Introduction: reconsidering Chinese citizenship: cultural roots and cultural reach

ABSTRACT

The study of citizenship in China has become popular not only as a research topic but also as a praxis that seeks to influence citizenship-related policies and address structural injustice. Analysis of the trajectory of developing citizenship research over the decades indicates that scholarship focusing on socioeconomic injustice has affected various policy actions, and the struggle associated with the cultural dimension of citizenship seems to have intensified. This special issue deconstructs the state’s monolithic interpretation of culture and examines the cultural underpinnings of citizenship discourse and practice in China. We take a broad view of cultural traditions, which have been deeply rooted throughout history and have shaped the underlying relationships between the state, society, and citizens in modern China. The articles in this special issue reveal the culture-informed citizenship practices enacted by various actors, including the government forces, cultural minorities, and grassroots activists. They suggest that spirituality is a site of experiencing and negotiating citizenship in the Chinese context.

KEYWORDS:

• Chinese citizenship
• cultural citizenship
• spirituality
• nationalism

Introduction

Studies of Chinese citizenship have suggested that conceptions of citizenship in China are embedded in historical and cultural patterns distinct from those of the West (e.g. Goldman and Perry 2002; Guo and Guo 2015; Woodman and Guo 2017; Guo 2022a, 2022b). However, few studies have investigated the cultural underpinnings of citizenship discourse and practice in China. China has wielded soft power and endeavoured to broaden cultural reach in recent decades, and critical reflection on China’s diverse cultural traditions from both local and international perspectives can improve our understanding of Chinese citizenship.

This special issue explores the roles played by a wide spectrum of cultural traditions in constructing citizenship discourse and practice in contemporary China. It takes a broad view of cultural traditions, some of which developed indigenously, such as the intellectual historical tradition of the Hua/Yi (Chinese/barbarian) distinction; Confucianism; and Islam and Christianity, both of which have a long history in China but are experiencing political tensions as they come into conflict with the power of the state. These traditions have been deeply rooted in China’s political and social conditions throughout history and have shaped the underlying relationships between the state, society, and citizens in modern China. Adopting a variety of research methods, including historical and conceptual analysis, fieldwork, and interviews, the seven articles in this special issue reveal culture-informed citizenship practices in various scenarios.

In this introduction, we first examine two directions for addressing structural injustice with the rise of citizenship studies in China and discuss why reconsidering the construction and practice of citizenship from a cultural perspective is imperative. In the following, we present our theoretical framework of cultural citizenship to analyse the relationship between culture and citizenship. We then review the seven articles collected in this special issue to discuss how they contribute new insights into culture and citizenship (Turner 2001). Finally, we present concluding thoughts.

The rise of citizenship studies in China and why culture matters

The study of citizenship in China is still a very recent issue, as at the end of the 20th century, there were few research works on Chinese citizenship (Fogel and Zarrow 1997; Solinger 1999). However, the field has developed rapidly in the last several decades. This is the third special issue published in Citizenship Studies, following ‘Practicing Citizenship in Contemporary China’, guest-edited by Woodman and Guo (2017), and ‘Developmental Citizenship in China: Economic Reform, Social Governance and Chinese Post-Socialism’, guest-edited by Chang (2020). In addition, the Journal of Chinese Political Studies published two special issues on the subject of Chinese citizenship, namely ‘Chinese Citizen, Citizenship and Politics’ (Guo 2014) and ‘Chinese Citizenship and Political Performance’ (Xia and Guo 2016). More recently, Social Transformations in Chinese Societies published a special issue titled ‘Beyond the State Reach: Education and Citizen-Making in China (Zhao and Wang 2023). The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Citizenship by Guo (2022a) includes a comprehensive review of the understanding of the practice of citizenship in the Chinese context, including the historical origin of citizenship, citizenship rights and obligations, citizenship participation, cultural citizenship, citizenship education, and citizenship in Chinese special regions. It is the first handbook for a specific country in the history of citizenship studies.

