CC BY
927
УДК 94
ALIENATION AND INTERACTION BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC STUDIES ON CONTEMPORARY CHINA
Zheng Yuntian, male assistant professor in the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China
Alienation and interaction exist between international and domestic studies on contemporary China. Although Chinese scholars tend to widen the gap between Western and Chinese research, foreign researchers generally hold to their own opinions and criticize domestic studies. Nevertheless, domestic scholars have begun to address the existing problems of China's development and have attempted to incorporate forward-leaning methods from other countries to seek solutions; foreign scholars have also begun to see their deficiencies in a more objective manner and are learning from domestic study results. Such introspection is helpful for pushing the boundaries of domestic studies on contemporary China and thereby increasing their influence in the international arena.
Keywords: contemporary China, discourse, alienation, interaction
Although domestic and international researchers tend to have different opinions about "contemporary China" and are often in conflict and contradiction with each other regarding their standpoints, views, perspectives, and methods, persistent refusal to consider others' arguments have become out-of-date under the influence of globalization. Today, because information and resources are heavily shared to facilitate a deeper conversation between domestic and international academia, comparing and analyzing domestic and international discourses is necessary. Currently, two trends exist among domestic and international discourses on contemporary China. One is an irreconcilable alienation and opposition between domestic and international studies on contemporary China, and the other is an active attempt to interact with and build consensus between domestic and international views. The latter is helpful for increasing the global influence of China's research on contemporary China.
1. Alienation between domestic and international discourses on contemporary China
Numerous Chinese researchers have emphasized the substantial differences between China and Western societies when analyzing foreign study findings. These domestic scholars summarize international discourses on contemporary China with the following statements. First, regardless of China's past, current problems, and unpredictable future, the last 30 years of China's development is a research sample that is worthy of special study because exploring the key to China's success is far more interesting and meaningful than is identifying the key to the great changes in the Soviet Union and Western Europe. Second, upon analyzing the causes of the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union and Western Europe,
Western scholars quickly realize that their theoretical paradigms are unsuitable for explaining China's success, examining the existing problems of China's development objectively, or finding solutions to these problems. Third, "the China Model" is likely to become a new national development model that has distinct economic, political, and cultural features. Fourth, international scholars perceive the China Model as being different from the models adopted by Europe, the United States, the Soviet Union, and Latin America, and the Beijing Consensus as being different from the Washington Consensus and PostWashington Consensus.1When commenting on the dominance of Western discourses, Chinese scholars have claimed that contemporarily developed Western countries, particularly the United States, not only monopolize international finance, but also influence public opinion through news media and the international society, thereby forming a mainstream discourse system that protects their interests and shapes the global discourse. Subsequently, developed Western countries have gradually dominated the world using their rights of discourse in global communication and have lured non-Western societies into this so-called "free and democratic" mainstream discourse system. The 2008 financial crisis subverted the blind worship of Western theories and has inspired the world to reflect on past Western discourses, warning Chinese scholars against generalizing the concept of compliance with international practices and aligning China's contemporary economic, political, and legal systems with Western ones in the name of reform.2 These viewpoints from Chinese scholars highlight the considerable disparity that exists between domestic and international discourses.
International researchers tend to disagree with and criticize domestic views or studies while remaining steadfast in their own opinions. Some of these scholars have identified three key "game rules" that are typically applied in China's mainstream academic discourse. The first rule is rhetorical bandwagoning. Official statements and rhetoric from China's political party or government are often quoted in research articles, but this does not mean that elite discourses should serve as merely simple responses to official discourses. The main purpose of rhetoric from a political party should be to provide opportunities for debate rather than prevent critical discourses or discordances. The second rule is a fervent tendency to cite Western studies. Although the idea that the evolution, transmission, and permeation of Western viewpoints is a "peaceful process" is widely doubted, the Chinese elites are unwavering in their worship of studies from the Western world. The third rule is an avoidance of citing statements made by domestic peers. One suggested reason for this trend is that Chinese scholars are secretly afraid of being perceived as "choosing the wrong side"
1 Wen Xiaoming and Yang Jianxin: "A Review on the Chinaization of Marxism." Central Party Literature Press, 2010, p. 294-295. Li Shenming: "Talk at the Conference of Establishing China's Theoretical Studies and Discourse Systems." Academy of Marxism under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, June 21, 2012,
http://myy.cass.cn/news/499398.htm.
