Hong Kong’s countermessage to ethnic patriotism

The long and popular protests have helped forge a civic identity in contrast to Beijing’s imposed ‘dream’ of cultural unity around a racial stereotype of Chinese subservience.

Reuters
Chinese soldiers practice detaining a person at an athletic center in Shenzhen across the bay from Hong Kong August 15.

For three months, at least a third of Hong Kong’s population of only 7 million has been protesting for democratic rights in the streets of the semi-autonomous territory. Yet Beijing’s powerful leader, Xi Jinping, has not crushed the demonstrations. Why? Does he worry about economic fallout? Or the loss of China’s hopes to be seen as a benign global leader?

One possibility is that Mr. Xi would be crushing one of his claims to power: the promise of a “China dream.” This grand idea, repeated again and again, rests in part on a racial stereotype. It is the myth that all people of Chinese descent share a cultural unity and their political identity must be defined – and enforced – by the Communist Party.

It is this notion of ethnic patriotism – or bloodlines as destiny – that has been so ably challenged by the protesters. Their embrace of civil values as a collective identity is not based on dimensions of “Chineseness.” They have forged a cultural unity around the daily practice of freedom of speech and assembly, equality under a system of law left by British rule, and political transparency and accountability.

Hong Kongers – which most prefer to be called instead of Chinese – have coalesced around a shared self-governance, mutual respect, and open-mindedness. The crushing of the protests could not crush this internalized identity. A violent display of authority would expose the empty myth of a homogeneous ethnicity. The emperor would be seen as having no clothes.

Since his rise to power in 2012, Mr. Xi has tried to extend his “China dream” to both Hong Kong and the independent island nation of Taiwan. In a 2015 meeting with Taiwan’s then-leader, Ma Ying-jeou, he stated, “We [China and Taiwan] are brothers connected by flesh even if our bones are broken. We are a family whose blood is thicker than water.”

The Taiwanese, who have enjoyed democracy for three decades, do not buy this claim, especially as it is made under the threat of military coercion. Nearly two-thirds of the country’s 23 million citizens see themselves as Taiwanese, not Chinese. Their view is reinforced by Beijing’s rising threats against the Hong Kong protesters.

The “China dream” is based on the work of Mr. Xi’s ideology mastermind, Wang Huning. The former scholar sits on the party’s powerful politburo. His writings argue that Chinese people are prone to accept authoritarian rule out of Confucian-style reverence. They are “descendants of the dragon” and not yet advanced in their thinking to really know their interests. They need the paternalistic rule of an unchallenged Communist Party, not a system based on the choice of individuals. Mr. Wang says democratic freedoms and basic rights are “self-defeating.”

Cultural typecasting is not unique to China’s rulers. Many leaders hold to power on claims of ethnic cohesiveness rather than a civic nation.

In their thinking and actions, Hong Kong’s protesters have already overthrown Mr. Xi’s ethnic branding. Their conscience is already free. Their identity is chosen, not given, and rooted in universal values, not an imposed dream of ancestral traits. Whatever crackdown may still be imposed, this self-determined identity cannot be crushed. This may be giving Mr. Xi pause.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.