SV: Thank you so much for joining us today. In your work, you have introduced thought-provoking concepts such as trans-systemic society and a trans-social system to decode contemporary China, which push back against reductionist narratives that often frame it as monolithic. Could you share your insights on these notions and how they help illuminate the continuities and discontinuities shaping China’s historical and contemporary realities?
WH: The idea of a trans-systemic society envisions a deeply interconnected social and political structure shaped by the interaction, exchange, and coexistence of diverse cultures, ethnicities, and regions. It underscores the potential for building a shared sense of community grounded in social solidarity, forming the basis for continuous growth and socialization. So, to some extent, every society nowadays is a trans-systemic. However, when it comes to China, as you noted, is often depicted as monolithic, overlooking its profound historical and cultural complexities. Essentially, my work examines China’s historical evolution, emphasizing its continuous processes of being and becoming. China has always been China, but it has also continuously reinvented itself by absorbing and generating new elements.
A turning point in my understanding of this concept came during a visit to Yunnan Province, an area renowned for its rich diversity of ethnicities, cultures, and religions. A close friend of mine, an anthropologist, belonged to a family that symbolized this diversity: his parents were from different ethnic groups and his wife was Muslim. Despite their distinct ethnic and religious backgrounds, they were united as a family. Yunnan exemplifies China’s intricate cultural tapestry. But also thinking about the Tibetan Autonomous County, Tibetan Buddhists constitute only about 26-30% of its population. Its name reflects respect for its historical significance.
This brought me to reflect on my own hometown in southeastern China, Yangzhou. I realized that diversity was so intrinsic to everyday life that it often went unnoticed. The city, situated by the Grand Canal, is known for its historical interactions with figures like Marco Polo and Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who arrived in China during the Song Dynasty. A mosque built in his honour still stands today, a stunning synthesis of Chinese architectural styles and Islamic traditions. Such examples illustrate how diverse cultural elements integrate seamlessly into everyday life. Jewish communities also settled in China during the Song Dynasty, particularly in Kaifeng, in Henan province. Over centuries, they integrated into local communities, and this peaceful absorption into Chinese society illustrates a historical tradition of diversity and inclusivity.
However, this diversity is often overshadowed in modern narratives shaped by identity politics, which tend to emphasize divisions rather than unity. Historically, China’s diversity was accepted as a given, an intrinsic aspect of life rather than a political statement. This is why I describe China as one in diversity or diversity within one. Another anecdote comes to my mind, when a German friend and his French wife visited the Great Wall. They observed how the frontier and the centre of the country were so geographically close—a juxtaposition that embodies China’s historical dialectic of continuity and change. They were struck by the immense diversity among Chinese tourists, whose regional differences appeared more pronounced to them than distinctions between Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese. This ability to harmonize contrasts has defined China’s historical and social transformation. The idea of becoming China (Zhongguohua) exemplifies this dynamic, highlighting how it has continuously reshaped itself by reconciling contradictions and integrating diverse influences. It’s a process far richer than the notion of becoming Han (Hanhua), which often gets conflated with Sinification due to frameworks steeped in ethnonationalism. Unlike the static idea of ethnic assimilation, becoming China reflects a reciprocal relationship where different peoples and cultures actively contribute to the nation’s identity. This harmonization of contrasts—geographic, cultural, and political—has been key to China’s adaptability, uniting plurality and change.
SV: How do you see the concept of becoming China accommodating the linguistic and cultural plurality you have described?
WH: In my travels across China, I have encountered dialects so distinct they were unintelligible to me, even though Mandarin unites us as a national language. This linguistic plurality echoes in cultural practices, culinary traditions, and regional identities. For example, in my hometown, the majority are categorized as Han people. However, there were also Hui people and others, though the distinct consciousness of these differences has diminished over time. Still, if you visit places like Yinchuan the differences remain perceptible, yet people have coexisted peacefully there for centuries. In larger communities this coexistence is even more pronounced.
