January, 2009

The Studies of Civil Society in Contemporary China

LAW Wing Leung
Department of Religion and Philosophy,
Hong Kong Baptist University

Editor’s remark: In the coming four issues, “Civil Society in China” will be the main theme. Mr. Law Wing Leung, a graduate student of the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University, will give an introduction to the current studies of the concept and issue of civil society in contemporary China and he will review these studies from a Christian perspective (Issue 242-243). Helena Wong Pik-wan, Lecturer of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, will review the rights-defense movement and cyberspace politics in China from a wider perspective (Issue 244). Ms. Sandy Wong's article, rather than treating the problem of civil society from a theoretical point of view, examines a recent debate on the Green Dam software and the abortive attempt of the PRC government to have this web-filtering software installed on all new computers in the country (Issue 245).

　　The Chinese scholars’ studies of civil society today are important clues as to the building of a civil society and the role of Christian churches in contemporary China. Yu Jianxing郁建興, the director of the Institute for Civil Society Development of Zhejiang University, suggests that the studies of contemporary Chinese civil society can be divided into two stages.1 The first stage ran from 1992 to the end of the 20th century. The second stage ran from the end of 20th century to present day. Slight differences between the two stages as to their social background account for their respective characteristics. The present author will elaborate the characteristics of the two stages separately in two articles. This article will focus on the first stage.

　　Since the 1980s, the concept of civil society has attracted the attention of researchers in the field of political science and sociology. After the Beijing democratic movement broke out in 1989, some Chinese scholars focused on the issue of civil society in China in the 1990s. They were chiefly concerned about whether a civil society had existed in China, whether it could be built, and what the relationship between socialist modernism and civil society should be. Among those scholars were Tong Yanqi童燕齊, Deng Zhenglai鄧正來and Jing Yuejin景躍進.2 Their discussions on Chinese civil society will be described separately below.

　　First, Tong has pointed out that scholars generally agree that the connotation of civil society includes: a society which is separate from the state, self-organized by social actors, based on rationality, built on civil rights guaranteed by law (e.g., freedom of speech, association, press and conscience), maintained by civil culture in which “independent of government’s control is the most crucial characteristic of civil society.” The degree of independence of a society depends on the level of maturity demonstrated both in civil society and public sphere. They are closely interrelated with each other, and yet two different parts. The public sphere refers to the sphere between state and society (or social actors); it could concretely exist as public places, the publication of newspapers and magazines, and institutional channels. Both public sphere and civil society affirm the importance of independence from the state, but the former focuses on the sphere in which the state, social organizations and individuals could discuss social issues, and the latter emphasizes the self-organizing of society.

　　Since the concept civil society and public sphere have been extensively used, some scholars hold that it is necessary to clarify the meaning of these concepts. When using the concept of civil society, we have to recognize the difference between autonomy and democracy. In general, “Varieties of social organizations’ … existence is meaningful to independence and autonomy of society, but it may not be meaningful to democratization.” For example, a society that has independent economic and cultural organizations but has no independent political organizations may be in favor of its independence and autonomy, but it may not be in favor of democracy. Based on the logic above, some scholars have distinguished between economic civil society and political civil society, or between non-critical civil society and critical civil society. Similarly, public sphere could be classified into managerial civil society and critical civil society. Put simply, in a non-critical society and managerial society, citizens could participate in managerial public affairs such as providing different kinds of social services and dealing with local affairs; whereas in a critical society, citizens could discuss and criticize government policies. To take the church as an example, if it aims at participating in local affairs and providing social services only, then the civil society that they try to build might belong to a non-critical kind. If its pursuits include participation in political and public affairs, then the civil society that they try to build might belong to a critical kind. The latter would have positive contribution to democratization. Therefore, how to define civil society is a key factor in building a civil society and developing democratic system in China.