Citizenship studies in China have become popular not only as a research topic but also as a praxis that seeks to influence citizenship-related policies and address structural injustice (Dahlgren 2006; Yiu 2016; Woodman 2017, 2022). The ideals of citizenship, such as equality, freedom, inclusion, and cultural recognition, offer an alternative vision to reconsider and change the conventional governance paradigm, which prioritises the role of the state and collectivism in citizens’ public life (Chang 2020; Guo 2022a, 2022b). Reflection on the Chinese experience of practising citizenship over the decades suggests two directions related to ‘political and social struggles of recognition and redistribution’ (Isin and Turner 2002, 2).

The first direction is to dismantle structurally embedded injustice based on citizenship ideals of equal participation, particularly for socioeconomically vulnerable groups such as rural residents and migrant workers. The literature on household registration (also known as the hukou system) provides an example, as citizenship offers a theoretical tool to discuss how the household registration system causes segregation and inequality among Chinese citizens (e.g. Vortherms 2015, 2022). Migrant workers offer another example of the power of citizenship as a theoretical framework to research and change the structure of residential segregation based on urban and rural spaces (e.g. Solinger 1999; Xu 2016; Woodman 2017).

The second direction concerns the various forms of struggle related to the cultural dimension of citizenship, specifically the struggle for rights associated with cultural respect and recognition (Stevenson 2003). Scholarship in this dimension focuses on the question of ‘who is silenced, marginalised, stereotyped and rendered invisible’ at the national and international levels (Stevenson 2003, 336). For example, research has emerged about the construction of a ‘de-Westernised’ and ‘contextualised’ understanding of citizenship in the Chinese context (Guo 2022b), including conceptions of rights and responsibilities (Janoski 1998, 2014), minority rights (He 2005), citizen identity (Wang 2024), and education for citizenship (Chia and Zhao 2023; Kennedy, Fairbrother, and Zhao 2014; Zhao 2014). Guo (2022a) contended that the Chinese practice of citizenship tends to avoid radical actions, instead preferring non-confrontational methods. Struggles have also been undertaken by culturally marginalised groups within China, such as ethnic minority groups (Yi 2008; Yang 2017; Woo, Easthope, and Kyung-Sup 2020; Zhao 2010), people with special needs (Dauncey 2020), and sexual minorities (Yang 2019). They negotiate with the state for their citizenship rights and for national cultural recognition.

Considering the theory – praxis nexus of citizenship studies in these two directions, we find that the literature related to socioeconomic injustice has affected various policy actions. For example, the Chinese central government has gradually relaxed the rigid household registration system and has issued new measures encouraging the inclusion of migrant workers and their children in cities over the past decade (Chen and Feng 2019; Liu and ten Brink 2022). Some metropolitan cities have developed points systems to allow migrant workers to obtain temporary or permanent residency and have granted migrant children access to urban public schools (Vickers 2022). Although such policy changes have been modest and the problems have not been fully addressed, research has shown that such policies have affected the livelihood of socioeconomically vulnerable groups in China.

Such changes present an interesting contrast with the debate in citizenship studies from a cultural perspective seems to have intensified. Examples include the development of a contextualised understanding of citizenship given China’s cultural traditions (e.g. Guo 2022b; Wang 2024) and the identity politics in China’s ethnic minority communities and contested spaces such as Hong Kong (e.g. Yi 2008; Lam and Cooper 2017; Yang 2017; Woo, Easthope, and Kyung-Sup 2020; Vickers 2022). They show an increasing discrepancy between China and the rest of the world in the development of a cultural understanding of citizenship. Challenges concern not only the political regime but also cultural norms in larger society. For example, Guo and Tao (2023) investigated the public debate on the central government’s issue of the Regulations of the PRC on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners in 2020, which granted immigrants Chinese citizenship. They found that public understanding of ‘Chinese citizenship’ is discursively grounded in ideas of race-based cultural superiority. Such a deep-rooted Chinese/non-Chinese dichotomy is an obstacle for further reforming China’s citizenship policies.

