Relationships between Citizenship and Community in Contemporary Urban China - Essay Example

Relationships between Citizenship and Community in Contemporary Urban China Relationships between Citizenship and Community in Contemporary Urban China Student Name University Name Professor Name Abstract China or the People’s Republic of China is probably the world’s most ancient civilization. In addition, it is a cultural region, and, based on perception can be termed as a multinational or national entity that extends over a major part of East Asia. China has been attributed to have one of the world's oldest civilizations and can be considered to also have the oldest continuous civilization. In addition, archaeological evidences state that its civilization dates back more than 5,000 years with the oldest written languages. Through history, China has influenced its culture on regions across the East of Asia and many of its customs, religions and languages have been adopted by others such as Vietnam, Korea and Japan. If one were to look at China’s history, one will see that hundreds of ethnic groups have existed. Amongst these, the largest ethnic group is the Han. The Han, however, are extremely diverse internally and in fact, can be further segregated and divided into smaller ethnic groups. These smaller groups are categorized according to the similar traits they share. Thus it is clear that over the last three millennia, there have existed many distinct ethnic groups in China. Many a time, civil society is identified and marked by an increase of associational life. Yet, this paper will state otherwise, as we will build a case and argue that the emergence of citizenship and citizens as a vital precondition to develop a civil society. The focus of the paper is basically the concept of citizenship and the community. I will go on to justify that the very concept of citizenship needs to be grounded in the context of local society. Hence, in order to build my case I will highlight the role of citizenship – this would include both public discourses on citizenship and also institutional effects. It will clearly demonstrate how urban neighborhood communities that have been established in order to enhance participation of citizens living in these societies heavily influence citizenship. The hypothesis that I will work on is that the existence of newly established communities in the neighborhoods communities located in urban areas influences citizens living in these areas. We will see that there is a slow but sure transition from the opinions of the local masses to that of the citizens in these urban societies. This step by step evolution and transition will be looked at by way of the following four categorizations – (a) participation of communities and elections at the grassroots level, (b) autonomy or self-administration and resident attitudes that exist in these urban communities, (c) the growth of individual self-administration or autonomy and finally, (d) engineering of values by the party state. Let us begin with the basis that in China there is definitely a lack of institutional preconditions for a civil society. Throughout history, civil society in China has been defined by what the party-state conceives as the ideal civil society. In other words, the party state conceives the role of civil society and in a sense even initiates civil society. It is exactly and precisely the amalgamation and combination of the top-down approach when it comes to the actual establishment and foundation of neighborhood communities and elections at the grassroots level. The party-state also in a sense encourages and monitors the mobilized participation through volunteers. This goes on to show that it is clearly the intention of the party-state to actually chart the growth of civil society. It is the party-state that gives rise to the structures of illiberal and controlled civil society in China. There is no clear ‘citizen-status’ that has been arrived at in China. Political leadership in China is what charts the growth of neighborhood communities in urban China. This paper will also establish that the concept of neighborhood communities in urban China is basically the same as ‘authoritarian communitarianism’. CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP AND COMMUNITY IN CHINA Community as a term in China has always has an ambiguity circling it. In the era when sociology was banned and other social sciences were considered pseudo, community as a terminology was considered to have a very low profile. It was not until sociological studies were reestablished in China in the late 1970s that the term community and its translated Chinese counterpart Shequre-entered the Chinese lexicon. In 1986, the Ministry of Civil Affairs offered an official definition of community in urban areas, which equated community with either a Street—the lowest level of formal urban administration— or neighborhood-level semi-governmental grassroots unit, known as the Residents’ Committee, which is overseen directly by the Street. Earlier, during these times community always referred to in geographic terms, and was largely the tool used by the central government to maintain a constant watch over the communities and in turn giving up a few of their social welfare responsibilities. In essence this meant that communities were clearly the off-spring of the central government of China. It basically was the way the Central Government of China could keep a sense of control and influence the neighborhood communities in urban China and yet keep themselves clear of actually taking on the expensive and complicated components of taking on the social responsibilities of the people living in these communities. Though this is the case, Chinese academicians and policy makers have not refrained from continuing to debate on this definition. There is no clear cut consensus on what components actually would make up Chinese community amongst the country’s political leaders. The traditional hierarchical structure that was existent in the pre 1991 era of urban administration has been largely disbanded. The previous model consisted of having the central government at the top, the middle layer consisting of the municipal and the district governments, and finally followed by the Street, and the Residents’ Committee. There have been many changes in the way in which this hierarchy was defined. The many layers viz. the central government of China, the district and municipal authorities at the second rung, the Street and the final layer, that of the Resident’s Committee, have seen several changes since the year 1991. The objective was to make the Residents’ committee independent of the urban administration and its focus was primarily the relation between the street and the residents committee. The modification and reforms basically tried to disassociate the Residents Committee from the district and urban administration of the community. Empowering the local community in social welfare responsibilities was the primary objective in the transferring of these aspects. There would be less expectation from the central government of China in taking on social responsibilities of the local communities and that is why these reforms were set in motion. Clearly, a community in China is now distinctly bounded by geographically separated boundaries. This, however, has not changed the political function of the relationship between the Street and the Resident. The sense of independence that was originally intended to flow down to the urban administration has not materialized and in turn, has now become a conduit of social control. While it is true that the central government of China tried to take the necessary steps by way of reforms in order to disassociate themselves from the citizens at the grassroots