　　Besides, the nature of state-society relations is closely connected with the development of civil society. Tong believes that positive-sum relation simultaneously reinforces the state’s ability to maintain control and society’s ability to govern itself, and the method for doing so is that social organizations could cooperate with the reformists or even moderates in the state. At the national level, politicians could confine their power to the realm of ideology, politics and economy, and take the role as an arbitrator. It means that “any problem that can be solved by individuals, society, enterprises and market should then let they do it. If they cannot solve the problem, the government should intervene. If local government cannot do it either, then the central government should intervene. Communist Party could only be the last judge.” In fact, it is no doubt that the reformation enforced by the Chinese government in the end of the 1970s has provided spaces for the growth of civil society. However, since the state still has worries over independent social organizations and manipulates most of the resources, the majority of social organizations in China have a semi-official and semi-public character, or are differentiated from government organs. At the societal level, leaders of organizations, who possess duality, could bear the intermediate role between state and society. On one hand, duality means that the intermediate elites identify themselves with the state and are the extension of state power. On the other hand, they protect the interests of social organizations and the civil rights. Based on the observation of Tong, the duality has two characteristics. Firstly, it mostly belongs to non-critical but not critical in nature. Secondly, it varies with the environmental conditions, for example, political atmosphere, in times of crisis, etc. Whether or not those elites can influence government policies, their most important contribution is that they encourage the public to participate in public affairs. It helps cultivate civil culture that a mature civil society needs, and rectifies the traditional overemphasis on Guanxi and neglect of law. Also, Tong holds that civil society is the basis of social stability and democratic system, and civil rights and civil culture are the essential elements that constitute a civil society in China. Furthermore, the development of a civil society requires the endeavor of both the state and society.

　　Deng Zhenglai and Jing Yuejin also discussed the building of a civil society in China early in the 1990s. They consider that the existence of a civil society is an effective way for solving the problems caused by modernization. The core problem of the modernization in China is “how to reconstruct the political structure and authority type, and enable it to re-acquire legitimacy and social force on a new basis, and transform to a political center which is modernization-oriented”. The difficulty is that how can the state both maintain social stability and avoid regression of political structure within the context of reformation. But the problem cannot be solved by neo-authoritarianism（新權威主義）and the theory of democratic leading（民主先導論）that only focus on the transition of political authority. It is because the most fundamental problem “is that no benign structure, that is suitable for the development of modernization, has been formed between state and society, to be more exact, is that there is no independent and autonomous structural realm in society all along.” Chinese civil society could be able to exert its influence in this dilemma, by fostering market economy and laying the foundation for itself, acting as a social force inhibiting the power of state and avoiding regression, constructing social conditions for democratic system such as different kinds of autonomous organizations, making the pattern of interest of society more diversified and depoliticized so as to foster social stability.

　　Deng and Jing have stated that the concept of a civil society changes in different stages of history and society, and it possesses both characteristics of universalism and particularism. As for universalistic characteristics, it is based on market economy and contractual relationship, and respects and protects social members’ basic rights. For the civil society in China, it refers to a private sector where social actors carry out economic and social activities in terms of contractual rules, voluntary and autonomy, and an unofficial public sphere where people can debate on and participate in politics. It consists of individuals, congregations, social organizations and interests groups but does not include peasants whose lives are completely dependent on lands; entrepreneurs and intellectuals are the core members because they have modern consciousnesses and abilities that can influence state’s policies; the ties among social members are built on contractual relationship but not kinship and administrative relationship; therefore people’s basic human rights and ownership could be affirmed. Further, it has autonomy and is protected by law, but if civil society could not solve its internal problems itself, the state should intervene. In other words, the degree of independence of a civil society is proportional to its maturity level; members could join or quit any organizations as they want or think fit.

　　In view of the tension between the “state higher than society” and “society higher than state” positions, Deng and Jing proposed the idea of the “positive interaction” between the state and society. The idea emphasizes the kind of “two-way and moderate balancing relationship; the two parties could better to solve their problems themselves through such kind of interaction, and balance the overall development of society that involves the universal interest maintained by state, and particularly, the interest defended by civil society.” From the point of view of state, it should firstly recognize the independence of civil society and provide legal protection. In addition, if civil society could not solve the internal conflicts itself, state should coordinate with it or intervene, and the method could only be legal and economic means but not political means. From the point of view of civil society, it has to strive for freedom, independence and autonomy, and balance the power of state. On the other hand, it should aim at cultivating pluralistic social patterns and lay the foundations for democratic system.

　　In terms of strategy, Deng and Jing suggest that the building of a civil society in China can be divided into two stages. The first stage is the building of a civil society which enjoys autonomy, and at the same time a dualist structure of state and society exists. The state should reform government departments from top to bottom and gradually retreat from the socio-economic sector. Members of civil society should focus on cultivating social awareness. The second stage is the mature stage aiming at improving the quality of a civil society. It enables citizens to affect state’s policies through different ways. In order to guarantee that citizens could engage in political process, the state has to build up a set of institutional procedures and norms. The two stages suggested above could be developed in parallel to a certain extent.