China and liberal hierarchies in global international society: power and negotiation for normative change

Abstract

This article investigates the entanglement of the rising Chinese power with the liberal global order in negotiating for normative change. Drawing upon the English School theoretical perspective, it argues that three hierarchical constructs of liberal persuasion co‐exist in and cohabit the global international society today. They are, namely, the legalized hegemony as seen in the UN Charter‐based liberal pluralism; the changing normative order of emerging solidarist and anti‐pluralist formation that purposively creates unequal sovereigns; and the liberal global governance order that moves predominantly in the direction of state‐centric solidarism. As an emerging power with an authoritarian regime, China's entanglement with these liberal hierarchical constructs is multifaceted with complex dynamics. The article argues specifically that three differentiated strategic approaches have been developed by China in this entanglement: to defend liberal pluralism in the legalized hegemony; to contest liberal cosmopolitan anti‐pluralism in the changing normative order; and to endorse state‐centric solidarism with regard to the construction of a liberal global governance order. If they reflect a rising China's preferences of order construction, they also constitute an important part of China's engaging negotiations for normative change in international society. The agency China exercises in this regard helps explain the limited consensus among Great Powers as to the ‘central direction’ for the evolving global order. The preferences of China as the second among equals in the Great Power club matter greatly in understanding the contention between pluralism and solidarism in the changing raison de système of contemporary global international society.

The Concept of ‘Community of Common Destiny’ in China's Diplomacy: Meaning, Motives and Implications

“…Put it another way, China is keen to increase its role in global affairs in accordance with its growing strength. As Professor Zhang Yongjin put it, China prefers to bring peaceful changes and sustain a ‘resilient status quo’ (, p. 798). The CCD concept carries this meaning.…”

The Belt and Road Initiative in China's Emerging Grand Strategy of Connective Leadership

“…In the ideational sphere, the growing importance of recognition from abroad for the legitimating mechanisms of the Chinese Party-State (Holbig, 2013, p. 77) requires on China's part a carefully calibrated agenda of normative entrepreneurship. Such an agenda entails a shift away from rearguard efforts of "norm subsidiarity" (Acharya, 2011) toward a proactive negotiation for mainstream normative change, to facilitate the accommodation of China's peaceful rise (Zhang, 2016) within a "regional community of common destiny" (Xi, 2015a). As discussed in the next section, Beijing is now effectively proposing an updated raison de système to underpin the international system as it shifts away from its unipolar configuration.…”

Right-Wing Populist Discourse on Chinese Social Media: Identity, Otherness, and Global Imaginaries

“…In other words, it provokes a similar hostility towards immigrants, Muslims, multiculturalism, the so-called 'liberal elites', known as the 'white left' in Chinese online communities (Zhang, 2017), and progressive social movements in general. However, compared to its Western counterparts, right-wing populist discourse in China engenders a different global imaginary and integrates Chinese discontents with liberal hierarchies of the international order (Zhang, 2016) into expressions of nativist and authoritarian ideologies. Although reproducing many of the claims and fictions of nationalism, racism and Han supremacism that have long existed on Chinese internet (Cheng, 2011;Leibold, 2016;Pfafman, Carpenter and Tang, 2015), the emergent right-wing discourse also rearticulates national identity and self/other relations in new ways by shifting focus from historical memories of 'pride and humiliation' (Callahan, 2009;Gries, 2004) to debating political norms and values of the present.…”