible that many of these men grew up in a China that had just experienced the Cultural Revolution. In the first eight years of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, until Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, chess was regarded as a leisure activity for the bourgeoisie. Thus it was banned to align with the communist objective of eliminating class conflict.

In fact, leisure as a whole was heavily restricted during the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Mao wanted to modernize China so as to make all aspects of life contribute to the revolutionary cause. And unfortunately, leisure activities were seen as discouraging work and therefore counterproductive to industrialization. In this way, Mao’s restrictions on leisure sought to mold the ideal Chinese communist citizen but also (ironically) echoed the capitalistic ethos for continuous work and productivity. This comparison highlights a paradox within the Marxist agenda, merging communist ideals with a work-centric philosophy found in industrializing and already industrialized nations.

Thus, the men’s interest in Xiangqi quietly resists the pro-industrial and productivity-focused norms of the Cultural Revolution, which took place in their youth. The norms they are resisting are anti-Maoist and anti-communist, surely. But, by the same token, they are also anti-capitalist. The productivity-focused Maoist principles of which they are in defiance are the same productivity-focused principles manifested by capitalist and industrialized nations of the late-modern era.

Works Cited

Modeling Monarchy: Kingship Is Earned, Not Inherited

What qualifies one to be a king? Is it a noble vision? Fair execution of justice? As Shakespeare’s The Tempest presents kingship, it is having the most powerful slaves and betraying the competition. The dilemma of the source of sovereignty is faced in The Tempest after a shipwreck strands nobility and commoners on an island. On the one hand, Shakespeare presents inherited kingship by noble birth as a more dignified alternative to rule by commoners. On the other hand, Continue reading

Echoes of Power: Men’s Fascination with the Roman Empire

How often do you think about the Roman Empire? The average man would answer several times a week, some even as much as three times a day.1 It’s been almost 2,000 years since the Romans’ height of power, yet it still impacts the way modern men think about the world today. At its peak in 230 CE, the Roman Empire conquered land stretching from present-day England to Egypt and the Middle East, and surrounded the entire Mediterranean Sea. While this empire lasted for centuries, its history can be organized into three time periods: The Period of Kings (625 BCE to 510 BCE), Republican Rome (510 BCE to 31 BCE), and Imperial Rome (31 BCE to 476 CE). The Period of Kings began at the economic and military uprisings of the Roman Empire. A transition from ruling kings to an established government made way for Republican Rome. Here, citizens followed an established law code known as the Twelve Tables. After Julius Caesar, the dictator of the empire from 46 to 44 BCE, was assassinated, his heir Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus rose to power. He assumed the name Augustus and became the first Emperor of the Roman Empire, leading to the Imperial Rome era. Imperial Rome saw centuries of prosperity and peace, up until internal and external struggles led to its demise in 476 CE.2 The long holding success of the Roman Empire lies in its unified culture. A male-dominated society built the empire based on their masculine values of power and control, which resulted in a society that constantly searched for war to satisfy the male desire to dominate. As a result, they placed great emphasis on the strength of their military, an organized social structure, and a unique governance that allowed them to establish, conquer, and run a thriving empire. The prominent cultural features and gender roles of the Roman Empire founded modern men’s ideologies of male strength and dominance. The pervasive male pursuit for power and control translates into an infatuation with the Roman Empire and its lasting legacy, which was built on such ideologies.

The Twelve Tables of Roman Law was established in 449 BC by a ruling body of ten men known as Decemvirs.3 It is the oldest Roman law code, drafted for equality between plebeians and patricians after complaints of oppression towards plebeians. This foundational legal document represents a significant step towards codifying and organizing Roman law. The twelve detailed laws defined civil rights and fixed consequences upon breaking the laws, reflecting the Romans’ commitment to establishing a fair and orderly legal system that applied to all citizens, regardless of social status or background. As such, the Twelve Tables functioned as a check on Rome’s openly hierarchical social structure, granting rights and legal recourse to plebeians.