level, this did not necessary work out as they intended. The fact of the matter remains that in China, the citizen at the ground level is still more or less still in the control of the central government. Although the government has tried to establish a disconnect between themselves and the citizens living in neighborhood communities in urban China, this has not actually translated to being the actual case. There is a tension that is palpable between the ancient and novel urban administration systems. Primarily on the back of this can the urban community in China be considered to be vibrant rather being static. Even though it may not be clearly apparent, there are changes in the Chinese society and these changes ensure that the Chinese urban community progresses and evolves toward a better future. At the same time, there is clearly no way that one can say that the policies that were in place before 1991, have really altered since the reforms that were set in place after that. While it is true that the central Government of China has tried to leave the monitoring of local community level development to the Resident Committees, by trying to make them autonomous from the district authorities, this has not really been the case. Much of the population of Chinese citizens still look towards the people-state to give them direction with respect to community participation. When researching or viewing the community in China, one needs to see it as dynamic, and flexible entity as experimentation is constantly and rapidly occurring. This would, by far, be the best way that one can understand the constant changes that seem to embrace China’s urban communities. Helping out neighbours has been the basis of community participation, which is tradition and decision making is rarely seen. The fact is that the Chinese society is based on its people helping each other in times of need and this has meant that neighborhood communities stand up and help out one another when the need has arisen. The community was essentially a tool for the motivation and mobilization for the central government, prior to the reforms. There was a noticeable decline in the participation in political setup by the communities, whereas the novel means of mutual help, community, social, cultural activities were on the rise. So what actually happened was that initially communities would help each other on their own accord and slowly an expectation began for the people state or the Chinese central government to get involved in the welfare activities of local communities. Prior to 1993 there was little attention given to Community participation. Now, the central government feels that providing these activities and a greater sense of responsibility to communities can actually be beneficial. By taking over many of the state’s welfare responsibilities without adequate government financial support, communities and the new community-based service programs now require considerable involvement of local residents to help finance services, to strengthen service delivery, and to meet the increasing urban service needs. With the government stepping back from the hands-on running of community enhancement initiatives, the problem that began in China was that it was not as effective as before. This, in turn, simply meant that influential people at the local level, needed to step up their participation and in fact even assist with respect to local finance services and its delivery at the urban community level. The term of community participation has undergone a renaissance primarily aimed at growing their confidence and self-reliance. This has been an extremely positive outcome. Many times it is found that there is no value of services and benefits received in local communities when it comes without an effort from the central government authorities. More often than not, the average citizen who benefits from these services and benefits just simply take the same for granted and do not feel the need to value the same. There is absolute lack of gratitude. With the onus of actually running the neighborhood community programs laid out on the citizen at the grassroots level, there is greater ownership of the initiatives and this in turn puts the emphasis on self-reliance and self-determination. Although, the communist party still fears that empowering them might make them weaker in the eyes of the communities. Which is why it is restricted social activities and provisions. There are primarily two types of community participation. The first one being sponsored and started by the government This type is reminiscent of traditional Chinese methods of community participation. Participatory behavior does not reflect either an interest in or a willingness to participate in democracy; it simply reflects people’s willingness to participate actively in service program implantation, it is merely “pseudo-participation.” The growth of community-based services is primarily due to the relevance it has brought to the daily needs of the people in the community and the augmentation to their lifestyles. They now cater to the growing needs of the local people and are able to meet them. This type of participation, primarily organized or sponsored by Residents’ Committees, not only reflects the kinds of services that people truly want in their community but also demonstrates how community members can be actively involved in decision making to address their needs and concerns. The later type of community participation nevertheless reflects a community development perspective. These recent reforms will only help build the strength of these communities and bring a sense of responsibility and authority to them. Therefore, it is important to understand the extent to which community residents can be mobilized. Equally important is the fact that factors such as mobilizing communities need to be read in the vein of China’s recent sociopolitical reforms. Local communities are gaining momentum in addition to being autonomous and self sufficient, as we notice the central government relinquishing control. The study deals with the kind of people who are active in urban communities, theirs factors of influence, response to government sponsored programs, and other factors that may influence other residents, neighbours and community members. CONCLUSION In conclusion, one can say that while it is true that the central government of China tried to take the necessary steps by way of reforms in order to disassociate themselves from the citizens at the grassroots level, there is a difference between ‘citizenship’ and ‘community participation’ in contemporary, urban China. With the onus of actually running the neighborhood community programs being put out on the citizen at the grassroots level, by the Central government, it has resulted in greater ownership of the initiatives. This in turn puts the emphasis on self-reliance and self-determination amongst the population in urban China. References Benewick, Robert, Tong, Irene and Howell, Jude.. 2001. Self-Governance and Community: A Preliminary Comparison between Villagers’ Committees and Urban Community Councils. China Information. Bray, David. 2008. Designing to Govern: Space and Power in Two Wuhan Communities. Alexandrine Press. Dai, Haijing. 2008. Community in a diverse society: Using three Western approaches to understand community organization in post-socialist urban China. Tomba, Luigi. 2005. Residential Space and Collective Interest Formation in Beijing’s House Disputes. The China Quarterly. Turner, Bryan. 1993. Contemporary Problems in the Theory of Citizenship. Citizenship and Social Theory (London). Sage Publications. Xu, Qingwen. 2007. Community Participation in Urban China : Identifying Mobilization Factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Read More