Introduction
The stages of children’ growing up and the principles of upbringing are the topical issues of modern state practices governing family and social issues. In China, where much attention is paid not only to the spiritual but also to the physical development of the personality, educational techniques have been developed over the years. One of the modern methods aimed at the formation of men and the education of strong defenders is the traditional boy code that stimulates the training of young Chinese men for adult life.
Despite the positive background of the code, its course is ambiguous enough. The policy of educating brave and strong men is implemented through tough measures and the use of brute force, which affects the boys’ perception of the world negatively and causes them to experience fear. As a rationale for this theory, the opinions of various authors will be used, and a search for relevant information will be conducted. The irrelevance of the traditional boy code in the context of parenting is the problem that deserves discussion and intervention at the national level, and evidence to support this assumption is to be found.
Issue Description
The problem under consideration is reflected in the modern practice of education, which is promoted by Chinese national principles. One of the areas where the traditional boy code manifests itself clearly is the out-of-school activities for schoolchildren when they attend special training sections. Wee gives an example of the Real Boys Club where young male Chinese from 7 to 12 are trained spiritually and physically, and their director stimulates the development of their brutal character.
At the same time, the author argues that there is no urgent need for such a rigid upbringing in the country since, in most government spheres, men dominate (Wee). Moreover, this approach to the brutal training of boys negatively affects their psychological state, awakening a sense of inferiority and encouraging rivalry as the major component of achieving goal.
It is assumed that the director’s approach does not help boys to grow but brings up false ideals of power that they will need in their future life. Therefore, the issue in question deserves discussion and requires competent intervention to prevent further pressure on the young male population of the country.
Historical Background of the Problem
The history of the education of Chinese men in the context of tough and forced training is quite long. According to Mann, a sex-segregated society has always considered a social problem in the country, and “male bonds embodied particular kinds of tensions” (1603). Relationships between men and women are the subject of discussion by many researchers. As Mann remarks, in ancient China, the main responsibility of parents regarding the issue of raising boys was the need to educate worthy successors of the clan who were able to protect their families (1603).
However, this approach led to the emergence of a large number of unmarried young men in the country, which can be explained by men’s constant training and the absence of a personal life (Mann 1603). At the same time, most of the women were married because they did not have a sufficiently large choice of suitors and were forced to marry those who were ready to prefer marriage to training. As a result, male dominance has become a national trait since ancient times.
Long since, there was an unwritten law in the country that defined “the three venues of male bonding” and included such concepts as the family, sworn brotherhood, and friendship (Mann 1603). According to these venues, in China, there was an order determining that men were to spend more time with one another than with women. It, in turn, led to the aforementioned problem with the absence of married males and their devotion to personal vocation.
With regard to participation in public affairs, preference was given to men who had the right to occupy responsible positions and represent the country at the highest level. Women were not allowed to have such privileges, which further strengthened the gender segregation of society.
In families, much attention was paid to raising boys since they were considered more desirable than girls. As Mann notes, a special role was played by the relationship of brothers because they grew up in the atmosphere of constant competition and were forced to prove their strength to one another and their parents regularly (1607). Over centuries, the situation has become more similar to the modern one, and the clear signs of patriarchy have given way to an equal society. However, according to Mann, the “pattern of male dominance in rural China” was still observed (1613).
After the Communist Revolution aimed at establishing equality among social classes, the clear signs of the superiority of one sex over the other disappeared, but male bonds were still considered an essential tradition. Thus, the study of the history of Chinese males confirms that a patriarchal order is the typical feature of social formation in the state. Despite positive changes, many remnants of past eras are felt today. Therefore, the traditional boy code has a rather long development stage, and its echoes today confirm that not all families are ready to abandon the upbringing of strong men who, nevertheless, are obliged to follow the established canons and practices strictly.
