Arguably the single most influential public intellectual alive today

September 6, 2022 1:39 PM

The analysis and importance of Wang Huning. The New Yorker profiles Wang Huning (王沪宁), an influential Chinese political thinker, member of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo's Standing Committee, and author of a 1991 book about America.

By Wang Huning: “The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture” (转变中的中国政治文化结构) (1988: English trans. by David Ownby)

More on Wang from Palladium ("Wang Huning is arguably the single most influential “public intellectual” alive today"), the Washington Post, The China Project (podcast), and the Economist.

Sample quote:
[W]hile Americans can, he says, perceive that they are faced with “intricate social and cultural problems,” they “tend to think of them as scientific and technological problems” to be solved separately. This gets them nowhere, he argues, because their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.

posted by doctornemo (16 comments total)

Across Chinese society, from the classroom to the living room, the Party is driving a program of cultural conservatism. Educators have been ordered to hire more gym teachers to “cultivate masculinity” in boys. Media broadcasters have been forced to pivot from shows that display “effeminate men” to those that promote “traditional Chinese culture.” (New Yorker)

While other Chinese teenagers spent the tumultuous years of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76) “sent down to the countryside” to dig ditches and work on farms, Wang Huning studied French at an elite foreign-language training school near his hometown of Shanghai, spending his days reading banned foreign literary classics secured for him by his teachers. Born in 1955 to a revolutionary family from Shandong, he was a sickly, bookish youth; this, along with his family’s connections, seems to have secured him a pass from hard labor. (Palladium)

The intellectual advantage is that they can play both parts, one by being honest, the other by saying exactly the opposite to support the regime. Everyone else guesses at the political game.
posted by Brian B. at 2:25 PM on September 6, 2022 [2 favorites]

So is there an update to the little red book, or does he gave a podcast I can listen to in redbook audio?
posted by k3ninho at 2:50 PM on September 6, 2022 [1 favorite]

China article, set free
posted by chavenet at 3:27 PM on September 6, 2022 [2 favorites]

A Vulcan of ideology, the pen as his forge, Wang smelts Marxist vernacular into Xi Jinping Thought.

Is this a sly allusion to America's own Vulcans, led by Condolezza Rice?
posted by jamjam at 3:30 PM on September 6, 2022 [1 favorite]

Dude reminds me of Suslov.

His book 'America against America' looks interesting:
"The book covers a wide range of topics regarding the United States ranging from his observations about: Manhattan, Chinatown, "the heights of commodification," the Amish and the Amana colonies and the decline of farming; the American political spirit and the American national character, the space shuttle program, and America's "multileveled social control" system which includes the "invisible hand" and the "money-managed society," the legal culture and taxation system and its scientific administrators. There is a chapter of "interwoven political power" which he called the "rule of donkey and elephant," the party share-spoiling system, lobbyists, radical organizations and the contradiction between pluralism and meritocracy."
posted by clavdivs at 3:30 PM on September 6, 2022 [8 favorites]

Gaming companies are now only allowed to offer minors a single hour of playtime, from 8 P.M. to 9 P.M., on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.

What, is China taking advice from my parents now?!?

Seriously though folks, I agree with this analysis of America...

Instead, they see Wang’s America: deindustrialization, rural decay, over-financialization, out of control asset prices, and the emergence of a self-perpetuating rentier elite; powerful tech monopolies able to crush any upstart competitors operating effectively beyond the scope of government; immense economic inequality, chronic unemployment, addiction, homelessness, and crime; cultural chaos, historical nihilism, family breakdown, and plunging fertility rates; societal despair, spiritual malaise, social isolation, and skyrocketing rates of mental health issues; a loss of national unity and purpose in the face of decadence and barely concealed self-loathing; vast internal divisions, racial tensions, riots, political violence, and a country that increasingly seems close to coming apart.

but I don't buy that all this resulted from decadence or significant change from America's past status quo. Are we really worse off on these categories than people were 50 or 100 years ago? Were mental health issues and related problems actually better back then or do we just notice them more now? What about monopolies, inequality and lack of competitive economic options for the average citizen? Doubt it on both cases, especially when we factor in the increased racism, sexism, homophobia, religious bigotry, etc.

I'm glad to entertain criticism of liberalism but following a reactionary vision back to a non-existent past isn't going to make anyone better off. That being said, I'm interested in more analysis on how Confucianism influences Wang and his fellow Chinese "conservative" elite.
posted by Hume at 7:49 PM on September 6, 2022 [12 favorites]

I'd wonder what definition of "liberalism" is in play here.

I had forgotten about Allan Bloom. There was a whole generation of those quasi-pundit types back then, an earlier mini-wave of people complaining about perceived culture wars on campus. Does Wang realize that those people (the ones who are still around: this was 30 years ago!) are today active promoters of the rot in the United States, or worse, pathetic cheerleaders for it without any power or agency?

