《清國家庭及學堂用家政學》所見日籍女教習的中國家政觀

A Japanese Female Teacher’s View on Chinese Domestic Science in Hattori Shigeko’s Qingguo Jiating Ji Xuetang Yong Jiazheng Xue

《清國家庭及學堂用家政學》是服部繁子任豫教女學堂的家事課教習，在授課講義的基礎之上編寫成書。該書標榜「清國適用」，倡導一種結合「中學」與「新知」的家政學：「中學」非指中國女教，而是講求以禮盡孝、帶有特殊日本觀點的儒學，重視「男尊女卑」規範的重塑；「新知」為大幅引入「生理學」、科學衛生知識，教導上流社會名媛與外國人往來社交、西餐禮儀等。此一特色與同樣強調「適合中國」的曾紀芬（1852-1942）《聶氏重編家政學》全然不同，後者更關注傳統家訓對主家政者的道德人格追求、標舉「內政總理」的崇高權威，以及中醫陰陽五行理論的「養生」之道。
另一方面，書中關於「家政」和「女權」的論辯也十分引人注目，凸顯中日「家政」在共通的定義下，由於兩國婦女地位的差異，所呈現的性別關係亦有所不同。就此而言，「家政」和「女權」是互斥或互助呢？繁子推行女子新教育是清末婦女解放運動的重要組成部分，但她也在卷首高聲呼籲中國女性應重視家政，以獲得世人之「尊重」，並倡導「女卑」思想，由此將婦女圈限於家庭之中。同一時期中國改革者和女報人也主張婦女可以「家政」對家國作出貢獻，但此一新角色僅是起點，無礙於婦女向外發展或參與公共事務，致力於追求社會制度之平等；又提醒翻譯教科書者須注意日本女權在世界為最卑之弊，以免無形中遭受日本女學之流毒。

Qingguo jiating ji xuetang yong jiazheng xue清國家庭及學堂用家政學(Applied Domestic Science for the Home and School in the Qing State), was compiled by the Japanese teacher Hattori Shigeko服部繁子(1872–1952) based on her lecture notes from Yujiao Girls' School in Beijing. This work touts its applicability to the Qing dynasty and advocates a home economics approach that combines“traditional Chinese learning”with“modern knowledge.”Her“traditional Chinese learning,”however, does not refer to Chinese women’s education, namely nüjiao女教, but rather a Confucianism that emphasizes propriety and filial piety that carries a uniquely Japanese perspective: it focuses on reshaping the norms of“male superiority and female inferiority,”“modern knowledge”introduces a substantial amount of“physiology”and scientific knowledge on hygiene. The work also discusses the social interactions between high-society socialites and foreigners, Western dining etiquette, and related topics. These features different completely from Zeng Jifen’s曾紀芬(1852–1942) Nie shi chongbian jiazheng xue聶氏重編家政學(Domestic Science as Recompiled by Née Nie), which emphasizes“suitability for China.”The latter focuses more on the pursuit of moral character by the head of the household based on traditional family precepts, the lofty authority of the“domestic bursar”內政總理, and“health preservation”method of the yin-yang and the five elements theories in traditional Chinese medicine.
The discussions in Hattori’s work regarding home economics and“women’s rights”are likewise noteworthy as they highlight that under the shared definition of“home economics,”namely jiazheng家政, in China and Japan, the gender relations presented differ due to the differences in the status of women in these respective nations. In this regard, one may ask whether“home economics,”and“women’s rights”were mutually exclusive or mutually supportive? Hattori’s promotion of new education for women was an important part of the women’s liberation movement in the Qing dynasty in which she called on Chinese women to value domestic affairs to gain people’s“respect”and advocated the idea of“female inferiority,”thereby confining women to the home. During the same period, Chinese reformers and female journalists declared that women could contribute to the state and the family through home economics, but this new role was only a starting point that did not hinder women from participating in public affairs, or from striving for equality within the social system. They even reminded textbook translators to note the fact that Japanese women’s rights were the most detrimental in the world, so as not to disseminate the“poison”of Japanese women’s education.