Analysis of the trajectory of citizenship studies in China has indicated the importance of adopting a cultural lens to reconsider the practice of citizenship in the Chinese context. This is particularly pressing given that in the current Xi administration (2012 to the present), traditional cultures are interpreted, packaged, and incorporated into the negotiation of citizenship policies (Chen 2023) to forge a culturally homogeneous Chinese entity. In the following, we address recent changes in the Chinese context, in which the authorities have incorporated traditional culture into their framework for political legitimacy, aiming to re-establish China’s cultural superiority both domestically and internationally. The incorporation of these values has helped to restructure legitimacy in China’s reform period, when social values diverged (Kubat 2018). We then present our theoretical framework and discuss how this special issue contributes new insights into Chinese citizenship.

Cultural citizenship as a theoretical framework: who owns culture?

The idea of ‘cultural roots’ was explicitly highlighted by President Xi Jinping (2017) in his lecture at the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), where he set out his policy vision after his initial 5-year term, saying, ‘Socialist ethos with Chinese characteristics is derived from China’s fine traditional culture, which was born of Chinese civilization and nurtured over more than 5,000 years’. In Xi’s narrative, these cultural roots are underpinned by the discourse of Chinese civilisation (Zhonghua wenming), which he has also referred to as a ‘cultural gene’ in public speeches since he took office in 2012. As shown in nationally mandatory teaching materials on learning Xi Jinping Thought, Xi’s narratives about Chinese civilisation highlight China’s uniqueness compared with other countries.

China is a giant country with a history of civilisation of more than 5,000 years, and it has been at the forefront of the world for a long time. Among the four ancient civilisations in the world, only the Chinese civilisation has been continuously passed down to the present.¹

This quote shows that the aim of the narrative about cultural roots is to base China’s uniqueness on the civilisation discourse. Interestingly, the outlook of this vision is not inward; instead, post-Mao administrations have aspired to wield more global influences (Callahan 2015). In a recent policy directive entitled ‘A Global Community of Shared Future: China’s Proposals and Actions’, the Xi administration further developed the vision of constructing a ‘community of common destiny’ (renlei mingyun gongtongti) based on the development of Chinese cultural traditions. This policy directive was issued in September 2023 and has been translated into English, and French, Russian, German, Spanish, Arabic, and Japanese versions will be released soon (Foreign Language Press 2023). The directive addresses how China’s cultural heritage can contribute to shaping a ‘unique’ path to modernisation and develop a vision of establishing ‘a global community for the future’:

The concept of a global community of shared future has deep roots in China’s profound cultural heritage and its unique experience of modernisation. It carries forward the diplomatic traditions of the People’s Republic of China and draws on the outstanding achievements of all other civilizations. It manifests China’s time-honored historical traditions, distinct characteristics of the times, and a wealth of humanistic values. (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China 2023, Section III. Deep Roots in History and Cultural Traditions)

In this directive, China also proposed a new plan for improving global governance and addressing challenges in the contemporary world. One of the five proposed actions² is ‘promoting the common values of humanity’:

All countries should treat each other with respect and as equals, discard arrogance and prejudice, deepen understanding of the differences between its own civilization and others, and promote dialogue and harmonious coexistence between different civilizations. Every country should value its own civilization, appreciate others, and facilitate their common progress. We should keep our own civilizations dynamic and create conditions for other civilizations to flourish. Together we can make the garden of world civilizations colorful and vibrant. All countries should be open and inclusive, promote mutual learning, strive to remove all barriers to cultural exchanges, and seek nourishment from other civilizations to promote the common development of all civilizations. (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China 2023, Section IV. Direction and Path)

Such actions relate closely to the Confucian ideal of ‘harmony-with-diversity’ (he er bu tong), addressing the distinction between ‘harmony’ (he) and ‘same’ (tong) (Callahan 2015). Extracted from The Analects, the original writing is ‘The exemplary person harmonises with others, but does not necessarily agree with them (i.e. harmony-with-diversity); the small person agrees with others, but is not harmonious with them’ (Callahan 2015, 994). Some post-1949 intellectual and political elites borrowed the idea in advancing a vision of managing the issue of cultural diversity (Callahan 2015).

Such a discourse begs some interesting questions regarding the understanding of culture: Who owns culture? Who participates in the modern meaning-making and remaking processes of culture? Who speaks for culture?

