{"id":99,"date":"2025-04-11T00:56:38","date_gmt":"2025-04-11T05:56:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/?p=99"},"modified":"2025-04-11T00:56:39","modified_gmt":"2025-04-11T05:56:39","slug":"is-china-a-collectivist-society-or-an-atomized-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stephenleng.com\/en\/is-china-a-collectivist-society-or-an-atomized-one\/","title":{"rendered":"Is China a Collectivist Society or an Atomized One?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Is China a collectivist society or an atomized one?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I was reading through various academic papers, I noticed some scholars still describe China as a collectivist society, while others have already picked up on its growing atomization. On online forums and insightful blogs, it’s rare to find anyone still clinging to the label of “collectivist society”\u2014most now describe China as deeply atomized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, which diagnosis holds up better?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Frankly, whether from the perspective of Hegelian philosophy or everyday psychological experience, contemporary China is almost certainly a highly atomized<\/strong> society. And its degree of atomization may well be unmatched by any other country in the world today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone familiar with Hegel\u2019s Philosophy of Right<\/em> will immediately recognize the problem when looking at modern China: there is a lack of mediating institutions<\/strong> between the state and the family. This leads to what Hegel calls \u201cabstract universality<\/strong>.\u201d In other words, universals\u2014such as civic ideals or social norms\u2014do not concretely manifest in people\u2019s daily lives. Without \u201cconcrete universality<\/strong>,\u201d there is no meaningful mediation between the individual and the state\u2014nor between individual and individual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When we zoom in on daily life, the picture becomes even clearer. The traditional rural society has withered away, and from small towns to major cities, interpersonal relationships are increasingly characterized by coldness and distrust<\/strong>. Social skills are widely lacking. Many people don\u2019t know basic social etiquette. Loneliness is pervasive\u2014not just psychological, but existential. Many are glued to their phones for hours on end. Few are willing\u2014or even know how\u2014to actively contribute to their communities unless they stand to gain something or be in charge. Bottom-up organization is virtually nonexistent. Every organization, formal or informal, is top-down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most disturbing signs of this atomization is the widely circulated surveillance footage on the internet: when a pedestrian collapses on a busy street, or someone is attacked, it often takes several minutes before anyone steps forward to help\u2014or no one does at all. Most people don\u2019t even stop to glance. Some commenters have described these videos as signs of civilizational collapse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why I completely agree with those insightful observers who diagnose Chinese society as atomized. This diagnosis matches reality. The idea of China as a collectivist society is, at best, an outdated myth. At least judging from the present, China is not collectivist in any meaningful sense\u2014unless you take political slogans or state media narratives at face value<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s true that traditional rural communities were, in limited and local senses, collectivist. But that kind of social fabric has been unraveling for decades. After its disappearance, there\u2019s simply no basis left for a collectivist society. If you don\u2019t even know your neighbor\u2019s name, how can you talk about collectivism?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone still insisting that China is a collectivist society is either:<\/p>\n\n\n\n