The Voice of Nishan｜Three keywords in the historical perspective of Chinese-style modernization
People, Openness and Agency
Chen Hongjuan, Zhang Yarun
Each country exists under different temporal and spatial conditions, and the problems that modernization must address will inevitably differ; thus, it cannot and should not be a mere copy of Western modern countries.
Keyword one: People
Regarding who drives historical development, Marx and Engels proposed the theory of the mass (people), arguing that historical activities are the activities of the mass, countering the hero theory of Bruno Bauer and others. China has endorsed and further developed the Marxist historical perspective, creating a new perspective that differs from traditional Chinese theory and the modern Western elite theory.
After Rousseau's call for "popular sovereignty," mass participation became the source of legitimacy for Western regimes. However, in modern Western competitive elections, the manipulation by plutocrats and interest groups behind political parties has reduced the democratic election of "one person, one vote" into "money-driven election." The well-known American writer Jared Diamond pointed out that obedience to money had been the greatest failure of (our) political system and (our) personal lives. It can be said that in the process of Western modernization, the concept that history is driven and shaped by the elite is deeply entrenched, and modernization overly relies on the power of business corporations and the elite society, leaving the common people behind.
In modern China, there had also been some limited historical perspectives concerning modernization. For instance, although the Revolution of 1911 overthrew the Qing Dynasty (1616–1911) and shattered the model of "one family, one dynasty," the stability of the new regime relied on the authoritarian rule of warlords, politicians, and revolutionaries, making it difficult to mobilize the masses for full participation. In addition, the fragmentation and chaos caused by warlords further hindered genuine modernization.
Unlike the elite and heroic theory of history, the Communist Party of China (CPC) regards the people as the main drivers of history, relying on the people to achieve revolutionary victory and establish the People's Republic of China, thereby paving the way for modernization. Mao Zedong stated, "Who are the ones to carry out the revolution? Who are the main actors in the revolution? They are the ordinary people of China." "We represent the proletariat and the ordinary people; if we defeat their enemies, and they would support us."
Since China's reform and opening up in 1978, the CPC has regarded the people as the main players in reform practice, combining the top-down and bottom-up approaches. Whether in the reform of rural land tenures or township enterprises, progress has been driven by the initiatives of the people. As Deng Xiaoping stated, "Many of the things in the reform and opening up were proposed by the Chinese people in practice."
Moreover, as American sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset pointed out, the modern Western political party system is the product of conflicts within Western society. Political parties represent the interests of various groups based on class, identity, religion, and race, and the collision and coordination between these diverse interests drive modernization. However, in practice, the friction and conflict of ethnic and religious factors have exacerbated social divisions; in addition, interest groups or oligarchs manipulated elections with money, placing the interests of the group and party over the interests of the nation and the people.
The CPC understands the people's interests and demands through multi-party cooperation, political consultation, whole-process democracy, and social surveys. Based on this, it formulates guidelines and policies for modernization, ensuring that the Party's mission resonates with the people's interests. This stands in stark contrast to the Western way of modernization which prioritizes oligarchic interests.
Keyword two: Openness
Foucault's Discontinuity theory tries to explain that for the most part actions in society will follow a rational, delineated path which leads to an accumulation of knowledge and experience.
How to handle the relationship between tradition and modernity is a question that Chinese-style modernization must address. Unlike Foucault's Discontinuity theory and the unitary approach to history, the conception of history regarding the Chinese path to modernization is open, forming a continuous and diversified perspective by absorbing and learning from traditional views.
Any country dealing with the relationship between tradition and modernity faces the issue of whether to pursue discontinuity or continuity, to discard, separate, or to transform and inherit. The concept of modernization has been shaped by Western ideology, endowing it with connotations of advancement and progressiveness. The modernity derived from it represents the break between modern life and traditional life, modern culture and traditional culture, modern spirit and traditional spirit, etc. It seems that bidding farewell to tradition is the "natural mission" of modernization. Consequently, some countries have experienced departure from traditions and institutional fractures during powerful drives for modernization, leading to a history characterized by discontinuity.
