Published courtesy of article author Gordon Dumoulin
Earlier this year, at a gathering of European companies operating in China, the conversation turned to how Western sanctions on China over alleged human rights abuses were impacting business operations. Rather than sparking a debate on the business impact, there was a swift consensus that it was fortunate for international businesses to still maintain presence in China. The prevailing sentiment was that, without this presence, “the Chinese people” would be left entirely on their own—evoking a mindset reminiscent of missionary efforts in China and beyond in more historic times.
In recent years, international media and political discourse have been saturated with perspectives on China, predominantly characterized by negative portrayals across economic, political, and social contexts. This discourse often reduces China to a monolithic entity, depicted as repressive and rigid. Such oversimplification narrows the Western view of China, distilling it into just a few bleak and misleading images.
The prevailing narrative suggests that the Chinese people are either suppressed, deprived of personal rights and freedoms, and suffering in futile silence, or they are seen as brainwashed, blindly adhering to the doctrine of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
Western surveys that rank Chinese people as among the most satisfied with their government or among the happiest globally are often met with skepticism. Critics frequently debunk these results by questioning the survey methods or suggesting that Chinese respondents may fear expressing their true feelings.
A simplistic polarization of “Communist Party evil; Chinese People good” has gained traction in recent years. This narrative was prominently voiced by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who, in his July 23, 2020 speech titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future” at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California, accused the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) of holding its people hostage, describing them as “1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.” The narrative has been around elaborating among other resonating angles that not the CPC but the Chinese people exclusively deserve credit for China’s phenomenal growth in recent decades.
However, this “Communist Party against the People” sentiment often overlooks or deliberately ignores key realities, such as the fact that nearly 100 million ordinary Chinese citizens are members of the CPC. Depicting all these individuals as “evil” is both misleading and reductive. Furthermore, the CPC is not merely a distant authority in Beijing managing 1.4 billion people from a central tower; it is an organization of governance deeply integrated and extending to grassroots levels of society. Rather than a simplistic view of good versus evil, the multifaceted relationship between the CPC and the Chinese people is more accurately described as complex, multi-layered, and interdependent. Indeed, hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens believe that the country’s achievements have been realized because of, rather than in spite of, the CPC.
The negative China portrayals picked up steam, particularly in the United States and among its European allies, when they gradually woke up during the 2010s to a major misconception long held by foreign China scholars and experts since the late 1990s. This misconception was the belief that China would, or necessarily had to, transition economically, socially, and politically toward a kind of Western-centric system of liberal democratic governance in order to achieve successful economic growth. Contrary to these expectations, the West realized that China has pursued its own unique path of governance and development, resulting in unprecedented economic achievements. By 2023, China’s GDP (US$ 17.8 trillion) had grown to 120 times its size in 1978 (US$ 150 billion).
Beyond its economic miracle, China’s transformations have been profound. Over the past four decades, life expectancy has risen from 64 years in 1980 to 79 years in 2023, with over 95% of the population now covered by the public health insurance system. The literacy rate has surged from 68% to over 97%, while post-secondary education enrollment has expanded from less than 4% to nearly 60%. By 2020, China had lifted nearly 800 million people out of extreme poverty, as defined by the World Bank. Additionally, the country has evolved from a low-cost, polluting production powerhouse into a global leader in numerous critical high-tech sectors, including environmental technologies, international patent applications, and the production of highly cited scientific articles.
One might expect that these realities would have sparked greater interest in China’s achievements from the West; however, the opposite has occurred. The initial Western narrative, which optimistically anticipated a “Changing China,” has been supplanted by the perception that China has changed for the worse since President Xi Jinping took office in 2013. This view contrasts with the generally more favorable assessments of the Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin eras in the West. Yet, this assumption represents another misconception, as the current era in China demands different approaches and policies that account for the country’s specific stage of development, its current economic and developmental scale, and its evolving role and relationships within the international community.
In his book Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China (2011), the late Ezra F. Vogel (1930-2020), an American sociologist and Harvard professor, identified five challenges for Deng Xiaoping’s successors arising from the Reform and Opening Up era: containing corruption, providing universal social security, preserving the environment, maintaining the party’s legitimacy to rule, and redefining and managing the boundaries of freedom. It is no surprise that these issues have been central to the agenda under Xi Jinping’s leadership.