Officially, China recognizes 56 ethnic groups, but ethnicity is not a fixed concept. Over generations, some ethnicities have disappeared or transformed. At the administrative level, we have five autonomous regions and more than 130 autonomous counties. Even in provinces like Yunnan and Guizhou, which are not officially autonomous regions, there are autonomous counties at various administrative levels. This framework aims to balance the integration of ethnic groups into the broader social fabric while preserving their unique linguistic, cultural, and religious identities.
In the 1950s and 60s, autonomy —a term that in the Chinese context differs significantly from its use elsewhere— was established to acknowledge cultural differences, such as language and religion, while addressing historical inequalities to create a more equitable society. At that time, these historical arrangements were embraced as a way of reconciling imbalances. Of course, new challenges emerged over the years. Conflicts and contradictions often arise not from diversity itself but from rapid social mobility and the persistence of historical inequalities. Migration and other factors reveal disparities in social status and historical inequality, where individuals from certain backgrounds struggle to achieve equal footing despite legal guarantees. For example, in today’s job market, fluency in Mandarin or English is highly valued, sidelining other linguistic capabilities, such as proficiency in ethnic languages. This commodification of language reflects broader inequalities in how we recognize and reward diverse capabilities. This is why I advocate for a new concept of equality —one that embraces diversity rather than erasing it.
SV: Focusing on the concept of equality, in your work, you have described China’s post-revolutionary politics as marked by a process of depoliticization, where substantive political content is stripped away and replaced by a hollow, formalist approach. You have suggested that repoliticization involves empowering mass society by creating new political forms to articulate social forces for equality. Why do you see equality as central to this vision, and how would you define it within this framework?
WH: In the context of state power, true politics of equality extends beyond merely providing relief to the poor or addressing their immediate needs. It involves deeper reflections on systemic structures and the principles underpinning equality. The philosophy of Zhuangzi, a central figure in Classical Daoism, introduces the concept of the equality of all things. This vision transcends legal frameworks, calling for an approach that addresses historical and social realities while fostering harmony between humanity and the cosmos. Western political theory often emphasizes equality of opportunity and equality of redistribution, but these approaches can overlook historical disadvantages and cultural diversity. While education and poverty reduction are crucial, they fall short without tackling deeper structural inequalities.
Modern notions of equality often assume formal equality suffices, ignoring the enduring impact of historical conditions. Even where systems claim equality, significant disparities persist in practice. To ensure meaningful equality, we must focus on equality of capabilities, guaranteeing access to essential resources like education and income. Without these foundations, individuals cannot effectively compete, even when opportunities are nominally available.
Though, a broader perspective is needed: one that redefines capabilities to include non-commodified skills and integrates ecological and cultural considerations. For instance, many ethnic minorities possess valuable environmental knowledge rooted in their traditions, yet modernization often marginalizes such expertise. Recognizing and valuing these contributions as part of our shared human legacy could help redress historical inequalities.
This perspective also requires rethinking our relationship with nature. As mentioned, traditional Chinese philosophy emphasizes humanity’s integration with the cosmos, advocating the preservation of natural and cultural heritage. These values are not only critical for current well-being but also for safeguarding the rights of future generations.
Historically, equality has been narrowly framed around citizenship and rights within political systems, but how do we account for those not yet born? Expanding equality to include environmental and cultural preservation links past wisdom with future responsibility. This approach demands critical reflection on our assumptions about diversity and equality in the context of modern challenges.
A trans-systemic society should balance equality and diversity, recognizing the unique contributions of all groups without succumbing to divisive identity politics. As an historian, I see history as central to understanding these dynamics. While recent decades of neoliberal globalization have created opportunities, they have also deepened inequalities and sharpened social divisions. By looking at critical junctures in history, such as the late 20th century or the global financial crisis, we can better contextualize these challenges and explore how interconnectedness has both linked and differentiated societies.