In fact, any social change is subject to traditional factors accumulated in history and culture to varying degrees. As Marx pointed out, men created their own history, but they did not make it as they pleased; they did not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
In exploring the path of modernization, China has respected tradition and absorbed reasonable elements from the traditional historical perspective. Although the discussion of "tradition" and "modernization" has persisted since the May Fourth Movement in 1919, and "tradition" has at times been labeled as conservative, backward, and representing ignorance. In fact, "tradition" has always been present in Chinese modernization, providing "Chinese characteristics" with national style and cultural depth, thus forming the foundation for the "Chinese style" in the country's approach to modernization. As Xi Jinping pointed out, "Without the 5,000-year civilization of China, where would the Chinese characteristics come from? Without Chinese characteristics, how could we have the successful path of socialism with Chinese characteristics today?"
Let me illustrate with two examples that Chinese modernization has achieved transcendence and innovation based on inheriting traditional historical perspective.
The "food only" perspective on history underscores that sustenance is the most fundamental need for people. It suggests that the root of societal unrest stems from unequal access to food, and that equilibrium can be restored through ensuring that everyone has equal opportunities to access it, leading to harmony across the land. The Chinese approach to modernization, which focuses on strengthening the material foundations for human happiness and striving for shared prosperity, resonates with this viewpoint. However, it goes beyond the simplistic "equality" concept of the "food only" view. It articulates that shared prosperity is not synonymous with uniform distribution; rather, it's about an inclusive process where every member of society contributes, collaborates, and benefits from the collective progress.
The second historical perspective is of "change," which underscores the importance of driving historical progress through transformation. As articulated in the Book of Shang, "When in difficulty, one must adapt; when adaptable, one will succeed; when successful, one will endure." Similarly, the Book of Rites encourages continuous self-renewal with the phrase, "If you can renew yourself daily, then renew yourself daily, and keep renewing yourself every day." Both of these ancient texts advocate for change and innovation as the keys to advancement, a principle that resonates with the Chinese approach to modernization. This approach recognizes the need to evolve in response to the shifting dynamics of the world and the times, as well as the unique challenges of each era. However, Chinese modernization also encompasses the dialectical unity of "change" and "constancy," highlighting the significance of upholding enduring values even amidst the flux of change. This balance ensures that while society evolves and innovates, it does so with a foundation of stable, guiding principles.
In the new era, China has prioritized the integration of positive traditional values while updating outdated notions to meet contemporary standards. For example, the once rigid notion of "filial piety" has evolved into a more reasoned and respectful form of honoring one's parents. The stringent feudal etiquette has given way to a modern etiquette that fosters mutual respect. Similarly, the cultural norm of "venerating officials and elders" has been reimagined as a democratic spirit of equality. Core traditional values like "aspiring for goodness" and "striving for improvement" are instrumental in shaping China's unique path to modernization.
Moreover, China's approach to modernization champions a diversified and multi-linear genealogy, achieving a transcendence over the "single-line evolution" of Western modernization.
The West was the first to initiate and achieve modernization, and various views of history have emerged by referencing Western countries' pursuit of modernization. A representative viewpoint is Western centrism, which sees Western modernization as the only correct model for development, emphasizing that it is advanced, civilized, and free, serving as the core, protagonist, and mainstream of world modernization. In contrast, other countries are viewed as inherently backward, barbaric, stagnant, and authoritarian, serving as vassals and followers of the West. Marx criticized Western centrism and its intrinsically related extreme nationalist historical narratives, such as German-centrism and Russia-centrism.
The Chinese view of modernization posits that Western modernization is not the only correct model and that there is no universal standard for modernization in the world. Each country exists under different temporal and spatial conditions, and the problems that modernization must address will inevitably differ; thus, it cannot and should not be a mere copy of Western modern countries.
As Xi Jinping emphasized, "We have used facts to declare the bankruptcy of the 'end of history' thesis, as well as the bankruptcy of the single-line historical perspective that all countries will ultimately end with the Western institutional model."