But these partial measures were not sufficient since Rome’s patriarchal society ranked men at the height of its hierarchy. Their status above lesser members of society, especially women, is seen especially in Table V relating to guardianship and succession: “Females shall remain in guardianship even when they have attained their majority…”4 This is to say that although a woman has reached adulthood, referred to as their “majority,” they must remain under the care and control of a male figure. Roman female citizens were not trusted to think for themselves, but rather, their father, uncle, or husband would make their decisions for them. This law code shows the value, or lack thereof, of women in Roman society. They were viewed as less intelligent and less capable than a man, and as a result, placed beneath them on the social pyramid. This is another respect in which Ancient Rome offers an idealized notion to those who long for a return to the traditional gender roles of the 1950s. Roman men served as breadwinners and protectors, taking on large roles in government and in the military, while women were homemakers and caretakers of the children. The difference in roles as far as an exertion of power, especially in meaningful areas like war and politics, gave men a sense of greater importance. This justified their place above women on the social hierarchy because women were viewed as weak and frail, and it was a man’s civic duty to protect them. Furthermore, Table V referring to a male figure as a woman’s “guardian” implied ownership of her. This idea of control over those who lack authority and power relates back to why men idealize the Roman Empire. As men seek power and control in their modern lives, they fantasize about a time when it was handed to them. Male superiority was written in a legal code, and, therefore, could not be disputed. These societal implications determine the superiority of men, satisfying their masculine validity. The Roman Empire was set up to be a patriarchal society, thus reinforcing the power-hungry mentality exhibited by men.

Conquest-happy is another term that epitomizes the social construct of masculinity. The concept behind Roman conquests was analyzed by Polybius, who was the third greatest Greek historian after Herodotus and Thucydides.5 In his lifetime from 200 BCE to 118 BCE, he became most known for his writings on the Punic Wars between the Roman Republic and the Punic Empire that lasted from 264 BCE to 146 BCE, in addition to the Roman conquest, consisting of a series of operations that accumulated land and power for the Roman Empire throughout its time. These works were written in his multi-volume books, “The Histories,” that he finished in 146 BCE.6 Here, notable people, events, and ideas of Roman society were explored in great detail.

In Polybius’s second introduction of “The Histories,” he addresses the subject of military conquests and the idea of success as different from a victorious outcome. He argues that a definitive judgment cannot be made on either side of a conflict, the victors and the defeated, by only considering its outcome. Polybius explains this reasoning by writing, “Neither historical actors nor those who write about them should think that the aim of every undertaking is to win and to subjugate everyone else… in fact all men act with the aim of obtaining the pleasure, honour or profit that will result from their action.”7 Polybius argues that a military victory should not be the determinant of a successful society. Yet, men are so focused on this prowess that they paint success in a black and white light. He addresses the violent intentions of men that are clouded with a desire of dominance and power. These characteristics are heavily valued in Roman society, as it is the drive towards Rome’s expansion. As a result, they also became an internal value of the average Roman man. Polybius specifically refers to soldiers obtaining “pleasure” and “honour” from the violent conquests. This positive rhetoric relating to a violent affair proves that through an exertion of power, men are fulfilled. Inversely, men feel shameful if they are defeated. Gender roles enhanced their sense of value based on their achievements. Gender roles divided specific duties to both men and women, and their ability to perform well at them determined their worth. Therefore, if a man failed at the physical duties he was assigned, he was a disappointment as a soldier and to his greater duty to Roman society. These masculine pressures translate to the modern world. Men are encouraged to show strength and hide any emotion to not be perceived as weak. Men who struggle to suppress their emotions and meet the unrealistic expectations of men in contemporary society seek inspiration and admiration in the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire is the epitome of strength and dominance, and they look up to it as a paragon of how they should act.

This same idea of strength and dominance was found in Rome’s neighboring society, Greece. Pericles’s Funeral Oration was a speech delivered by the Athenian general and statesman Pericles (495-429 BC) and published in the historian Thucydides’s (460-395 BCE) The History of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE).8 Pericles’s Funeral Oration is an example of the Athenian public practice of delivering eulogies to honor their fallen soldiers. He delivered it to Athenian citizens after the first year of fighting the Peloponnesian War against Sparta to promote nationalism and perseverance. Pericles illustrates the warrior culture of Greece, which was in itself a close cousin of the warrior culture of Rome. Greece, being a conquered city-state of the Roman Empire, embodied many of the same masculine ideals.

In Pericles’s Funeral Oration, he outlines the difference between an ideal Athenian man and an ideal Athenian woman. He pays tribute to the Athenian men who served and died in the war and reassures their families that it is the most honorable way to die. The soldiers who fell at the Battle of Marathon in 490 BCE are described as having “…valor distinguished above that of all others…” The soldiers were recognized to have “valor,” which goes beyond courage or bravery. The intention behind use of this word is to emphasize the respect and honor Roman society placed on their soldiers. Describing this characteristic as one that is “distinguished above that of all others” shows the extent of the true value that Athenians, and in turn, Romans, placed on their soldiers. This created a sense of a sense of necessity for men to serve their country and “prove themselves,” as Pericles describes.9 The ideal Athenian man was both mentally and physically strong, to mirror the strength of their country. When the Romans adopted this ideology, it also founded societal pressures for males that discouraged them from showing any signs of weakness that still exist today.