28
when citing ideas from other domestic researchers.1 For example, although the concept of authoritarian resilience has recently grown popular domestically, Chinese scholars studying this concept mostly base their studies on international discourses, values, or concepts (which generally perceive the Chinese government as a stagnant system both conceptually and empirically, one that resists urgent democratic changes in the country) rather than paying attention to the progress of domestic research. Resilient authoritarianism can be characterized by three parallel development patterns under China's monolithic regime: (1) weak leaders, strong factions; (2) weak government, strong interest groups; and (3) weak party, strong country. If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to regain the public's confidence and prevent a bottom-up revolution, it must disregard the concept of authoritarian resilience and embrace a systematic democratic transition.2 Some scholars have argued that China is "terminally ill." China's middle-level government institutions are also sarcastically mocked as shareholding companies because the line between public servants seeking private gains and private entrepreneurs endorsing public interests can no longer be distinguished.3 These discourses are typical examples of what has occurred in academia due to researchers underestimating domestic studies or misinterpreting the development of contemporary China.
Undoubtedly, the different understanding of universality and diversity has long been a primary root cause for the divide between international and domestic discourses on contemporary China. For example, one scholar pointed out that Westerners tend to associate the word "and" with convergence or high similarity; however, Chinese people regard disparity as a critical characteristic of this word.4 Certain levels of opposition are therefore inherent in the theories of contemporary China proposed by international and Chinese researchers, who sometimes even make irrational statements toward each other's studies. Although scholarly exchange on critical issues occurs on occasion, the deep-rooted differences between Western and Chinese theories and values have thus far prevented unified understanding or compatible conclusions.
2. Interaction between domestic and international discourses on contemporary China
Several Chinese researchers have identified the existing problems in China and have applied cutting-edge analysis methods from abroad to find appropriate solutions. First, studies on national macro-environments have
1 Bruce Gilley and Heike Holbig: "The Debate on Party Legitimacy in
China: a Mixed Quantitative/Qualitative Analysis", Journal of Contemporary China, vol. 18 (2009, Issue 59), pp.342-343.
2 Li Cheng: "The End of the CCP's Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite
Assessment of Shifting Power in China", The China Quarterly, vol. 211 (September 2012), p.595.
3 "Chinese leadership change: reform must not be an afterthought", The
Guardian, November 16, 2012,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/16/chinese-leadership-change-reform-editorial.
4 Martin Jacques: When China Rules the World: The Rise of the Middle
Kingdom and the End of the Western World (Zhang Li, trans.), CITIC
Publishing House, 2010, p. 230.
demonstrated that as the stagnation of reforms and polarization and diversification of social structure have continued to become mainstream trends, China is transforming into a "normal" developing country. From a broad perspective, weak leaders, a weak government, and a weak party are not exclusive to China but are normal challenges currently being faced by countries worldwide, which signifies China's entry into the twenty-first century.5 Second, when assessing the outlook of democracy, Chang claimed that if Western countries intend to promote democracy in developing countries, they must first reflect on their own histories of democratic developments because the order of democratization plays a key role in modern societal developments. For example, Western societies typically develop in the following order: (1) economic and educational developments, (2) establishment of civic culture and law-based society, and (3) democratization. A society pays a high price for developing in the wrong order.6 Third, while critiquing national institutions and institutional management, Yao suggested that China does not require a "Leviathan" government, but rather an active government monitored by a system of checks and balances. Because such a government may be authoritative, but cannot be authoritarian, it has been termed an "encompassing government" that aims to achieve the long-term maximization of social benefits. This requires both a utilitarian function and an ability to counter pressure from interest groups. However, the ideal "encompassing government" for China must have another feature, which is reasonable industrial and employment policies specially designed to achieve equal income distribution.7 A representative view that was adopted when applying game theory to analyze discourse rights in international and domestic arenas determined that contemporary China studies are the only research field that can create a space for global academic dialogue among all contemporary social science fields in China. The rise of China has sparked intense discussions on how to fight for China's right of discourse. However, to claim its discourse right in the international arena, China must end its persistent hold on its own opinions; indeed, the country is unlikely to have a voice in the international community without first having its discourses embraced by the world. In other words, China's right of discourse must be created and developed thorough exchanges and debates with foreign countries.8 At present, domestic researchers studying contemporary China are resorting to universal languages and methods to enable international scholars to comprehend China's research outcomes and actively integrate themselves into the context of international studies.