In contrast to the party-state’s civilisation discourse, some researchers have contended that Chinese culture has continuity but undergoes continuous change (Wang 1991; Tang 2015). For example, Confucianism ‘has been in a continuous state of development’ and has benefited from Buddhism, which was imported into Chinese culture during the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE), Daoism, and other cultural traditions over the course of its history (Yao 2000, 68). There has also been dynamic dialogue and interaction between Confucianism and Christianity and Buddhism throughout history (Hayhoe 2018). These examples show that culture, conceived as fluid and dynamic, has vibrant potential to transcend the boundaries of modern nation-states. As a modern invention by political and intellectual elites of the early twentieth century, the current notion of the Chinese nation features cultural homogeneity but downplays China’s ethno-religious complexities and ideological heterogeneities (Nathan 1993; Tang 2015; Jenco 2019).

In this special issue, we adopt the theoretical perspective of cultural citizenship to dismantle the authorities’ civilisation discourse and explore the interplay between the dynamics of Chinese cultures and citizenship. Dahlgren (2006, 281–282) argued that citizenship acts ‘as a terrain for cultural studies’, as the understanding of citizenship and civic agency closely relate to ‘the processes of meaning-making in specific settings’, which is a core expertise of cultural studies. Approaching culture from a citizenship perspective deconstructs the reproduction of the cultural hegemony of the state and/or the dominant group and emphasises nurturing ‘a participatory democracy culture’ in communal life (Stevenson 2003, 335). Ong (Ong et al. 1996, 738) conceptualised cultural citizenship as ‘self-making and being-made within webs of power linked to the nation-state and civil society’. Through the dismantling of unequal power relationships, cultural citizenship informs individuals to develop political agency and ‘build themselves as particular kinds of citizens’ (Lazar and Nuijten 2013, 5). In this sense, Yi (2022, 428) described cultural citizenship as ‘reflective acts’ related to different social positions. By exploring the roles of these diverse cultural traditions in constructing Chinese citizenship discourse and practice, this special issue deconstructs the state’s monolithic interpretation of culture and reveals multiple cultural dynamics in various scenarios.

An overview of the seven articles: what can the Chinese experience tell us about culture and citizenship?

Lee (2004) observed that spirituality is a highly important issue for making citizens in the Chinese context, but it has received limited attention in international discussions on citizenship. The anthropologist Yuxiang Yan (2017) compared the constructions of personhood in the modern West and the Chinese context and found that the differences influence conceptions of individual rights and obligations:

In the modern West, the reflective self has been doing the ethical work of justifying and legitimizing various kinds of individual desires, ranging from political freedom to consumer wants to sexual orientation, all in the name of individual rights. In the Chinese case, until very recently, the opposite is at work – the reflective self has been mobilized to control the various kinds of desires in order to fulfil obligations to collectivities, ranging from the family to the nation-state. (Yan 2017, 13)

Yan’s (2017) observation indicates the importance of spirituality in controlling one’s desires to undertake collective obligations. Spirituality is at the core of the traditional Chinese cultivation of personhood. Wang and Wang (2021, 19) analysed Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist cultures, three primary cultural traditions in ancient China, and argued that these traditions all orient individuals to continuously foster ‘the underlying goodness of human nature in an individual through the process of self-cultivation’. Spirituality also influences the practice of education for citizenship, which emerged in modern China after the collapse of the Qing Empire (1644–1911). Zhao, Kennedy, and Wang (2022) argued that modern China’s development of citizenship education emphasises the construction of civic belief systems and that the teaching of dominant values tends to be interpreted as spiritual commitment by individual citizens to meet their spiritual needs.