On a global stage, China is no longer the proverbial cat, whether black or white, quietly purring and catching mice at a great pace in the corners as it was during Deng Xiaoping’s era decades ago. Today, it has grown into an elephant in the global room—a presence too large and influential to be overlooked.
Former Singaporean Minister of Foreign Affairs George Yeo recently addressed the West’s misconceptions, particularly those held by scholars and experts, with a poignant explanation: “(Foreign) China scholars were disappointed because they loved China so much that they wanted to change China. And when they found out China had not changed, the love turned into hatred. That cannot be the basis of love—that ‘I love you because I can change you.’ That is the basis of trouble.”
While the misconception that China’s governance model could not possibly foster the kind of economic developments seen in China was one disillusionment, an even more deceptive assumption was the belief that the Chinese people might eventually demand for a kind of liberal democratic reform. Instead, many Chinese citizens have shown appreciation for the progress and improvements achieved under China’s governance. The reality is that political reform in China has not stalled; it continues to evolve. It is just not a West’s style liberal democratic reform.
Can Chinese people think ?
The neglect or distortion of China’s developments in the West stems from a hegemonic mindset cultivated over the past two centuries, wherein the West’s current worldview of governance is perceived as the sole legitimate alternative for humanity. This perspective, especially taken off since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, renders it inconceivable that other cultures and societies might develop viable alternatives for human organization and progress. While Winston Churchill already famously remarked in 1947 that “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time,” American political scientist Francis Fukuyama went further in 1989, asserting in his essay “The End of History” that the Western concept of governance represents the ultimate stage of human political evolution, in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse.
This mindset perpetuates the West’s perception that the Chinese people are either suppressed or brainwashed under the governance of the CPC. Alternative perspectives—such as the idea that many Chinese citizens are genuinely satisfied or supportive of their government—are generally dismissed. The prevailing reasoning suggests that the Chinese people “do not know otherwise” and have not experienced the freedoms enjoyed in the West, thereby invalidating their contentment in Western eyes. This view persists even in light of the fact that about 130 million Chinese people are expected to travel abroad this year, with 130 million Chinese people again returning home.
The continuing sense of exceptionalism in the West has not only fostered these misconceptions but has also led to a disregard for the profound differences in worldviews, values and perspectives, shaped by diverse civilizations, cultures and histories, that guide other people and societies. It generally expects that Chinese people—and others around the world—share the same views, values and societal structures as those prevalent in the West.
It’s crucial to acknowledge that categorizing all “Westerners,” “Asians,” or “Chinese” into monolithic groups ignores the immense diversity within these regions and populations, shaped by differences in geography, culture, and history. For example, Spaniards and Finns, or Indonesians and Koreans, are vastly different in cultural and social aspects. Even within China, the lifestyles and perspectives of people in the subtropical province of Yunnan differ significantly from those of citizens living in the harsh climate of China’s Northeast, reflecting deep cultural, historical, and social variations.
However, there is a fundamental worldview in Asia that stems from deep, ancient cultural and intellectual roots in China and India, that continues to shape contemporary societies. While many Western perspectives have been influenced by the philosophical legacies of Ancient Greece—thinkers like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates— China’s values and norms have been shaped by philosophers such as Confucius, Sun Tzu, Laozi, and Mencius. Although a comprehensive exploration of the similarities and differences between these foundational philosophies, along with other prominent philosophical influencers over time, would be extensive, it is crucial to be conscious of how profoundly these diverse worldviews shape the way people think and perceive the world. Western analytical thinking tends to focus on individual entities—whether these are people, organizations, circumstances, or situations—assuming they can be analyzed and understood independently of their context or relationships with other objects. In contrast, (East) Asian dialectical or holistic thinking places greater emphasis on specific contexts and relationships, viewing individual entities as interconnected parts of a larger system.
The Western approach to change often emphasizes linear change (progression), prioritizing the resolution of conflicts through opposing standpoints, established rules, and decisive order. In contrast, many Asian perspectives view change as nonlinear and cyclical, recognizing its unpredictability and the likelihood of events recurring over time. In these perspectives, conflicts are seen as natural and inevitable within a network of relationships and are typically managed rather than resolved through direct confrontation. The focus is on mitigating potential harm and maintaining stability within the interconnected configuration.