In contrast to Pericles’s promotion of an ideal Athenian man, he goes on to describe what he calls an “esteemed woman” by stating, “great will be your glory in not falling short of the natural character that belongs to you; and great is hers, who is least talked of among the men, either for good or evil.”10 Pericles first encourages women not to stray from their “natural character,” or purity. He then warns them not to tempt men, and that the less attention they draw to themselves, the more highly regarded they would be. This directly relates to the Roman value of piety shown through their religious position of Vestal Virgins, who were Roman priestesses. Vestal Virgins were highly respected in Roman society starting in the seventh century BCE until they were banned by emperor Theodosius I in 394 CE as part of his efforts to Christianize the Roman Empire.11 These women “functioned to instill a collective identity of what it meant to be a Roman.”12 Vestal Virgins served as a reminder to other women of how an ideal Roman woman should behave. Women who were conservative and abstinent were highly valued in society. This showcases the different expectations of Roman men and women. Men were valued for their behavior on the battlefield, whereas a woman’s value depended on what men thought of her. Because men were given this power and level of control over women, it translated into them having an over-dominant ideology. Modern men translate this Roman way of thinking into what is known today as “toxic masculinity.” Toxic masculinity is a set of stereotypical social guidelines associated with manliness that men showcase in the forms of over-dominance, aggression, and stoicism.13 Men who idealize the Roman Empire justify this toxic behavior because it was socially acceptable in Roman society.

Toxic masculinity is far from a recent phenomenon, but, rather, was present in ancient Roman and Greek myths. Publius Ovidius Naso, referred to as Ovid, was a Roman poet (43 BCE-17 CE) who was especially known for his books Ars amatoria and Metamorphoses. In his poetry, he reflected Roman ideas in his interpretations of classical Greek myths.14 Ovid’s take on the myth of Galatea and Polyphemus follows the beautiful nymph Galatea and her lover Acis. Polyphemus, a Cyclops, becomes infatuated with Galatea, and, despite his unrequited love, relentlessly pursues her. When Polyphemus catches Galatea and Acis together, he is so consumed by jealousy that, in a fit of anger, he crushes Acis to death with a massive rock.15

Polyphemus can be seen as a “toxic male” archetype in today’s society. In Ovid’s writings, Galatea describes Polyphemus’s fit of anger upon seeing her with Acis: “I saw all this; and, after he in vain had uttered such complaints, he stood up like a raging bull whose heifer has been lost…”16 Polyphemus’s rage is described to be “in vain,” as he selfishly cannot accept to see his love interest with another man. He then throws a tantrum, to which he is compared to a raging bull, which shows the extent of his uncontrollable anger when his ego is bruised. This behavior persists in modern society in the form of the typical toxic “nice guy.” The “nice guy” showers his love interest with gifts and kindness, expecting this love to be reciprocated emotionally and sexually. In the case where it is not, he is full of anger from the rejection. Modern men are able to justify this behavior because Rome normalized men acting aggressively and resorting to violence. When Galatea refused Polyphemus, he turned to violence in an attempt to assert his manhood and cope with the rejection. By killing Acis, he removed his competition for Galatea’s love, and selfishly attempted to terrorize her into submission to his emotional and sexual demands.17 When Polyphemus is not given what he wants, he exerts his dominance over what he perceives as a weaker figure in order to inflate his ego.

A modern example of a “toxic male” is the British-American social media figure Andrew Tate. Andrew’s outspoken controversial and misogynistic views have gained world-wide attention. Despite the majority of negative responses, he has managed to gain an overwhelmingly large male following.18 On various podcasts and social media platforms, Andrew has stated, “I think the women belong to the man,” and “You can’t be responsible for… a woman that doesn’t obey you.”19 These beliefs date back to ancient Roman society when women were classified as second-class citizens and the property of men, which is no longer relevant in today’s society. Yet, Andrew is able to influence young males with his ideologies by preying on their insecurities of weakness. He validates their desire for strength by preaching that men are inherently superior to women, giving them a false sense of power in their daily lives. Andrew Tate embodies the Roman Empire’s male ideologies of control and dominance. When modern men don’t meet the social standards for a strong man, they feel threatened. In an attempt to compensate for what they lack, they buy into these delusions of inherit dominance.