Efforts have been made to bridge the domains of spirituality and citizenship, and some studies in non-Chinese contexts have shown an intricate relationship between them. For example, Castor (2017) conducted ethnographic fieldwork in Trinidad and argued that the postcolonial performance of Ifá/Orisha practices transformed practitioners from different backgrounds into spiritual citizens who share a sense of belonging and are motivated to achieve citizenship ideals such as freedom, equality, and social justice. This cultural shift is referred to as a growth of ‘spiritual citizenship’, which is defined as ‘the rights and responsibilities of belonging to community, informed by spiritual epistemologies, that is, not limited to the national but also inclusive of the diasporic, global, and transnational’ (Castor 2017, 6). Subedi and Rhee (2018, 386) argued that spirituality is linked to citizenship, as ‘the notion of spirituality has been a dynamic and inherent part of a community’s ways of making sense of history and experiences in various oppressive conditions of life’. In this sense, spirituality can be approached as ‘a site of cultural citizenship’ for marginalised communities, as it has served as ‘a space of possibility for radical ways of articulating citizenships for more democratic futures’ (Subedi and Rhee 2018, 385–386).

The seven articles in this special issue consider both historical and contemporary dimensions to showcase how spirituality is a site of experiencing and negotiating citizenship, in which the various actors seek to dismantle the processes of ‘being made’ (Ong et al. 1996, 738) and negotiate acts of citizenship related to equality, belonging, and rights. The research findings expand the scope of Chinese citizenship beyond Han-centrism.

In the first article, Z. Guo traces the traditional Chinese understanding of diversity and unity, a longstanding discourse of the Hua/Yi (Chinese/barbarian) distinction, which lasted for nearly 3,000 years in China and then gradually faded away. The distinction between the Hua and Yi not only is based on their geographical locations (the Hua were those living in the central area of China and the Yi were the ethnic minorities living in marginal areas) but is also cultural (the Hua and Yi people differed in their rigid and complex ritual institutions, as reflected in their clothing, food, housing, behaviour, and lifestyle). Yet Yi people could become members of the Hua community through cultural acquisition. Drawing on rich historic documents, Z. Guo analyses how ideological tradition was replaced by a more equal vision of cultural groups during the Qing Dynasty, which was founded by an ethnic minority (Manchu) originating in the north-eastern part of China. The Qing Dynasty was the last dynasty of imperial China, and it played a role in China’s transition between the pre-modern and modern eras. Z. Guo also discusses how the changes in that ideological tradition relate to the formation of modern/contemporary Chinese citizenship.

T. Guo and You conduct multi-site fieldwork in Yunnan province and reveal the practice of citizenship by villages in the multi-ethnic, multi-religious context of China’s southwestern borderland. The villagers managed to preserve their traditional religious practice (including Tibetan Buddhism, Catholicism, Dongba, and Daoism) and lived peacefully in the local community. They developed strategies to cope with the state’s exercise of power in inventing new identities for them, such as ascribing an ethnic minority membership as part of the Chinese nation and adopting surnames that are common in the Han majority but rare in non-Han minority groups, such as ethnic Tibetans. The villagers struggled to some extent to maintain freedom in their spiritual world while enjoying some entitlements in daily life as citizens.

Ho examines the role played by citizenship in accommodating the differences between Muslims and non-Muslims and legitimising the cultural expressions of Islam and Muslim practices in China. In China, Muslim citizens number approximately 25 million, accounting for around 1.6% of the national population (Wani 2023). They are distributed across over 10 ethnic groups (minzu), such as Hui, Uyghurs, and Kazakhs. Conducting fieldwork in China’s ethno-religious communities has become increasingly challenging for researchers situated outside China. Drawing on information from the Chinese-speaking and English-speaking worlds, Ho’s conceptual and reflective analysis reveals the tension between faith communities and the state’s campaign to Sinicise religions. China’s prioritisation of national citizenship over religious rights has triggered concerns about private and public boundaries in a citizen’s spiritual life.

Wang and Huang’s study explores the Confucian-inspired dynamics of civic action in contemporary efforts to disseminate Confucian classical education (dujing) globally. The authors interviewed 19 Chinese parents residing in Germany who engage their children in education in the Chinese classics. In recent years, such practice, inspired by the revival of Confucian education, has expanded from domestic China to overseas diasporic communities. Through seeking to understanding parents’ motivations and experiences, this study finds that engaging in Confucian education is part of Chinese immigrants’ process of constructing their ethnic identity, which is built on Confucian morality and ethics and the acquisition of the Chinese language. The interview data from overseas Chinese parents provide vivid evidence of the potential of Confucianism to accommodate a multicultural or cosmopolitan identity. As discussed in the paper, the Chinese parents aspired to cultivate the new generation as ‘Confucian cosmopolitan citizens who are virtuous and wise and who are conversant with both Chinese and Western cultures’, which is regarded as the ultimate goal of education in their vision.