These contrasts shape how societies relate to one another and to their environments, influencing their interpretations of context, expectations of change, and approaches to handling contradictions. For instance, the Western focus on individual liberty, personal freedom, and self-expression contrasts with many Asian cultures, including China, which emphasize harmonizing relationships and collective continuity. Similarly, while the West often views conflicts in terms of opposites, like black and white, many Asian perspectives recognize and navigate numerous shades of grey in complex situations.
In Western perspectives, the governance model of the Communist Party of China (CPC) is often viewed as illegitimate and repressive, based on the belief that a legitimate government should be freely elected by its people. However, in China, legitimacy is rooted in a historical and cultural context that emphasizes maintaining a proper hierarchy to ensure benevolence, harmony, and stability. This legitimacy is built on a foundation of trust between the state and its citizens, often through means that may appear intrusive from a Western perspective. For many Chinese citizens, these measures are seen as reasonable aspects of the social contract between individuals and the state. Unlike in the West, where hierarchy and equality are often viewed as opposing concepts, in China, they are seen as complementary. Chinese history demonstrates that when governance fails to uphold trust and maintain a benevolent and harmonious hierarchy, the people have historically taken action to instigate change, as exemplified by the Xinhai Revolution of 1911.
History and its interpretations profoundly influence different contemporary worldviews. In low-context Western cultures, history is frequently perceived as distinct from current realities, allowing for segmented and often revisionist perspectives. Conversely, high-context Asian cultures regard history as a continuous, authoritative thread that intricately shapes present norms and future decisions, maintaining a deep connection between historical context and contemporary life.
Francis Fukuyama’s essay title “End of History” exemplifies the Western inclination to view historical progress as linear and predetermined, contrasting with high-context cultures where history is seen as ongoing and interconnected with the present.
The West’s sole mirror
While Chinese people have made significant efforts in recent decades to learn from and appreciate various aspects of Western cultures, governance, and history, the West continues to struggle with a longstanding hegemonic mindset that often disregards or dismisses culturally and historically different perspectives and achievements. This is a common trait of hegemonic powers, which rarely feel the need to consider the interests or worldviews of others when in a position of dominance. However, when hegemonic privilege wanes and is challenged by emerging powers, it often results in a narrow view, where the hegemony can only evaluate others through the mirror of its own, often outdated worldview.
In both defense and offense, the negative extremes of a self-reflecting mirror are often used to portray emerging powers as threats, fueled by the fear that rising powers might replicate the darker aspects of the established hegemony’s own history. This is evident in how international media and political discourse often frame China as a threat, focusing on speculative fears rather than acknowledging the actual realities and different world views at play. In reality, China’s remarkable rise over the past four decades has occurred without launching a single war against other nations or alliances. Historically, China, along with India, was one of the world’s two largest economies for 1,800 years until the early 19th century, maintaining this position without significant intrusions into other regions.
Over the past few centuries, Western hegemonies—from the Portuguese and Spanish to the Dutch and British—have been characterized by a dual legacy. On one hand, they contributed revolutionary advancements in among others technology, industry, healthcare, education, and culture, laying the groundwork for much of modern progress in humanity. On the other hand, these same powers were responsible for widespread conquests, colonization, and cultural assimilation across the globe, leaving behind a complex legacy of exploitation alongside their achievements.
In more recent history, following World War II, the U.S. imperial hegemony, along with its European allies, played a pivotal role in establishing multilateral organizations, international legal frameworks, and promoting technological innovation and globalization in trade and culture. But also, especially since the early 1990s, during its unipolar era, the U.S. has engaged in around 20 wars (excluding proxy conflicts) and orchestrated a similar number of regime changes, as far as public records reveal. Additionally, the U.S. has imposed two-thirds of the world’s sanctions since the 1990s—three times more than any other country or international body—targeting nearly a third of all nations with financial penalties directed at individuals, properties, or organizations.
The common thread throughout this centuries-long era has been the sustained dominance of European and American hegemonies, a dominance now waning amid the ongoing transition in global economic order. This shift has profoundly challenged the United States and its European allies. Herein it is important to distinguish between civilizations and (hegemonic) empires to understand how different powers navigate this change. Empires derive legitimacy from domination and expansion, while civilizations are focused on maintaining continuity of human societal organization, anchored in enduring norms and values. Both empires and civilizations can fall through military defeat; however, empires will ultimately decline if they fail to align their dominance with societal continuity. Likewise, civilizations will collapse if they can no longer sustain their societal structures and uphold their core norms and values.
