GLQ:A Joumal of Lesbian and Gay Studies IMAGINING GAY IDENTITIES IN CHINA 463 ments about family.Family is the metonym for belonging,not simply to the nation- state but to Chinese culture writ large.In China continuing discursive productions of family are indispensable sites for establishing one's humanness as well as one's social subjectivity.For gay men to establish their normality as men,they must marry,not to prove their virility but to produce heirs.Then,too,family still pro- vides men with moral privilege and access to social power,which is not true for women and,I suspect,is the reason that it has been easier for lesbians in China to renounce marriage. But two complications persist in the meanings of family.One is that the Chinese culture that underlies the functions of family as metonym is itself under debate even as the rhetorical construction of a singular Chinese subject underlies the assertions made by several prominent men in the group at Mr.Wu's cafe.The distinctiveness of this subject operates in the name of Chinese culture,which in turn hinges on repeated appeals to harmony and family.Yet the investments made in the discursive production of Chinese culture varied in the cafe.Wang Tao,from Hong Kong,produces a Chinese culture that erases the colonial history of division between Hong Kong and mainland China.In Hong Kong,a British colony until recently,gay white expatriates and Chinese gay men and lesbians have created distinct communities that mirror this colonial division(along lines of race,lan- guage,and culture).Chinese gay men from Hong Kong bring this split subjectiv- ity with them to Beijing.More than many gay men in Beijing,gay men from Hong Kong tend to argue for separations between“Chinese'”and“foreign'”ways of doing things. Ah Zhuang,by contrast,envisions a Chinese culture that creates a homol- ogy between family and nation and,while different from Western culture,does not stand in a mutually exclusive relationship to it.The transcultural conversation in the room betrayed tensions between diasporic and transnational identifications and avowals of difference.Are gay men from Hong Kong self-identical with mainland Chinese gay men,or do they bear some mark of difference?Are they diasporic or transnational?(Even though Hong Kong has been returned to China,residents of each still need visas to enter the other.)The (other)foreigners in the salon clearly reflect a difference of some kind,but for them,too,identifications and difference are not as stable as a global gay identity might lead one to assume.The undecid- ability and slippage in the term Chinese culture are dramatically evident.Contra- dictory normalizing forces-the need to assert culture,harmony,and family and the need to disavow the instabilities in such seemingly transparent assertions- enter into the fashioning of this figure. Published by Duke University PressIMAGINING GAY IDENTITIES IN CHINA $63 ments about family. Family is the metonym for belonging, not simply to the nation￾state but to Chinese culture writ large. In China continuing discursive productions of family are indispensable sites for establishing one’s humanness as well as one’s social subjectivity. For gay men to establish their normality as men, they must marry, not to prove their virility but to produce heirs. Then, too, family still pro￾vides men with moral privilege and access to social power, which is not true for women and, I suspect, is the reason that it has been easier for lesbians in China to renounce marriage. But two complications persist in the meanings of family. One is that the Chinese culture that underlies the functions of family as metonym is itself under debate even as the rhetorical construction of a singular Chinese subject underlies the assertions made by several prominent men in the group at Mr. Wu’s caf6. The distinctiveness of this subject operates in the name of Chinese culture, which in turn hinges on repeated appeals to harmony and family. Yet the investments made in the discursive production of Chinese culture varied in the caf6. Wang Tao, from Hong Kong, produces a Chinese culture that erases the colonial history of division between Hong Kong and mainland China. In Hong Kong, a British colony until recently, gay white expatriates and Chinese gay men and lesbians have created distinct communities that mirror this colonial division (along lines of race, lan￾guage, and culture). Chinese gay men from Hong Kong bring this split subjectiv￾ity with them to Beijing. More than many gay men in Beijing, gay men from Hong Kong tend to argue for separations between “Chinese” and “foreign” ways of doing things. Ah Zhuang, by contrast, envisions a Chinese culture that creates a homol￾ogy between family and nation and, while different from Western culture, does not stand in a mutually exclusive relationship to it. The transcultural conversation in the room betrayed tensions between diasporic and transnational identifications and avowals of difference. Are gay men from Hong Kong self-identical with mainland Chinese gay men, or do they bear some mark of difference? Are they diasporic or transnational? (Even though Hong Kong has been returned to China, residents of each still need visas to enter the other.) The (other) foreigners in the salon clearly reflect a difference of some kind, but for them, too, identifications and difference are not as stable as a global gay identity might lead one to assume. The undecid￾ability and slippage in the term Chinese culture are dramatically evident. Contra￾dictory normalizing forces-the need to assert culture, harmony, and family and the need to disavow the instabilities in such seemingly transparent assertions￾enter into the fashioning of this figure. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies Published by Duke University Press