The Belt and Road Initiative, rooted in the historical legacy of the Silk Road, exemplifies contemporary tension between interconnectedness and divisions. The Silk Road, which is a term originally coined by German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen, was a network of exchanges that respected the diversity of cultures it connected rather than imposing homogenization. For the BRI to succeed, cultural sensitivity and acknowledgment of local histories are essential. Infrastructure projects must be approached with an understanding of the communities they serve. This requires a trans-systemic perspective that acknowledges diversity while avoiding the pitfalls of identity politics.
SV: Speaking about the resurgence of identity politics and the increasing emphasis on civilizational identities in global discourse, how do you interpret the renewed interest among Chinese scholars in revisiting traditional concepts such as tianxia (all-under-heaven)? What do you think drives this turn toward China’s past in contemporary intellectual thought?
WH: First of all, if we refer to works like Zhao Tingyang’s they are not strictly historical but rather reconstruct political theory based on the concept of tianxia. While tianxia originates from traditional Chinese thought, its current revival reflects a critical reassessment of the limitations inherent in the nation-state system.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, the first scholar to critique the nation-state through tianxia was Liang Qichao in the early 20th century, particularly after World War I. He traveled to Europe in 1918 and witnessed the tragic aftermath of the War. He questioned how a civilization as advanced as Europe, with its profound cultural achievements, could descend into such catastrophic conflict. Liang observed that the nation-state framework had become a fundamental cause of these conflicts, and proposed tianxia as a way to transcend nationalism.
Historically, China lacked the concept of the nation-state. Instead, its governance was shaped by tianxia— a moral framework that emphasized inclusivity and universality, allowing people from diverse regions to coexist under shared ethical principles. The idea was inclusive and universal, positing that all people belonged to all-under-heaven. Liang also reflected on the European intellectual response to the war. On one hand, there was an effort to overcome nationalism; on the other, there remained a focus on class struggle. In capitalist societies, social differentiation creates domestic crises. Often, rulers deflect these internal contradictions by projecting them outward, combining nationalism with populism. This dynamic remains relevant today. For example, in the U.S., economic and regional disparities have fueled populism, which is easily co-opted by nationalist rhetoric.
Populism often arises from unresolved social issues like unemployment and economic inequality, but instead of addressing these problems, governments externalize the blame. This is evident in phenomena like the U.S.–China “trade war” or de-risking policies targeting China. These contradictions primarily originate from domestic social and economic governance challenges, not from external threats.
Going back to Liang Qichao, he also addressed the concept of human rights, which became highly valued in Europe after World War I due to the tragedies people experienced. He noted that China lacked an equivalent term for human rights and analysed why this was so. He suggested that the Western notion of human rights developed as a response to feudal hierarchies, which were deeply entrenched in Europe. By contrast, China’s feudal system had largely disintegrated over 2,000 years ago, reducing class-based social struggles.
However, Liang did not see this as an excuse for China to ignore human rights. On the contrary, he argued that China must embrace this advanced idea, especially to address social issues like gender inequality. His essays advocating for women’s rights and liberation demonstrate his critical engagement with both Chinese and Western traditions.
Liang’s broader point was that we live in a shared world where cultures cannot operate in isolation. His use of tianxia was not merely about asserting Chinese identity; it was a framework for thinking about coexistence in a globalized world.
This idea also connects to the European Enlightenment. Thinkers like Leibniz and Voltaire highly evaluated civilization or achievements of Chinese society, which in my opinion is coming mostly from the appreciation of Confucianism and its principle of tianli (heavenly principle). Confucianism presented a vision of cosmic and social harmony, where even emperors were subject to moral principles higher than themselves. This provided a basis for rebellion or criticism against oppressive rulers, aligning governance with universal fairness.
A notable Japanese scholar, Mizoguchi Yūzō, compared the Chinese and Japanese concepts of tian. He highlighted how, in China, the emperor was seen as the Son of heaven, subordinate to the moral authority of tian. This allowed people to appeal to higher moral principles beyond earthly rulers. In contrast, Japan’s tianwas equated with the emperor himself, giving him absolute authority.