And, I'd wonder if Wang has enough self-awareness and insight to realize that China itself is just another propaganda punching bag for the U.S. right wing? It's not a club he'd be welcome in. There are legitimate reasons to criticize today's China, and there are irrational and brainless ones--today's right wing manages to find the brainless slogans and avoid the legitimate criticism.
posted by gimonca at 4:00 AM on September 7, 2022

how Confucianism influences Wang and his fellow Chinese "conservative" elite

Isn't it just like here? Meritocracy for thee and not for me...?


I learned it by watching YOU!

- Wang, probably
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 4:58 AM on September 7, 2022 [1 favorite]

The Chinese government gets to do what it wants because over the last generation about a billion people have been raised out of abject poverty, and hundreds of millions more are enjoying Western middle-class standards of living. As long as China provides for its people, China will continue to thrive. Much of this success was paid for with Western funds through export. If we ever stop buying, there may be a problem -- until then, there will be no counter-revolution from within. But if it happens, it will be tectonic.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:15 AM on September 7, 2022 [2 favorites]

The New Yorker article is notably devoid of the political context in which Wang Huning's ideas have found fruition. China has been centralizing power in the party, centralizing party control in Beijing, and centralizing supervision of that control in Xi Jinping, who may be president for life. Official Chinese doctrine has become more culturally conservative to support that centralization of power. Cultural conservatives may disagree with one another about many things, but they uniformly oppose multiplicity of opinion. It doesn't matter if Wang Huning's ideas are right or wrong. They are appropriate for the time and the political structure, at least as viewed by those wielding the authority.

I read his critique of the United States in that light. It's currently useful in China to paint one's political enemies as beholden to the failed ideology of a decadent West, just as it's currently useful in the United States to paint one's political enemies as Communists. Both strategies are meant to cut off debate about suitable limits to power -- political power in China, economic power in the United States.
posted by ferdydurke at 8:42 AM on September 7, 2022 [11 favorites]

A bit disappointing that the article seems so interested in what American conservatives think of Chinese conservatives who like to criticize "liberal" America, even though Wang's criticism is only partially of what American conservatives would call "liberalism" vs the "classical liberalism" they themselves believe in.

Hadn't heard of N. S. Lyons before but apparently they're someone who gets to write stuff warning about how "woke" America is getting, and doesn't even have the courage or credibility to put their real name on it.

Overall it seems like one of America's problems is that the meanings of things are so easily twisted, misused, and hijacked. Does liberalism mean civil liberties and free markets, does it mean being "left of center", or does it mean saying the right things in speeches and heavily means-tested social welfare programs? Does "wokeness" mean "being wise to the insidious forces in our society" or "forcing everyone to do what you want because you loudly identify as a white ally" or "a conservative fever dream of losing the culture war"?
posted by JauntyFedora at 9:28 AM on September 7, 2022 [1 favorite]

They need a specific face for China's new direction because they are predictably returning to Confucian values, so a rebranding is necessary. They ran out of loyalty, called faith in the articles, because officials were no longer admired as corrupt. The conservative transition in China had to wait for enough wealth to qualify as respectable, because nobody is going to defer to a pauper like Mao again. Now the time is deemed right, coincidentally with the cash cows of Hong Kong and Taiwan planned to be assimilated. Yet, nobody needs someone's notes from 1989 to describe America's so-called decline, unless it somehow evokes the Tiananmen Square massacre from the same year. The social decline in America is essentially anything they aren't allowed to broadcast in China as local news. So Chinese propaganda just needs to recap America's daily editorials from a thousand print sources complaining of the same decline. But in China it serves as a political diversion, as lone brave people get jailed for holding small signs in public, as their only form of dissent. What has changed in the past generation was that China provided the labor for so much cheap plastic gifts and fast fashion. That was and is America's only social decay or decline, with the environment. We weren't concerned with the consequences of such a wealth transfer as a voting populace because we assumed it would lift their boat towards converting to a friendly democracy. No such miracle happened, but it was going there in 1989 and suddenly stopped. The story of this guy now is the leadership response as to why that will not happen, because they will never step down as "protectors" of their ancestral culture, which of course serves them. Again, very predictable. If China doesn't go conservative it will evolve to a transparent liberalism that supports a demand-side economy required to unleash creativity (liberalism defined here as the right to vote with free speech and free association under the rule of law, not dictators). It will still be as socially conservative as the culture is, but not under direct political manipulations.
posted by Brian B. at 11:08 AM on September 7, 2022 [1 favorite]

China's choices can't be understood in a vacuum like a lab experiment, which is what these West vs China debates tend to do. The reason is that a market-driven democracy isn't a phenomenon contained to individual nations enabling some kind of nation-by-nation experimentation. What neoliberalism is a capitalistic system based on large scale exploitation that is zero-sum and unsustainable. China's real problem is that choosing (neo-)liberal democracy would result in forms of exploitation of and by China. We see this problem in the modern history of the global south. And as a Taiwanese and HK Canadian leftist, I can empathize with a fundamental problem such as that. Unfortunately, its authoritarian leadership functionally cannot understand this, and would rather make up bullshit stories about Marx and/or democracy to legitimize its political responses.
posted by polymodus at 12:21 PM on September 7, 2022 [1 favorite]

I don't have a whole lot to add about the big-picture geopolitics stuff that hasn't already been said, but I did read an interesting article recently about Chinese badminton phenom Ye Zhaoying, who is currently living in exile in Malaga after having spoken out about being required to throw an Olympic match to allow another Chinese player to get gold. (Apparently there is an upcoming or recently-released investigative special about it, produced by a Danish TV channel, that seems interesting but I'm not sure how to watch it here in the US.)

