March, 2009

The Studies of Civil Society in Contemporary China:
Christian Reflections

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

　　The studies on contemporary Chinese civil society have far-reaching impact on Chinese society and international society in the 21st century. The previous article mentioned that Yu Jianxing 郁建興 has divided the studies of civil society in China into two stages.1 The first stage ran from the 1990s to the end of 20th century and proceeded with the reformation in China simultaneously. The second stage ran from the end of the 20th century to present, and its social background is different from that of the first stage. Since the end of the 20th century, China has further accelerated the  reform and made effort to be better connected to the world, and has achieved remarkable success. At the same time, however, social problems resulting from reforms have manifested in China gradually. Chinese scholars have been aware of the new problems and their focuses turn to new dimensions in the studies of civil society. This article discusses the four characteristics of the second stage regarding the studies of a civil society in China, namely, (1) some scholars have tried to build a model which is called “socialist civil society”; (2) case studies that are mainly related to non-governmental organizations have had impact on civil society theory and society; (3) the academic circle has paid much attention to the idea of “positive interaction” proposed by Deng Zhenglai 鄧正來 and Jing Yuejin 景躍進;2  (4) the role that may be taken by Chinese civil society in the future global civil society. After the discussions, I will provide some Christian reflections on it and suggest how the churches could take part in the building of a civil society in contemporary China.

　　First, the idea of “socialist civil society” was suggested by John Keane, who is the Professor of Politics at the University of Westminster in London. It refers to a non-state sphere composed of a wide range of public spheres. As for its main characteristics, this sphere is simultaneously separate from and dependent on the state, practices the principle of autonomy, is under the protection of law, and emphasizes equality and freedom; decision-making power in it is dispersed to the state, social organizations and individuals. The idea of a “socialist civil society” is different from the model of a “liberalist civil society” and “nationalist civil society.” The difference is that although the socialist civil society possesses the function of balancing the power of state, it does not emphasize the confrontational relationship between state and society. However, this area of research has just begun which only attracted a small number of Chinese scholars, and the research interests of many focus on case studies which overlook the normative dimension of civil society theory; this research direction has yet to be developed in the future.

　　Secondly, significant case studies mainly related to non-governmental organizations are advancing the development of the theory of a civil society in China. In these case studies, Chinese scholars focus on the analyses of different types of non-governmental organizations and the relationships between those organizations and state, market and civil society respectively. These fruitful research findings can help build and modify theories. However, Yu Jianxing points out that there are a lot of discrepancies in the theoretical frameworks and research methods in the above studies. This has added difficulties to those scholars who make efforts in building theory on the base of such research. He suggests that scholars conducting case studies on civil society should ask the following questions:

• What is the basis of a civil society in China, and what are the internal factors affecting the building of a civil society?
• How the social entities in Chinese political-socio phenomena interact with each other and what are the decisive factors?
• How could the theory of civil society be integrated with political philosophy?
• Could the existing basis unite with political philosophy thereof? What are the paths and methods of this unification?

　　Thirdly, the idea of “positive interaction” suggested by Deng Zhenglai and Jing Yuejin is increasingly recognized by scholars in the Chinese academic circle. The fundamental assumption of positive interaction is that “state and society are not inevitably opposed to each other.” The idea is considered by many to have the power to explain the reality of Chinese society today. In the economic sector, for example, the construction of socialist market economy and reformation of social autonomy have been advancing by the diverse interaction between the spheres both inside and outside the system gradually. At  the same time, essential resources and spaces are provided for the organizational process of society.

　　State and society interact with each other and fulfil their needs through intermediate organizations. On the one hand, while social organizations draw on the resources provided by the state to solve the problems that they face in their developmental process, society also gains autonomy from the state gradually. On the other hand, the state can rely on the social organizations to maintain social order and enhance its governance. As a result, the state could improve its integrating ability and legitimacy. Today, a state and society relation based on dynamic positive interaction has taken shape in China. This interactive model has also absorbed nutrients from different theories for continuous improvement, such as theories of governance, social capital, deliberative democracy, etc. Under the parallel development of theories and practices, the idea of positive interaction would continue to gain in popularity in the academic circle.

　　Lastly, the development of global civil society and Chinese civil society are closely connected with each other. In this stage, the former is an important driving force of the latter, and the latter is a strong potential of the further development of the former. As there are more and more international non-governmental organizations such as anti-poverty organizations, environmental protection organizations, child-aiding organizations, etc., Chinese social organizations and Chinese civil society have been changing obviously. For example, some government-supported organizations, which are inside the state system, have transformed into social organizations through the resources, experiences, techniques and talents of international organizations, and social organizations which are outside the state system, are also functioning well and gained appropriate nurture. Compared with the international organizations, however, Chinese social organizations still lack openness, enthusiasm and global vision. But as the effects of international society on Chinese society increase, and mainland academic circle are more enthusiastic about the study on global civil society, the linkage between Chinese civil society and global civil society would be developed steadily. It shows that another focal point of the second stage’s study on Chinese civil society is the interactive relationship between Chinese civil society and global civil society.

　　The following are my Christian reflections and suggestions regarding the studies of civil society in contemporary China. Firstly, the idea of positive interaction may be unfavorable to the building of an inclusive civil society. An inclusive civil society should have both non-critical and critical dimensions, and has its function in political, economic and cultural spheres. Positive interaction is well-recognized, however, as Chinese scholars emphasize more on the cooperation and complementation between state and society, and less on the critical demands the society makes for the state, especially demands to reform the political system. Moreover, under the state’s discourse framework in which “harmonious society” is the core value, positive interaction may lead the churches to focus only on the development of “hardware” in society and neglect their prophetic role; they would even assimilate into the state, thus losing its ability to contribute to an emerging critical civil society in China.

　　Secondly, the all-round development of global civil society and Chinese civil society depends on the tripartite interaction between the overseas churches, churches in mainland China and the bridging churches (e.g. church groups in Hong Kong or Taiwan). Overseas churches can actively approach different kinds of churches on the mainland, and bring valuable resources and experiences to the church members through direct participation or frequent contacts, thereby widening their horizons and encouraging them to advance the integration between Chinese society and international society. In the long run, this kind of relationship is in favor of building transnational networks based on mutual trust. On the other hand, overseas churches and bridging churches can frequently exchange their ideas on the situation of foreign countries and mainland China, and enable the free flow of information. For example, bridging churches can invite members overseas and those in mainland China to discuss the issues of global civil society and Chinese civil society, combining the theories proposed by academic circle and the operational experiences earned by organizations, guiding religious organizations in different areas to participate in the building of Chinese civil society and global civil society systematically.

　　Lastly, civil society theory could be a meaningful reference for the internal operation of churches. Churches are congregations that consist of people who have different attributes such as sex, ages, careers, classes, etc., and thereby they have different structure and are epitomes of society. Nevertheless, although a certain extent of heterogeneity exists within congregates, they also have the same religious identity, identifying themselves with the worldview and doctrines of Christianity, and accepting the leadership of churches. On the other hand, civil society theory and Christian doctrines are highly compatible with each other, so churches could try to use the connotations of civil society as their operational principles. For example, the relationships among believers are based on equality, respect and tolerance; they emphasize the importance of love and rational discussion simultaneously; hold varieties of activities such as missionary work, social services, spiritual cultivation, and concerning with political, economic and social issues, etc. For lay leaders, they should make good use of different resources for connecting churches and society. Also, they should possess vision that transcends their classes, leading churches and other believers to preach a more comprehensive good news, and spreading the spirit of Christ to every single corner from inside out.