Based on multi-site ethnographic fieldwork with educational activists and student families, Zhang examines how grassroots actors engaged in private education initiatives for adult and adolescent learners in urban China. Those activists mobilised and integrated two cultural resources to explore a new approach called ‘experimental education’ to address the perceived deficiencies of mainland China’s state education system. The first resource is Chinese traditional culture, which is a blend of Buddhist, Confucian, and Daoist traditions in Zhang’s case study, and the second is Steiner education, an international alternative education movement based on Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner’s writings and pedagogy. Zhang’s study reveals how Chinese grassroots actors, acting as subjects, mobilise their affectivity to construct cultural citizenship belonging. The individuals involved in the study do not encounter a challenge with legal citizenship status, but they struggle for ‘the right to be different and to belong’. The theoretical insights into ‘affective cultural citizenship’ that Zhang reveals indicate the importance of the affective/sensory dimensions of cultural citizenship, which relate to the emancipation and freedom of a citizen-actor’s spiritual self.

Tse and Chan explore how Christian activists and organisations engaged in the articulation and practice of citizenship in Hong Kong, a former British colony (1841–1997) with both Chinese and non-Chinese inhabitants from various cultural and religious backgrounds. Owing to its unique history, Hong Kong offers a different setting in which to examine the practice of citizenship in the Chinese context, as national citizenship was not fully applied to the pre-handover regime in the territory. Through exploring the personal accounts of members of two prominent Christian organisations and their organisational documents, the authors find that the Christian worldview helps to impart new values such as social ethics and human rights among the local converts and that the Christian organisations are also involved in social and political activism. Compared with mainland China, Hong Kong has nurtured a more active civic culture and a vibrant civil society. The article proposes a faith-based active citizenship framework to elucidate the contextualisation of a Christian tradition and citizenship in the Chinese context. The framework helps to understand the development of a vision of citizenship ideals concerning identity construction, diversity, and social participation in Hong Kong.

Zhao takes a bottom-up view of the construction of an ‘ideal’ citizen in Xi’s new era by giving voice to a group of university teachers who implement educational policies and curricula on the ground. The findings reveal a dilemma in transmitting traditional cultures in state education, even though post-Mao Chinese societies have witnessed a cultural revival. The informants stated that the students’ learning of traditional cultures tends to be disorganised and unsystematic. Although the authorities use traditional cultures to legitimise the cultivation of patriotic, loyal, and passive citizens (Chen 2023; Vickers 2022), the teachers resist the politicisation of traditional cultures. They believe that political and ideological campaigns cannot thoroughly replace a citizen’s spiritual life and that traditional cultures serve as a source of empowerment in the search for spirituality.

Concluding thoughts

In this special issue, we focus primarily on mainland China, but we also include Hong Kong, which developed different political and cultural heritages before the handover in 1997, as well as overseas Chinese communities that are sandwiched between China and the rest of the world. Isin (2002, 124) highlighted the importance of developing ‘conceptions of citizenship that will do justice to struggle of recognition and redistribution’ through approaching other non-Western cultures. This is referred to as ‘citizenship after orientalism’ (Isin 2002, 2012). This special issue draws on the Chinese experience and enriches the discussion by examining the various cultural underpinnings of Chinese citizenship from both historical and contemporary perspectives.

The seven articles reveal culture-informed citizenship practices enacted by various actors, including government forces, cultural minorities (ethnic Muslim citizens, villages in multi-ethnic communities, and the Chinese diaspora), and grassroots activists (including educational activists in mainland China and Christian social activists in transitional Hong Kong). Those actors are situated in different social positions, including at the national and grassroots levels, as well as in central and peripheral spaces.

