In this book, Loretta Wing Wah Ho examines what she calls “a fresh form of Chinese same-sex identity” that has arisen under the influence of national and global forces since China's opening up. She argues that the confluence of a heightened sense of nationalism and the dominant, yet often fragmentary, notions of Western gayness has led to a paradoxical articulation of the Chinese same-sex identity in urban China, that is, “open and decentered, but at the same time, national and conforming to state control” (p. 1). More specifically, Ho contends that Chinese gays and lesbians self-consciously appropriate Western experiences of modernity without abandoning what they consider to be an “authentic” Chinese same-sex identity (p. 1).

This book is based on a combination of empirical fieldwork, secondary research, and cyber research. Ho conducted fieldwork in Beijing where she observed the same-sex community, talked to people about homosexuality, and interviewed 41 people, including cross-dressing performers and money boys (prostitutes). She also maintained post-fieldwork phone and email contacts with informants. This book also draws on secondary research materials and internet research on the Chinese “gay scene” (p. 5).

Ho observes that urban gay-friendly spaces such as gay bars emerged along with the spread of Westernization and Western gay and lesbian practices, the urgent appeal for HIV/AIDS education in China, and the international HIV/AIDS network and gay-related websites in China. Ho states that these spaces have facilitated the formation of gay networks, albeit often short-lived, scattered and low-profile.

Among these spaces, the internet exposes gay people in China to the transnational gay scene and leads them to imagine the Western gay world as a gay haven where “gender or sexual variation is the norm” (p. 14). As Ho states, in China, the images and ideas about the Western-style gay world through mass media are fragmented rather than holistic representations of a “modern, Westernized homosexual identity” (p. 11).

Gay activism in China is often linked to Western-operated sexual health groups, but Chinese gay activists are wary of foreigners and criticize the foreign groups' utilitarianism in collecting data rather than enhancing awareness of gay rights in China. They resist a Western or “a modern gay and lesbian identity” and deliberately dissociate themselves from foreign gay or lesbian networks because they believe “the global influence of homosexuality is tainted with un-respectability” (p. 11). However, at the same time, they appropriate certain patterns of gayness through a Western model of modernity, crave for a disassociation from Chinese traditions of the family and homoeroticism, and “desire to forge a connection with global gay and lesbian networks without losing the cultural authenticity of Chinese gayness” (p. 133).

As a result of this fragmented understanding of, and a resistance against, the Western-style gay world, Ho points out that there are no pride parades in China; nor are there any political or formal same-sex organizations to represent their interests. Many gays and lesbians are not conscious of the significance of rainbow flags and pink triangles.

Ho argues that Chinese gays and lesbians rarely mimic the mainstream Western gay politics that invoke human rights to legitimize sexual diversity; and they reject the idea of “coming out” for its concomitant confrontations with, and disruptions of, family and community ties. They believe in the precedence of family ties and social harmony over one's sexual identity. Frequently, they reconcile their personal identity with their social obligations (for instance, via “pro-forma marriage”) to maintain family ties and social harmony. Ho intimates that current Chinese gays and lesbians face a paradox where they cannot escape the moral and national responsibility to adhere to cultural traditions, but they also cannot help breaking from the impositions of tradition.

The state discourse that encourages opening up and globalization encompasses two principal factors that have shaped the paradoxical articulation of the Chinese same-sex identity. Subject to global influences, it is gradually breaking away from “previously prevailing homosocial/homoerotic traditions” and is often blamed for betraying “authentic” Chinese traditions under global influence (p. 5). Impacted by the state discourse and the ambiguous legal system where the phrase same-sex love does not appear anywhere in Chinese law, it manifests a “renewed form of nationalism,” a lack of overt politics of identity, and self-censorship.

In a nutshell, Ho argues that a “modern” and “authentic” Chinese identity fraught with “disjunctures, divisions, and conflicts” is constantly negotiated and experienced by Chinese gays and lesbians. They are caught in an incessant tension between “a yearning for modernity of identity” that entails pursuit of individual sexual rights and desires, and an engagement with cultural traditions (p. 126).

The arguments of the book could be enhanced by providing more ethnographic data to illustrate how this “modern” and “authentic” Chinese identity is played out, experienced, and enacted by the same-sex community in urban China. Also, Ho fails to explain the historical basis for the nature of this Chinese tradition of homoeroticism from which she believes current Chinese gays and lesbians wish to escape. Most scholars reading this book will not be familiar with gay culture in Chinese history. The book will benefit from a brief summary of traditional gay practices since they are frequently referred to by the author. This book has made a contribution to the studies of gays and lesbians in contemporary China, and will be welcomed by a wide array of scholars who have an interest in Chinese studies, gender studies, and sexuality and cultural studies.