As nations like China and India increasingly highlight their deep civilizational heritage and historical legacies, Western societies, particularly in Europe and the USA, are undergoing significant social transformations. The rise of progressive movements, such as wokeism, combined with the decline of traditional social, historical, and religious affiliations, has contributed to growing social and political instability. This shift is challenging traditional social cohesion and intensifying ideological polarization. In the U.S., key indicators of societal health show troubling trends, with life expectancy declining, the middle class shrinking, and economic inequality on the rise.
In addition to domestic societal disorientation, the decline of Western economic dominance is eroding the international legal framework and multilateral organizations it once established, such as the UN or WTO. This framework is increasingly being replaced by a self-proclaimed “rules-based international order” built on so-called Western values and norms. While intended to preserve dominance in the face of rising powers, this shift often undermines the fundamental principles that the West claims to uphold.
These social and hegemonic shifts cultivate hypocrisy and narcissism, as the West prioritizes preserving its status rather than adapting to a rapidly changing world. While other countries may not inherently have a need to criticize Western nations or others—often viewing history and conflicts through their own lenses of culture and civilization or for example acknowledging the positive contributions the West has made—the West’s current tendency to cast itself as the enlightened victim under threat from perceived dark forces only accentuates the shifting dynamics of global power.
“If I were a Chinese”
The title of this paper, “If I Were a Chinese,” encapsulates the West’s mindset of moral self-righteousness and assumed virtue. It reflects the belief that people worldwide inherently share the West’s worldview, values, and perspectives, and would respond or wish similarly in comparable situations or circumstances. This assumption ignores the deep cultural, historical, and social differences between nations, simplifying moral judgments into binary contrasts of good versus evil. These contrasts are often reinforced by Western analytical thinking, which tends to evaluate entities in isolation rather than within their broader context or relationships.
Examples of these binary contrasts in Western political discourse and media include the juxtaposition of liberal democracy versus authoritarianism or capitalism versus communism, particularly in assessments of China. What is striking is the selective application of these binaries, singling out certain nations while others with similar governance structures, alleged policies, or behaviors evade political or media scrutiny. This selective approach underscores the growing hypocrisy within the so-called “international rules-based order,” which increasingly prioritizes political expediency over genuine adherence to the principles of international law.
Apart from ignorance and perceptions of inferiority, Western hegemony also viewed diverging worldviews from Asia through a lens of fear. Sinophobia, or the “Yellow Peril” metaphor, reflects Western anxieties about a perceived Chinese or Asian threat” that has persisted since the late 19th century. This fear was rooted in the belief that the “barbarian hordes” of the “yellow race” might invade and destroy Christendom and Western civilization. Such fears fueled racism, leading to racial riots, massacres, and exclusionary policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882–1943). This legacy of racism has left enduring marks both in the United States and Europe, continuing to influence attitudes toward Asian people today.
From a traditional Chinese worldview, the cycles of change and return are central, with the sexagenary 60-year cycle—also known as the stems-and-branches or ganzhi (干支)—considered pivotal for cosmic balance, reflecting the belief that history repeats every 60 years. In this context, it’s interesting to observe peaks in Sinophobia in the West having occured roughly every 60 years. This pattern begins in the 1890s with the Chinese Exclusion Act, riots and massacres, resurfaces in the 1950s with McCarthyism and the ‘Loss of China’ discourse, and again since the 2010s with the ‘second loss of China’ narrative, fueling China-threat anxieties and disengagement with a rise in anti-Asian racism.
The current shift in the world order transcends simplistic ideological or racial contrasts and moves beyond a linear transition of dominance from one hegemon to another, a pattern seen during centuries of Western dominance. Unlike the past, where cultures could largely maintain their own norms and values in relative isolation, today’s world is a highly interconnected and interdependent village. This global integration spans trade, economies, energy, innovation, and security, while also facing shared challenges such as environmental crises and the existential threat of nuclear arsenals. The next decade will be pivotal in the ongoing transformation from exclusive hegemony to a new balance of powers, often referred to as a multipolar world. Former U.S. diplomat and ambassador Chas W. Freeman Jr. offers a compelling perspective, characterizing this emerging order as a post-hegemonic, multi-nodal world.