We argue that spirituality is a site of struggle for constructing and exercising ‘political subjectivity’ (Isin 2012, 571), where power relations are interwoven into the process of meaning-making to negotiate inclusion and exclusion. Spirituality is ‘a way of being’ that involves ‘self-transcendence and self-reflexivity’ (Stoddart 2007, 771). Spirituality is associated with identity politics but is not confined to one particular identity. According to Stoddart (2007, 771), ‘spirituality transcends citizenship, but it is also embodied or actualised within it’.

China has a long tradition, largely owing to Confucian orthodoxy, of adopting a paternalistic approach to governing individuals’ spiritual realm, in which the state has viewed its duties as guiding and protecting ‘people’s physical and material livelihoods in addition to their spiritual livelihoods’ (Kennedy, Fairbrother, and Zhao 2014, 224). Apart from the authorities’ paternalistic logic, the distinction between citizens’ private and public domains tends to be blurred in China’s traditional spiritual realm. For example, Zhao and Lee (2023) traced the interpretation of the meaning of life in modern China’s civics curriculum from 1902 to 2020 and found that the various civics curricula show a strong tendency to urge individual citizens to sacrifice or dedicate their lives to various political and civic ideals, but that an awareness of life as a right took root in Chinese society through this turbulent period. Throughout the past century, there has been growing concern about individual autonomy in terms of the self-regulation of one’s life and the search for a meaningful life. The research findings in this special issue show that culturally marginalised individuals and groups resist ‘being made’ (Ong et al. 1996, 738) in their spiritual worlds and seek self-government as members of local, national, and global communities.

Our final point concerns the relationship between culture and citizenship, as some articles in this special issue suggest the resilience and role of marginal cultures in spiritually empowering individual citizens in an authoritarian society. We join Stoddart (2007) in contending that citizenship can inform adherents of particular spiritual traditions in reflecting on their worldviews and the common good. In addressing the relationship between spirituality and citizenship, Stoddart (2007, 779) stated, ‘Despite their claims and aspirations to all-encompassing and integrative worldviews, spiritual traditions must accept that they form one (perhaps often the predominant) meaning-making framework for people’. The studies in this special issue suggest the importance of the self-reflexivity of Chinese cultural traditions in the practice of citizenship in contemporary society. Examples include the change in the intellectual historical tradition of the Hua and Yi (Chinese/barbarian) distinction in Z. Guo’s article, the educational activists’ integration of traditional Chinese cultures and Steiner education in Zhang’s study on experimental education, the Chinese diaspora’s vision of education while urging their children to learn the Chinese classics in Germany in Wang and Huang’s study, and Chinese policy implementers’ reflections on the relationship between national and cosmopolitan perspectives in cultivating ideal citizens in Zhao’s article.

Culture is not static, but is subject to negotiation and change. Cultural actors also need to explore ‘the ways in which humanity is mixed into inter-cultural ways of life’ (Stevenson 2003, 332). Tracing the history of modern China, we find that the institution of citizenship in the twenty-first century has played a role in transforming ingenious cultures, such as by nurturing a democratic culture and changing civic values. For example, Culp’s (2006, 541) research on lower Yangzi region schools’ civic education during the Republican period (1912–1948) shows that the new establishment of a civics subject fostered student individuality and changed the school ethos and community culture. The Chinese traditional patterns emphasising ‘hierarchical but reciprocal relationships’ underwent changes, and moral autonomy and critical disposition were cultivated in youth development. Student self-government associations were also encouraged to take civic action and to ‘engage in autonomous political activism’ (Culp 2006, 544). In future research, it may be interesting to continue to observe the dynamics between the change of culture and citizenship practice in the Chinese context.

Acknowledgement

The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. EdUHK 18603820).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. EdUHK 18603820).

Notes

1. This extract is the authors’ translation. The original Chinese text is from the ‘Student Reader of Xi Jinping Thought of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era’ (Xijinping xinshidai zhongguo tese shehui zhuyi sixiang xuesheng duben), edited by the Chinese State Ministry of Education, 2021, Senior Secondary Level, p. 15, Beijing: People’s Publishing House.

2. The other four actions are ‘pressing ahead with a new type of economic globalization’, ‘following a peaceful development path’, ‘fostering a new type of international relations’, and ‘practicing true multilateralism’ (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China 2023).