Bristol: Bristol University Press, 2024. US$42.00, ebook. ISBN 9781529238921.
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the revival of Confucianism in contemporary Chinese political discourse has been an important topic in the field of China studies. Some researchers like Daniel A. Bell concentrate on China’s ideological rendering of Confucianism, and some others like Bruce J. Dickson focus on the relationship between Confucianism and various aspects of governance in China. Chih-yu Shih contributes to these discussions with the new book Confucian Governmentality and Socialist Autocracy in Contemporary China. As shown in the introduction, this book aims to understand Chinese governmentality using a Confucian and relational model of political theory.
In chapter 1, the author uses Foucault to theorize the contemporary Chinese political system using the concept of (counter-)governmentality. As the author demonstrates with reference to historical classics, there’s a persisting idea of “the people’s heart” (民心) in Confucian political thought. This idea has also influenced the Chinese translation of the term “democracy” (民主). Such an emphasis on the people provides a discursive balance, acknowledging the importance of the ruler yet warning the ruler against committing wrongdoing. The author further argues that by focusing on improving people’s living conditions, the CCP government has inherited the conventional attention to the people’s heart, and has therefore sustained a dialectic of governmentality and counter-governmentality inside its political discourses.
Chapter 2 poses an argument that contemporary Chinese autocracy is more effective than liberal democracy in solving the problem of involution. The author bases this argument on two beliefs. First, compared with the liberal democratic view that the problem of involution is structurally inevitable, Confucianism is considered to be more active in intervening in this problem. Second, the Confucian political leader is thought to be more accountable than elected politicians in dealing with involution. It should be noted that these two beliefs are gained mainly through reviews of literature and theories, instead of through close analyses of evidence from social reality.
Chapter 3 analyzes China’s governing of Hong Kong SAR through the keyword of “love.” In the author’s view, the Chinese government’s attitude towards Hong Kong is driven by the Confucian idea of “benevolent love.” Benevolent love is built upon the cultural kinship between the country (China) and the region (Hong Kong), in which the nation occupies a parental status. By contrast, the author finds another conception of love prevailing in Hong Kong, called “universal love.” Universal love is depicted as something left over from the British colonizer, which stresses the uniformity between Hong Kong and Western countries based on liberalist values. According to this conceptual framework, the “One Country Two Systems” policy is interpreted as the Chinese government’s benevolent attempt to tolerate Hong Kong’s special status, whereas recent turbulence in Hong Kong is attributed to the protesters’ liberalist ideas that wear the mask of universal love.
Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, chapter 4 (co-authored with Pichamon Yeophantong) offers an alternative perspective on contemporary Chinese nationalism. Against the popular opinion that nationalism is one dimensional in serving the goals of the ruler, the authors argue that the operation of nationalism is a more dynamic process that may also lead to backlash. The author points out that at the outbreak of the pandemic, Chinese citizens were generally more willing to sacrifice their personal interests for the public good of preventing the virus. Nevertheless, as anti-epidemic measures became overly strict, Chinese citizens’ reactions also diverged and finally turned into widespread dissatisfaction, which eventually led to a sudden stop of these measures. This case relates back to the first chapter’s idea of counter-governmentality, in the sense that Chinese citizens’ nationalism can also become a power that goes against the government’s decisions.
Chapter 5 discusses the thoughts of the current Chinese president, Xi Jinping. According to the author, Xi’s personality can be understood as a trinity of three “selves,” which speak to three theoretical traditions of China. First, the “Party self” is primarily related to Buddhism. As an example, Xi’s massive anti-corruption measures are considered to be inspired by the Buddhist wisdom of transcendence. Second, the “national self” embodies the Confucian idea of collective self-discipline, which can be seen from Xi’s emphasis on officials’ self-restraint. Third, guided by socialist ideas, the “international self” focuses on materially empowering the impoverished classes worldwide.
Chapter 6 elaborates on a Confucian model of relational democracy. For the author, liberalist definitions of democracy are derived from the theoretical model of “checks and balances.” In place of this model, the author turns to the model of “relations and balances,” which perceives democracy as the mutual balance between government and citizens in a political system. Drawing on survey data from mainland China and Taiwan, this chapter argues that compared to Western societies, Confucian societies pay less attention to checks and balances and instead put more value on the relations and balances dynamic.
Chapter 7 (co-authored with Raoul Bunskoek) opens a dialogue between the Confucian idea of Tianxia with the southern African idea of Ubuntu. Through comparative analyses, in this chapter the authors argue that both ideas have provided alternatives to the Western way of imagining the world. Despite the nuances between these two concepts, they both have the potential to decolonize international relations and promote non-interventionist worldviews. The chapter further advocates a pluriversalist world order in which diverse cultures can coexist equally.
Seen as a whole, the book covers a wide range of knowledge from different theoretical traditions, regions, and historical phases. The author’s writing style may prove difficult for readers who lack some of this knowledge. The valuable aspect of this book is its attempt to challenge the almost cliched dichotomy of (capitalist) democracy versus autocracy in Western-centric academic and media discourses. However, some of its approaches and arguments are debatable. For instance, the book does not offer much discussion about the historical changes in the CCP’s theorization of Confucianism and socialism. If the author were to take into account Mao Zedong’s extensive writings on socialist democracy (Mao Zedong, “On the People’s Democratic Dictatorship,” in Ideals and Ideologies: A Reader, eds. Terence Bell, Richard Dagger, and Daniel I. O’Neill, Routledge, 2019) and critique of Confucianism (A. James Gregor and Maria Hsia Chang, “Anti-Confucianism: Mao’s last campaign,” Asian Survey 19, no. 11, 1979), some analyses in the book could be examined in more depth.
Kaixuan Zhang
Fudan University, Shanghai