Freeman contends that the term “pole” implies a static, two-dimensional line between two or more end points, whereas the actual global order is far more complex—a multi-dimensional network with “nodes” where connections of varying sizes and intensities intersect on multiple tangible and virtual vectors. This perspective contrasts with the linear and polarizing view of change in earlier hegemonic transformations, highlighting the multi-dimensional and multi-vector nature of global interactions. It underscores how different cultures perceive and navigate current global dynamics, particularly in an era marked by rapid advancements in AI, environmental challenges, and deepening global interconnectedness.
Multi-nodal configurations are quickly emerging, as seen in global collaboration initiatives like the expanded BRICS group, now with nine members and dozens of other nations expressing interest in joining. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a global infrastructure development initiated by China with currently around 150 countries participating, celebrated its 10th anniversary last year. Similarly, the recent China-Africa forum (FOCAC) in Beijing saw 53 out of 54 African nations in attendance. The inclusive collaborations, even between traditional adversaries, recognize diverse worldviews and interests, emphasizing shared development, mutual benefits, and addressing common opportunities and challenges across various domains such as the economy, technological innovation, societal progress, infrastructure, and security.
These future-oriented developments are notable for their future-oriented progress and inclusiveness, in contrast to the stance of the United States and much of Europe, which remain entrenched in like-minded alliances such as NATO or G7. Initially formed to uphold and protect Western hegemony, these alliances continue to rely on the dismissal and dehumanization of others’ interests and worldviews, driven by fear-based war rhetoric and deterrence focused on containment or defeat of so-called “other-minded” nations. The tragic consequences of this approach are apparent in the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, with NATO’s eastward expansion now casting China as a systemic rival and alleged enabler of the Ukraine war. It’s not surprising that the majority of nations around the world have chosen not to support European-imposed sanctions against Russia in the wake of the Ukraine invasion. This stance is not necessarily driven by support for Russia’s decision to invade but rather reflects diverse worldviews that may favor alternative paths for conflict resolution, different interpretations of the conflict’s context, or simply because it is not in their economic, security or strategic interest to follow the West’s demands uncritically.
Through a Chinese worldview lens, two idioms carry significance in acknowledging this emerging balancing complexity. “求同存异 qiú tóng cún yì ” (seeking common ground while reserving differences) underscores the complexities and sensitivities of differing paradigms and the importance of collaborating on shared responsibilities and challenges. “和而不同 hé ér bùtóng” (seeking harmony but not conformity) from Chinese philosopher Confucius emphasizes the need for peaceful coexistence while respecting differences in historical and contemporary interpretations. Confucius then thoughtfully continues “小人同而不和xiǎo rén tóng ér bù hé”, the villains are the same but not harmonious.
And in light of the existential threat posed by potential nuclear annihilation during this highly sensitive period of global transformation, the wisdom of two well-known statements from Chinese General and philosopher Sun Tzu’s Art of War becomes particularly relevant: “Know your enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a thousand battles without disaster,” and “In war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war.” Together, these maxims underscore the importance of understanding the perspectives, interests, and strategies of others—not merely to prevail in conflict but to avoid unnecessary confrontation altogether. In today’s interconnected world, the preparation for conflict as a means to ensure peace demands deeper knowledge and respect for diverse worldviews, aligning strategic actions with the broader goal of global stability, not mere dominance. These thoughts starkly contrast with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s statement last year that “Weapons are the way to peace.”
An intriguing aspect of this multi-nodal development is China’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, also known in India as Panchsheel. These principles include mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and cooperation for mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. First announced by China and India in a bilateral agreement for economic and security cooperation in 1954, these principles have guided China’s foreign policy since. They also laid the groundwork for the historic Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955, and for the Non-Aligned Movement, which was established in Yugoslavia in 1961.
The era of viewing or judging other-minded exclusively through the lens of one’s hegemonic worldview, as exemplified by the phrase “If I were a Chinese,” has come to an end. However, ideological mindsets rooted in the “hegemony of human political evolution” continue to dominate in Western societies, drifting away from evolving realities and thriving in cramped and contrasting narratives, increasingly less receptive in the rest of the world. These self-righteous perspectives foster exclusive polarization with potentially disastrous consequences for humanity, rather than the inclusive nodalization that is urgently needed.
Without a fundamental mental shift, Western nations, particularly those in Europe, risk becoming stagnant outposts at best—isolated poles rather than dynamic nodes—unable to actively co-shape and contribute to an evolving world where global challenges and opportunities, balanced with respect for national interests and diverse worldviews, become central to advancing inclusive humanity.