Keyword three: Agency
Faced with the challenges and shocks posed by the first modernizing countries in their expansion, almost all developing countries find themselves in a dilemma: dependence or autonomy.
First of all, the question is whether to reject and resist, to fully Westernize, or to take the initiative to grasp the laws of history, integrating internal and external factors to actively respond and form different attitudes towards historical development.
The first is the resistance doctrine, which completely rejects the influence of Western modernization, advocates a return to tradition, and adheres to existing local development modes. Resistance lacks the proactive drive to push historical development forward. Native Americans and other indigenous tribes in the United States once chose this approach.
The second is to copy Western modernization, passively relying on external factors for modernization, and giving up the initiative for endogenous modernization, which was more typical of Turkish and Latin American modernization.
In the process of modernization, Turkey denied internal agency, believing that Islamic traditions could not provide a path to modernization. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the first president of the Turkish Republic, advocated total Westernization. In a 1921 speech, he said that their eyes had to turn to the West, they would transplant Western institutions onto Asian soil and would transform their schools by modeling them on the Western mode.
Likewise, Latin America's modernization was deeply influenced by external factors, which seriously overlooked the differences between itself and Western countries in political landscape, land ownership, economic structure, cultural background, population size, and industrial development momentum. By hastily accepting foreign capital and copying Western theories, Latin America deepened its regional economic crisis.
Chinese modernization has never rejected the positive role of external factors. Mao Zedong emphasized the importance of "seriously studying good lessons from abroad and also learning from bad lessons—taking them as warnings." After 1978, Deng Xiaoping pointed out that our modernization should mainly rely on our own efforts, resources, and foundations, yet international cooperation was indispensable. In the new era, China stresses not only "placing national development on the foundation of its own strength," but also "continuously expanding high-level opening up, deeply participating in global industrial division of labor and cooperation, making good use of both domestic and international resources, and expanding the development space of Chinese-style modernization."
Secondly, in the modernization drive, whether to promote economic growth only or to systematically promote comprehensive development across political, economic, social, and other areas is a challenge that latecomer modernization countries inevitably face when considering internal and external factors.
Under the influence of Western modernization, Latin American countries regard economic growth as the only foundation of modernization, prioritizing external factors to drive growth while neglecting its connections with other factors in development. Academics analyzing Brazil's modernization have pointed out that Brazil used the American experience as a model, resulting in a domestic development style that focused solely on economic growth; this "showcase modernization" led Brazil to significant challenges regarding social justice. A singular focus on growth does not necessarily result in genuine development; rather, due to a lack of overall coordination, issues such as social fairness, wealth disparity, and severe corruption have emerged, leading to a phenomenon of "growth without development."
After the founding of the People's Republic (1949), China critically reflected on the impact of Western modernization and clearly proposed an independent drive for modernization, formulating the general policy of developing the national economy "based on agriculture and led by industry," thereby initiating a path of socialist modernization distinct from the Soviet model. Since the reform and opening-up (1979), China has promoted modernization through the organic unity of internal reform and opening to the external world, focusing on the coordination of economic, political, and social reforms, as well as the collaboration between urban and rural reforms, which has comprehensively stimulated social vitality. In the decade since entering the new era, China has aimed at building a strong modern socialist country, following a five-in-one approach encompassing economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological development, thus embarking on a new path of Chinese-style modernization.
The road of Chinese-style modernization and the historical autonomy inherent in it are worth consideration by other modernizing countries.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of DeepChina.
The authors are Chen Hongjuan, a professor at the School of Marxism, East China Normal University and Zhang Yarun, a PhD candidate at the School of Marxism, East China Normal University.
Editor/ Liu Xian
Translator/ Wu Yongqiang
Related articles
Chief Editor/ Yang Xinhua
Coordination Editor/ Liu Xian
Reviewer/ Liu Li
Copyeditor/ Zhang Weiwei
Image Editor/ Tan Yujie
About DeepChina
DeepChina is an elite academic initiative that offers objective and rational analyses on a broad spectrum of topics related to China, encompassing politics, economics, culture, human rights, diplomacy, and geopolitics.