Personal Perspectives
Regarding the position in relation to the traditional boy code and its relevance in modern China, it is worth noting that this set of rules is hardly necessary today when there is no strict division into classes in society. While evaluating these norms in terms of the impact on the psyche of children and adolescents, it should be noted that it has a negative effect on the moral state and leads to conduct disorders. Kastner argues that the boys whom she observed as a psychotherapist showed clinically depressed states and were not ready to follow the traditional code.
The opinion that a set of rules can turn a child into a man through tedious training and strengthening willpower is very ambiguous. If a boy experiences anxiety, fear, and other unpleasant emotions, it is unlikely to become a stimulus for his growth. Therefore, statements regarding the relevance of such a code today can be challenged from different standpoints.
Despite the aforementioned problems, keeping the traditional boy code in many families is an essential task, and the publication of certain guidelines aimed at stimulating the interests of young Chinese males confirms this fact. Wanxia describes the first gender-oriented textbook calling on boys to strengthen their body and spirit. The author notes that such an ideology is controversial in the modern world where equality is considered the norm (Wanxia).
She quotes the words of the feminist movement leader who argues that such an attitude is the violation of social, moral foundations (Wanxia). The opinion that all responsibility lies with men and that only they are capable of making reasonable decisions offends many women who have the right to express their positions and protect personal rights. Therefore, in this context, the traditional boy code is also unacceptable and does not correspond to the moral and ethical standards that are promoted today.
The interaction of boys with their peers is also violated if parents and the environment pursue the goals of education based on the code. Kastner cites the concept of “toxic masculinity” and argues that this form of behavior puts pressure on girls. Since boys are supposed to be courageous, brave, strong, and persistent, the opinion is formed that the weaker sex should have completely opposite traits – grace, beauty, restraint, and weakness.
It, in turn, leaves an imprint on the future life of children and creates false priorities that are to be followed due to social prejudices. Gender identity becomes one of the key factors determining a person’s culture, his or her behavioral and communication patterns. This approach to upbringing has much in common with the ancient principles promoted many centuries ago and providing for the strict separation of functions and duties between men and women. Today, this phenomenon is a historical relic; nevertheless, the supporters of the preservation of the traditional boy code insist that this national practice should be promoted, despite its negative manifestations.
Finally, another nuance that contradicts the view that the traditional boy code in China needs to be followed is inevitable sexual separation. A parenting approach that provides for a rigorous difference in the upbringing of the two sexes may cause gender conflicts and the disapproval of citizens who do not want their children to pursue the false ideals of strength. The main purpose of educating boys is their becoming as strong-minded individuals, but exhausting physical training and tedious exercises aimed at increasing endurance erase this final goal.
Wanxia, who gives an example of the textbook for boys, remarks that a similar textbook will be published in an adaptation for girls quite soon. The author summarizes that sex education promoted in modern Chinese schools is the key to generating essential knowledge (Wanxia). However, according to her, “to promote it in such way could lead to sexual separation instead of sexual equality” (Wanxia). Therefore, the consequences of sticking to the traditional boy code may be serious, and implications can be felt not only for the male but also for the female population of different ages and occupations.
Conclusion
The irrelevance of the traditional boy code in China can be explained from different perspectives, and the fact that male education has been characterized by special approaches historically is not a justification for sticking to this practice today. Spiritual education is more important than physical one, and the method of director promoting tiresome training and competition among students does not correspond to the correct educational process. Excessive pressure on boys is fraught with depressive states and conduct disorders. The evidence found proves that adherence to the considered norms of upbringing has many flaws, and the use of this practice is a historical relic.
Works Cited
Kastner, Laura. “How Boys Suffer: The Boy Code and Toxic Masculinity.” ParentMap. 2018. Web.
Mann, Susan. “The Male Bond in Chinese History and Culture.” The American Historical Review, vol. 105, no. 5, 2000, pp. 1600-1614.
Wanxia, Lin. “‘Be a Man!’ – New Textbook Offers Chinese Boys Advice.” Asia Times. 2016. Web.
Wee, Sui-Lee. “In China, a School Trains Boys to Be ‘Real Men’.” The New York Times. 2018. Web.