That obviously sucks, not just being told to throw the match (and doing so), but also the Stalinesque erasure she has suffered since refusing to shut up and take it.

But what I found particularly interesting was one of her remarks about the Party's effect on China more broadly:

“That’s why my husband, Hao Haidong, and I are now coming forward and speaking up against the Chinese regime and its corruption that has made all Chinese athletes into political tools. We didn’t fully understand at that time.

We were victims of a dysfunctional system. We were pawns in a system that cared nothing for truth or for justice,” says Ye Zhaoying and she is backed up by her husband.

[Interviewer:] But the same system also helped you to become badminton and football stars. Can you see why I’m asking what makes you go against the system now?

“No, we can’t. We’d have done better under a civilised, democratic system. Even without the failed system. Our society would’ve been better off,” says the former footballer, Hao Haidong, and he raises his voice:

"If the system made us into the stars we became, why aren’t there 20 more like me or 10 more like Ye?”

That stuck with me since I read the article a few days ago. It's honestly a stronger defense of a free society than you generally hear from most people living in notionally free societies.

Particularly in the US, there's often a weird sort of... envy when you hear discussions about China. Both from the Right and the Left: the Right has an obvious boner for Chinese authoritarianism ("if only we could get away with stuff like that, without that pesky 'free press' and 'labor unions' and 'elections'!") while on the Tankie Left and in some squirrely corners of the intelligentsia, there's still people carrying water for Chairman Mao.

Even in policy circles, China's capital-S System and capital-P Party often get treated as a sort of unfair advantage. (Well yeah they may be doing some light genocide here and there, but just look at that GDP growth! And the infrastructure!) It's like the old adage about Mussolini (or Franco, Hitler, take your pick) being great, because they made the trains run on time.

What these hot takes from the West miss, and what I think Ye and Hao are painfully aware of, is the atrociously high cost that the Chinese people have paid, to allow a small cadre of let's-not-call-them-autocrats to basically run the country like the world's greatest SimCity game for decade after decade.

It might be that, far from unfairly advantaging China in the Great Game of national competition, its vaunted System has actually held it back.

How many talented people, how many brilliant-but-disruptive ideas, how much great yet challenging art, has been sacrificed on the altar of China Über Alles, because it didn't fit neatly into some pencildick's quarterly goal that supported the latest year of the most recent Grand National Strategy?

Or to put it in blatantly nationalist terms: just how much more fucked would we be here in the US, if the Chinese hadn't shot themselves in the feet over and over, by crushing (sometimes literally) the very sort of people whose dynamism and energy and general dissatisfaction with shit not working as well as it should, that tend to propel a nation and a people forwards?
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:25 PM on September 7, 2022 [3 favorites]

I honestly think the answer is (plausibly) not much, because had China straightforwardly liberalized and democratized then it would have been faced with the problem of being exploited by an already-existing neoliberal world order run by Western corporate interests. China would not have easily become another Japan, or Singapore. Like, it would have turned into Brazil, or another country disadvantaged by and thus made poor by exploitative global "free" trade--an aspect of world history that American liberals tend to gloss over in their analyses. I simply see that as a possibility given the hypothetical. And that's why I've come to empathize with the situation of mainland society even while I, a Taiwanese and HK Asian American, disagree with and am affected by, things such as Chinese authoritarianism, censorship and suppression of dissent, pro-CCP propaganda, etc.
posted by polymodus at 10:05 PM on September 7, 2022 [1 favorite]

Like, it would have turned into Brazil, or another country disadvantaged by and thus made poor by exploitative global "free" trade

I would suggest that Brazil was not made poor by modern trade, but by religious influences dating back to feudal Europe. Their birthrate was still very high through the last century, higher among the poor, and military juntas had their way with the economy as in China. Exploitation of resources under their direct autocratic rule is how it is described. It is true that global companies robbed many countries of oil when they could, but Brazil had no oil until now and Mexico nationalized theirs. It was the World Bank who built those roads into the rain forest to haul out timber, in the name of development, and it is local ranchers clearing the land for grazing today, against foreign pressure. Concerns about China can best be compared to Russia, Poland or Ukraine leaving communism. If any socially organized country can throw off its dictators and collect taxes, they should be able to handle the companies that want to trade with them. Aside from that, economics is not a zero sum game, and the supposed implosion of capitalism by reduced rates of profit has been debunked by a Marxist economist. This last point is important because anti-capitalism often rests on the common assumption that slavery is most profitable compared to other methods of making money using labor, which is likely wrong, and only serves outdated historical determinism.
posted by Brian B. at 8:43 AM on September 8, 2022 [1 favorite]