International scholars have increasingly adopted a more subjective attitude in examining their deficiencies and
Li Cheng: "The End of the CCP's Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China", The China Quarterly, vol. 211 (September 2012), p.620.
6 Zhang Weiwei: China Touches the World. Xin Hua Publishing House,
2008, p. 50.
7 Yao Yang: The Global Significance of China's Path. Peking University
Press, 2011, p. 48.
8 Zheng Yongnian: Globalization and the Transformation of China. Zhejiang
People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 2.
29
learning from China's studies to more accurately interpret China's status quo and future direction. Four main statements outline their views. First, China's reform and opening up can be divided into three periods: (1) 19781984 (a period of policy reformation), (2) 1984-1994 (a period of abandoning the old system), and (3) the period after 1994 (a period that represents the yet incomplete attempt to construct a macroeconomic control system based on laws and regulations instead of state planning control).1 Second, when analyzing the existing problems faced by China, mainstream Chinese economists and sociologists tend to treat social inequity as a temporary "transitional glitch" in the Chinese economy's unstoppable move toward an American-style free market economy.2 In terms of contemporary Chinese nationalism in the global era, the CCP must ensure that the patriotic affections that have accumulated since the Chinese reform and opening are consistent with its economic objective of attracting foreign investment and techniques. This dilemma dates back to the efforts made by reformers in the nineteenth century who endorsed the notion of using foreign "functional knowledge (yong)" to preserve "Chinese essence (ti)." The same concept was later translated into China's attempt to develop a "socialist-spirited civilization" and "contemporary China."3 Third, Piketty predicted China's outlook by claiming that China has learned lessons from its past failure of basing its development on the Western experience during the nineteenth and twentieth century. He added that the country has found an adequate developmental model in recent decades, and has thus focused more attention on domestic situations when seeking a suitable way to incorporate the advantages of capitalism and socialism. 4 Fourth, international scholars have proposed several practical suggestions for addressing the deficiency of international studies on contemporary China. One of them stated that although the results of international contemporary China studies are not necessarily compatible with China's practical needs, Chinese scholars have also not contributed to the global mainstream academic discourse.5 Other scholars pointed out a common problem among international contemporary China studies, stating that these studies tend to be a "consumer" of existing theories and models rather than a "producer" of new ones. Thus, foreign scholars are encouraged to disregard Western experiences that are not applicable to China and reshape the existing theories and methods of building a contemporary China.6
1 Shaun Breslin: "Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics: the Public, the
Private and the International", Asia Research Centre, 2004, p.1.
2 Philip C. C. Huang: "Introduction to 'Whither Chinese Reforms?
Dialogues among Western and Chinese Scholars, II'", Modern China, vol. 35 (July 2009), p.348.
3 Christopher R. Hughes : "Chinese Nationalism in the Global Era",
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-china/nationalism_3456.jsp.
4 Thomas Piketty: Le Capital au xxie siècle (trans. Ba Shusong et al.). CITIC
Publishing House, 2014, p. XV.
5 David Shambaugh: "The China Quarterly and Contemporary China
Studies", The China Quarterly, vol. 200 (December 2009), p.915.
6 Peter Hays Gries: "Experimental Methods and Psychological Measures in
the Study of Chinese Foreign Policy", in Allen Carlson, Mary E Gallagher, Kenneth Lieberthal and Melanie Manion, eds. Contemporary Chinese Politics: New Sources, Methods, and Field Strategies, Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 84.
Compared with previous foreign studies that only intended to criticize domestic studies, the aforementioned unconventional views and suggestions are a sign of progress for Western scholars. Despite the continuing differences between Western and Chinese discourses, many scholars from China and abroad are now striving to draw on or incorporate each other's views. Fundamentally, this suggests that more exchange mechanisms should be established between them for studying contemporary China and relevant issues. This process of continued interaction and complementation will undoubtedly enhance the quality and position of contemporary China studies in the international academia.
