In the article “The Evolution of Contemporary China American Studies,” David Shambaugh refers to post-2012 China as a “neo-totalitarian era. “Surprisingly, this article was republished in December 2023 on Guozheng xueren, a clinical compilation platform in China. In an intriguing display of dark humor, the Chinese edition translates “neo-totalitarian era” as “New Era” (新时代), a term officially associated with President Xi Jinping. This translation, ostensibly a tactic to circumvent state censorship, subtly underscores a profound shift in governance and state-society relations in the new China.
Recent events seem to corroborate Shambaugh’s description of the Chinese state as increasingly centralized, intrusive, and capricious. In December, the state security government issued special warnings against making critical comments about China’s economy. Last week, a primary university in Beijing announced the merger of the University Party Committee Office with the President’s Office, forming a new Party and Administration Office. There has also been a significant strengthening in the state of social organizations, which hinders the expansion of civil society. In my interviews with Leaders of community organizations that focus on HIV/AIDS prevention and prevention. I observed a stagnation (and even a decline) in the expansion of those organizations; most of the people I talked to were the same people I had met. heard of a decade before.
More about:
Those looking for evidence of relaxed speech will likely find their expectations disappointed. In one eye-opening incident, a professor at Tsinghua University’s School of Marxism attempted to refute his students’ claims about police arrests at the Sitong Bridge, the site of the “man on the bridge” who protested against the zero-Covid policy in October 2022, only to be arrested by police shortly after taking photographs at the site. The fusion of Party, State and Society conjures up photographs of totalitarianism. Franz Schurmann, in his 1968 e-book Ideology and Organization in Communist China, observed that under Mao, the Party-State had established a pervasive organizational network that enveloped and permeated Chinese society. In the same vein, the “New Age” is characterized by a highly concentrated political force and the emergence of a state that seeks to dominate, even dictate, the social life of its citizens.
However, the neototalitarian style, necessarily a static analytical concept, does not fully capture the complexities and dynamics of Chinese society. State control over society does not necessarily develop as state autonomy increases. Furthermore, the degree and form of state success vary over time and across other policy areas. The search for a 0 Covid policy in the 2020-2022 generation illustrated the high success of the State. However, the policy ultimately collapsed after its implementation sparked the largest protests in decades. Even today, liberal intellectuals remain active on social media platforms. For example, I know of a WeChat organization with up to 500 members, mostly academics, journalists, and liberal businesspeople. Within this organization, members shamelessly mock wolf warrior diplomacy, question unreasonable public policies, and engage in debates about democracy and the market. Banned 16 times, the organization is resurrected each time with a new name. Although most ordinary Chinese are cautious when discussing sensitive topics, some still express their opinions. One day in Beijing, a taxi driver, fully aware of the recording devices in his car, blatantly criticized the government. He concluded a verbal exchange on a sensitive topic with a sarcastic comment: “firmly help the Party leadership. ” At an assembly with formative classmates, a staunch nationalist admitted that the country was undergoing some form of “regression” (daotui).
Despite the lack of press freedom, there is still some degree of control of the media and it can be effective. For example, last month, a retired government official was arrested after exposing the party leader’s corruption in his leadership. However, following the revelation of the case through a newspaper, which provoked a public outcry and the intervention of higher authorities, the local government withdrew the fees that opposed it. As Jon Elster pointed out years ago: “Even when government is not limited from below, through the people, it can attempt to limit itself by adopting a form of utilitarianism of regulations. This emphasis on ethical governance regulations can lead to outcomes that improve overall well-being. In my hometown, for example, the local government recently expanded the “Loving” Heart Eaters facility, which provides at least one single meal per week to the city’s needy. There are more than 6,000 such soup kitchens across the country.
These deviations from the neo-totalitarian style call for a rethinking of the Chinese state, especially in the context of state-society relations. In this sense, Tang Tsou’s conception of totalism is illuminating. Arguing that regime type and state-society relations are two distinct dimensions of a political system, Tsou recommended the term “totalism” to characterize state-society relations in particular:
The basic fallacy of the concept of totalitarianism, as it has been used, is that it mistakenly confuses the dimensions of regime type and state-society relations, seeing them as intrinsically connected features of a “totalitarian regime. “why those who use this concept (1) see no radical replacement option without revolution and (2) cannot adequately explain the adjustments in the relations between state and society that have been initiated or at least supported through those in power.
The difference between totalitarianism and totalism provides valuable data for China studies and the progression of American policy toward China. Politicians tend to subscribe to a simplified understanding of China, preferring a simple narrative that neglects the need for a nuanced, complex and multifaceted perspective. Worse still, it turns out that a sense is developing that the existing point of wisdom about China is sufficient to formulate effective policies, diminishing the apparent need for further study. Such complacency is particularly alarming, given the “extremely low” point of the United States’ experience on China and the unprecedented number of American scholars reading in China. Although China is perceived as the most formidable geopolitical threat, this lack of investment in understanding China is not only reckless but also dangerous.
More about: