State and Civil Society

The following sections are included:

• Contents

• Chief Editor

• List of Contributors

• Series on Developing China — Translated Research from China

• Preface

The following sections are included:

• Introduction

• Section 1: World Structure and China as the Subject: A Chinese Perspective on Globalization

• Section 2: Counter-Hegemony and Internationalization: A Knowledge Reform for Chinese Social Science

• Section 3: State and Civil Society as the Analytical Framework for Our Inquiries into the“Chinese Success Story”

• References

A true dilemma for Chinese modernization is that between state and society there is no robust structure that favors the development of modernization. More specifically, the society does not form an independent and autonomous structural sphere. It is a must, therefore, that “Neoconservatism”, the “authority supremacy thesis” or the “democracy priority thesis” be replaced with the “dichotomy of state and society”. In other words, the earlier“top-down” perspective needs to be replaced with a “bottom-up” one so that the Chinese civil society can be built. The Chinese civil society refers to a private area where social members conduct social and economic activities following contractual rules voluntarily and autonomously. The construction of the Chinese civil society can be divided into two phases: formation and maturation. The relationship between state and civil society is positive interaction. As a process caught in social and political reorganization, the construction of the Chinese civil society is bound to be a long-term process, where unless with the appearance of a dual structure of state-civil society, as well as their mutual positive interaction, this mission shall remain unfulfilled.

This article tries to examine the use of two terms, namely “public space” and “civil society” by Chinese scholars. Through analyzing the different contexts, be it cultural, historical or political, between China and the West, this article cautions against unreflective use of the two terms. Moreover, the background of “civil society” research in China differs from that of theWest, for which reason it is necessary to bear these differences when applying these terms.

The article provides a clarification and definition of such concepts as civil society, the third sector, institutional environment, civil society organizations (CSOs or minjian zuzhi), non-government organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations (NPOs), intermediate organizations (zhongjie zuzhi), social associations or mass groups (qunzhong tuanti), etc. And then the author offers suggestions in the classification of civil organizations in China in terms of academic research and administrative management. The author put his focus upon analysis of the main characteristics of the current institutional environment of Chinese civil society. As the author points out, the institutional environment of civil society in contemporary China is characterized by the coexistence of encouragement at the macro-level and restriction at the micro-level; registration at different levels and dual management; dual management and multiple management; government regulations and Party policies; institutional redundancy and institutional deficiencies; and the co-existence of actual space and institutional space.

The authors have conducted a series of positive researches on the topic of state-society relationship in contemporary Mainland China. Through an examination of the actual state control over a great many organizations, this paper proposes the concept of a “system of graduated controls”. Based on this system, the government, out of consideration for their benefits, takes different control strategies on different social organizations according to the social organization's capability and the public goods they offer. In other words, it is a new system where the government implements an overall control on the society and offer public goods by means of a non-governmental method in a new economic environment. Through comparing with other state-society relationships, this paper points out that the graduated control system is a new “ideal type” for state-society relationship.

The state, civil ruling elites and commoners are three basic structural elements of society. The relatively stable and interactive relationships among them are one of the basic frameworks of societal structure. As an important aspect of structural social changes, the evolution of this interactive relationship tends to exert wide and far-reaching influences on social life. Traditional China formed a three-tier social structure of state, civil ruling elites and commoners; but after Song Dynasty, the three-tier structure experienced a major change on the part of the mainstay of civil ruling elites, which had been the middle tier, the gentry-landlord group replaced the aristocrat-landlord group. Ever since the end of Qing Dynasty, China has been in want of a force that can reshape the basic institutional framework of society lacking inner stability. The result of this need is the formation of a total crisis represented by the integration of crisis. In the rivalry to solve the total crisis between the Communist Party of China (CPC) and Kuomintang, the former triumphed and secured the state power in the mainland and built a total society to respond to the total crisis. Before the reform and opening up, Chinese society formed a two-tier structure of state-commoners, and the state monopolized the distribution of most resources; after the reform, with the formation of “free-flowing resources” and “free activity space”, China has started forming a new middle tier and reshaping the three-tier structure: the state, civil ruling elites and commoners.

As a new framework for theoretical analysis formed under the influence of civil society theory, “State and society” has been widely applied to monographic studies of modern Chinese history over the last decade. It has provided a new horizon for the research of modern Chinese history and strengthened some weak links in past researches. By opening up new fields for researchers, it contributes positively to the growth of modern Chinese history research toward depth and width. But the application of this framework needs to be further improved, and empirical researches into more related special subjects in modern Chinese history from the perspective of “state and society” also needs to be further enhanced.

The idea of civil society has been the source of contested debates, and has been a dominant discourse in recent Chinese political and ideological life since the late 1980s both in mainland China and Taiwan. The paper describes and explains the emergence and transformation of the ideas of civil society. It analyzes political innovations associated with, and democratic implications of, the conceptual changes of civil society both in mainland China and Taiwan. These conceptual changes can be identified as a shift from the idea of the totalitarian society to the liberal idea of civil society before June 4, 1989, to the antagonist model of civil society as a democratic strategy among some intellectuals overseas after 1989, and then to the mutual support model between the state and civil society since 1992 in mainland China. These changes also involve a shift from the antagonist model of civil society, which was popular in 1986–87, to the Habermasian version of civil society on Taiwan.

The discourse on civil society in both Taiwan and mainland China seems to support, confirm and reinforce the key element of the liberal idea of civil society, that is, the necessity of the normative distinction of the state from civil society. It also demonstrates that it is dangerous to believe that all the problems, and all the solutions lie within the body of civil society; the idea of civil society alone cannot offer a solution to all the problems. We need to turn for help from the democratic ideas of constitutionalism, citizenship, and the rule of law; above all, civil society itself has to be democratized.

Neoteric Chinese public sphere differs from European public sphere which is based on the civil society and membership of bourgeois individuals in that its formation has basically nothing to do with civil society but much to do with political themes like nation-state construction and social reforms. Chinese public sphere, therefore, is centered upon aristocratic intellectuals from the very beginning. It skips the transitional stage of literary public sphere in Europe and starts directly from political contents to its formation, and scenes within the public space are not cafés, bars or saloons but newspapers, institutes and schools. As far as style is concerned, it lacks literary elegance but features poignancy of political essays. What threatens the development of Chinese public sphere is not the soft infiltration of late capitalist power and money as analyzed by Habermas, but the systematization and legitimacy that are unattainable within the social system as well as the commonality that finds itself hard to maintain its independence and nonpartisanship on account of the increasingly strong influences of partisan struggles.

In recent years, we have observed a striking upsurge of organized voluntary activity and the creation of private, nonprofit or non-governmental organizations around the world. This study explores to what extent China is part of the global associational revolution. It aims at charting the size, scope and structure of the associational world in China, in a way that not only yields solid and objective information about China, but also makes it possible to undertake cross-society comparisons later.

This is a chapter in historical sociology. It particularly focuses on the extension of rural townships since 1908. Specifically, it examines different attempts under different regimes in 20th century China to enhance the sphere of influence of the state in the countryside. However, it has a broad historical scope, covering the lengthy history of local administration and grassroots power. By means of a comparative historical study, the author finds that the marching of state power into the countryside has been phenomenal in the age of nation-state. The author thus argues that the institutionalization of rural township and town governments in post-reform China neither arises from rural industrialization nor “liberalization of market”, but as a consequence of the intensified accumulation of “authoritative resources” by the state.

Chinese scholars are cautious of the framework of modernity. Their efforts to reflect on and transcend the Western paradigm of civil society are manifest in the proposal of the “Positive Interaction Theory”, which, however, is too idealistic to interpret the reality. Moreover, theories based on case studies such as “Corporatism”, “Classification and Control”, “Autonomy and Embeddedment” also have limitations. At the same time, the development of the Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce indicates that a Wenzhou Model of China's civil society has emerged, which is characterized by spontaneous growth based on local tradition and private economy, rapid development with local government support, the combination of both autonomy and dependency, and cooperative and interactive relationships with the local governments. A special case as it might be, the Wenzhou Model of China's civil society still contains some generalizable elements, which can shed light on current researches, so as to derive a new analytical framework.

The past two decades witnessed the emergence of numerous new associations and increasing independence of non-government organizations. Associations grow even faster in fields like education and academia, business administration, culture and entertainment as well as other professional sectors. The regulations on the social space are explicitly characterized by state corporatism which highlights the control by the state and emphasizes hard restrictions on the uniqueness, representativeness and monopoly of associations. The key to promoting the development of civil society is to break out of the situation of “zero-sum game” between the state and society and to replace it with a new approach of “mutual empowerment” between them. The state would play an enabling role in achieving societal corporatism and facilitating the development of civil organizations in the public sphere. This may effectively strengthen the capability of the state to drive the growth of civil society.

People had been led into believing that Western culture stresses the individuality but Chinese or Eastern or Asian cultures focus on the whole. The misunderstanding stems from the negligence of the following four historical phenomena. First, Chinese and Western cultures differed greatly when they started exchanges in 19th century. Second, since the 19th century, neoteric intellectual movements came into being during the contact of the two cultures and therefore features like the liberation of individuality as well as the safeguarding, implementing and upholding of civil rights are self-evident. Third, neoteric Chinese received ideas mainly from the Western culture, which embodies principles that are proposed to liberate individuality and uphold justice for individual rights in the process of Western social modernization. Fourth, it is influenced by Western sinologists whose attention is confined to the Southeast coastal area with the most developed clan system in China. As far as the nature of traditional society is concerned, both cultures highlight community rather than individuality. The difference lies in the fact that China focuses on major community but medieval Europe emphasized minor community. Therefore, unlike Western modernization aimed at breaking the fetters of minor community, Chinese modernization needs an alliance of the civil (the public) with minor community to shake off the shackles of major community.

The following sections are included:

• Index