3. Pushing the boundaries of contemporary Chinese studies
In an era of globalization, domestic scholars of contemporary China studies must not only lay a solid foundation for researching capacity, but also "reach out" to the world and interact with foreign people or organizations to obtain mutual understanding, thereby providing continual inspiration and motivation to develop an appropriate discourse system for contemporary China. This objective of reaching out can be achieved by encouraging domestic researchers of contemporary Chinese discourse to:
(1) Cross the boundary of disciplines: This will help domestic scholars to transcend the limitations of a single discipline and collaborate with researchers from various academic backgrounds. Wang vividly, and accurately, interprets the nature of contemporary China as ...socialism that is shaped by the Chinese nation and culture, highly embraced by Chinese people, [and] practiced with a practical and realistic attitude where certain social policies are implemented without proper means and which thus require long-term planning, characterized by compressed ideologies; it is a debate of choosing between capitalist or socialist regimes, an all-embracing mindset of absorbing the essence of ancient and Western thinking and applying them to the current methodology, and an attempt of utilizing all positive factors to serve its purpose, exemplified by a democratic government with centralized power and embodied by the inclusive, open-minded, flexible, clever, and practical qualities of Chinse people and culture.7
Increased attention to and an accurate interpretation of contemporary China will result in
7 Wang Meng: God Knows China, Anhui Literature and Art Publishing House, 2012, p. 319.
30
favorable conditions for constructing a domestic mainstream discourse system within a discipline.
(2) Cross the boundary of academia: Contemporary China studies must be extended from academia to real life in order to convert issues formerly restricted to scholars into topics that intrigue the general public and then stimulate a sense of concern and identification among the public. This stimulation is driven by an effective transmission of "positive energy," thereby
developing a wide audience base for the ideal discourse system of contemporary China. An ideology shaped by Chairman Mao Tsetung's theory of "continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat" permeated all ideological state apparatuses and daily areas of the entire Chinese society prior to China's reform and opening. It gradually disappeared afterward, during which time people began to complain about living in an era without beliefs and ideals. However, a society's spiritual life is never lived in a vacuum; various new ideologies are conveyed through different lifestyles, commercials, and entertainment shows, and thus infiltrate people's daily lives. Therefore, ideologies must be practiced in the sensible world. A Marxist discourse system, for example, should explore the meaning of everyday life through the values it represents, involve citizenship education through the messages it communicates, disseminate mass culture thorough its own transmission mechanism, and adopt the Internet language when transmitted through the Internet.1 The facilitation of positive interaction between and organic unification of academic and everyday discourses can diversify and enhance the structure of the existing discourse system, thereby thoroughly nurturing this system.
(3) Cross the national border: China's academic voice must be articulated to countries worldwide. However, China is only as unique as any other country, which thus renders the effort to emphasize China's particular
uniqueness meaningless. The real task for Chinese scholars is to find universality from the uniqueness of China. Unfortunately, scholars attempting to achieve this goal are "rare as a phoenix's feather and unicorn's horn," which may be attributed to the fact that the transformation of China is not complete. Communicating the path of China's development using a universal language to Westerners is a critical mission for Chinese scholars.2 Expressing China's voice and showing domestic academic research outcomes to the world have become increasingly meaningful. From a broader sense, the primary task for both international and domestic researchers of contemporary China is to employ a scientifically designed and rationally implemented discourse system to break the rigid thinking of Western countries, eliminate these countries' long-existing negative perceptions toward contemporary China, and ultimately present China to the world as a modern socialist country that features solid historical and cultural legacy, has tremendous power and friendliness, pursues peaceful and stable developments, seeks international justice and responsibilities, maintains and promotes world peace, and advances human civilization.
Acknowledgement:
This work was supported by the 2015 Youth Projects of the National Social Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 15CKS025]. I would like to thank the support of School of International Studies in Renmin University of China, School of Marxism in Tsinghua
University and King's College London. And I'm grateful to Professor Xiao Guiqing as my doctoral supervisor during my study in Tsinghua University.
1 Chen Xixi: The Ideology and Discourse System of Marxism, East China Normal University Press, 2011, p. 303-304.
2 Edward S. Steinfeld: Playing Our Game: Why China's Rise Doesn't Threaten the West, CITIC Publishing House, 2011, p. 15.