Confucianism’s emphasis on education and self-cultivation reflects its universal aspirations. The process of investigating principles (gewu) is both a personal and societal endeavour, showing how heavenly principles are embedded in daily life. This approach fosters equality and inclusiveness by suggesting that anyone, through self-cultivation, can attain wisdom. Interestingly, when modern Chinese intellectuals translated equality, they drew on Buddhist concepts like pingdeng (ontological equality) rather than purely legalistic Western ideas. This reflects a different philosophical grounding, where equality is seen as a universal state rather than a legal construct tied to citizenship. Such distinctions highlight challenges in integrating traditional values with modern frameworks, like addressing issues of migration or citizenship.
SV: How would you characterize the evolution of intellectual life in China over recent decades? What key developments stand out, and what challenges do you anticipate for its future trajectory?
WH: Intellectual life in China has undergone profound transformations over the past century, transitioning from traditional systems like the imperial examination to modern education frameworks modelled on European, Japanese, and later American systems. This modernization began in 1905 with the abolition of the imperial examination, marking a pivotal shift that broadened access to knowledge and reshaped its production and dissemination. However, it has also created challenges that threaten the diversity and depth of intellectual engagement.
One major shift has been the rise of social media and popular culture, which, while democratizing access to information, often limits opportunities for deep, critical engagement. Public discourse has grown increasingly fragmented, shaped by rapid, surface-level interactions that can dilute the complexity of intellectual debates. Moreover, the professionalization of academia has introduced pressures to focus on specialized research, often at the expense of interdisciplinary exploration and public-facing scholarship. This narrowing of intellectual scope risks sidelining broader social, political, and cultural discussions that are vital for a vibrant intellectual ecosystem.
Despite these challenges, there are efforts to reconnect modern frameworks with traditional Chinese intellectual traditions, though this remains a complex task. Censorship and the shrinking of autonomous public spaces further hinder intellectual diversity, making it difficult for scholars to engage in open, meaningful exchanges of ideas. While social media offers opportunities for expression, it often exacerbates the fragmentation of discourse and diminishes collective reflection.
Preserving intellectual diversity in China requires fostering spaces for critical and inclusive dialogue, where scholars can address contemporary issues across disciplines. Balancing modernity with tradition, specialization with inclusivity, and national identity with global interconnectedness is essential. These dualities, if embraced, could enrich China’s intellectual and cultural legacy while contributing to global conversations.
The broader intellectual community, both within and beyond China, shares the responsibility of addressing these challenges. As the world faces urgent issues like inequality and environmental degradation, solutions require collective action informed by diverse cultural and historical perspectives. By cultivating intellectual inclusiveness and fostering cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural exchanges, China has the potential to play a pivotal role in advancing global thought and innovation. Achieving this, however, calls for a deeper commitment to fostering critical thinking and exploring its transformative possibilities.
SV: How can China leverage, in your opinion, its cultural heritage and intellectual traditions to enhance its soft power and foster deeper engagement in global dialogue?
WH: Popular culture plays a significant role in shaping global perceptions. Countries like South Korea have successfully exported their culture through high-quality movies, music, and TV-series. China’s efforts through platforms such as Confucius Institutes primarily focus on language education. While effective, this is only part of the equation. High-quality cultural products are key to fostering global appreciation. Chinese cinema, literature, and music have tremendous potential but need to authentically resonate universally. This requires nurturing talent and creating works that reflect China’s cultural richness while engaging with global audiences. Cultural exchange should be a dialogue, not a one-sided projection of values or traditions. China’s historical interconnectedness with other civilizations—through musical instruments, culinary traditions, or philosophy—provides fertile ground for fostering cultural diplomacy. For example, the shared heritage of musical instruments in Central Asia and China reflects millennia of cross-cultural exchange, illustrating how cultural bridges have long been built through dialogue and mutual influence.
SV: Thank you so much for your time and for sharing your insights with us. It has been an inspiring and thought-provoking conversation, offering a deeper understanding of China’s complexities and its evolving global role.