Male social standards are a double-edged sword. Dating back to the start of the Roman Empire in 625 BCE, men have been granted power and privilege in society, followed by a number of opportunities that women today still struggle to attain. However, they also create social pressures that negatively impact the mental health of men, making them feel like a failure if they do not live up to them. Seeking unhealthy measures to cope with what they lack in the “ideal Roman male” image, they turn to toxic male figures like Andrew Tate to validate their manliness. Young men are being told that they are dominant by nature, and it is natural for them to act aggressively. As a result, they exert their power in a harmful manner, often in the form of physical and sexual violence against women. The persistence of these outdated and sexist beliefs preached by these public figures pose a threat to feminist progress today.

So, how often do you think of the Roman Empire? Perhaps more than you realize. Its culture and beliefs have echoed throughout the centuries, long after the empire’s fall, and continue to impact modern society. The power dynamic between and expectations of men and women was largely founded by the Roman Empire. As men continue to embody its ideologies of dominance and control, traditional gender role endurance remains constant, for better or for worse.

Notes

1. Betsy Reed, “The Roman Empire: Why Men Just Can’t Stop Thinking About It,” The Guardian, September 19, 2023, link.

2. “The Roman Empire: A Brief History,” Milwaukee Public Museum, Accessed March 29, 2024, link.

3. E.B. Conant, “St. Louis Law Review: The Laws of the Twelve Tables,” HeinOnline Law Website Journal Volume XIII, no. 4 (2017): 231, link.

4. Naphtali Lewis and Meyer Reinhold, “The Twelve Tables of Roman Law,” Roman Civilization: Selected Readings, Volume I. The Republic and the Augustan Age, 108-116.

5. Errietta Bissa et al., Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal History, (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013), 30, Retrieved from books.google.com.

6. Francesca Fontanella, Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods, (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2008), 204, Retrieved from brill.com.

7. Quoted in Francesca Fontanella, “The Encomium on Rome as a Response to Polybius’ Doubts About the Roman Empire,” in Aelius Aristides between Greece, Rome, and the Gods, ed. W.V. Harris and Brooke Holmes, Leiden: Brill, 2008, p 203.

8. Joshua Mark, “Pericles,” World History Encyclopedia, March 12, 2018, link.

9. Thucydides; trans. Henry Dale. “Pericles’s Funeral Oration (429 BCE)” The History of the Peloponnesian War, 429 BCE, 20, 24.

10. Thucydides; trans. Henry Dale, “Pericles’s Funeral Oration (429 BCE).”

11. “Vestal Virgins | Priestesses, Temple, Rome,” Britannica, March 12, 2024, link.

12. Joshua Roberts, “Rome’s Vestal Virgins: Public Spectacle and Society,” Western Washington University CEDAR, February 19, 2012, link.

13. Sarah Vallie, “Toxic Masculinity: How to Recognize and Treat It,” WebMD, November 11, 2022, link.

14. John Kenney, “Ovid | Biography, Metamorphoses, & Facts,” Britannica, April 3, 2024, link.

15. Rhianna Padman, “Polyphemus: Who Was the Cyclops That Was Tricked by Odysseus?” The Collector, December 29, 2023, link.

16. Publius Ovidius Naso; trans. Brookes More, “Galatea & Polyphemus,” Metamorphoses 13, 738-870.

17. Melissa Marturano, “Ovid, Feminist Pedagogy, Toxic Manhood, and the Secondary School Classroom.” The Classical Outlook Volume 95, no. 4 (2020): 147–51, link.

18. Betsy Reed, “I’m Andrew Tate’s Audience and I Know Why He Appeals to Young Men,” The Guardian, January 6, 2024, link.

19. Andrej Barovic, “60 Most Controversial Andrew Tate Quotes,” Dot Esports, March 14, 2024, link.

Unshackled yet Bound: The Enduring Impact of Slavery on Black Women’s Success

At the height of the civil rights movement, Malcolm X once said, “The most disrespected person in America is the Black woman. The most unprotected person in America is the Black woman.” This powerful statement seems to constantly permeate my thoughts. Continue reading

Berraca

A parent’s job is to raise strong individuals, and in my situation, my parents had to make me a strong woman, a true berraca. For my mom, that was wearing dresses but being defiant and not letting men pisotarte (step on you). She firmly believed Continue reading

Twenty-First Century Gadfly: Rewriting Crito

JOSEPH: Sophia, I’ve been looking everywhere for you! Ever since I heard that you got the notice that you’re supposed to be drafted into the war, I’ve been running all over trying to get ahold of you. I didn’t think that I’d find you wandering around town like it was just another day!

SOPHIA: Well, Joseph, it is another day. Besides, I’m not in prison yet. If I should begin to live any differently just because imprisonment is awaiting me, wouldn’t it reflect poorly on how I’ve decided to spend my time thus far in my life?

JOSEPH: I suppose… Continue reading