Does China really brainwash its citizens or is that just a stereotype?
This is a very sensitive question. No one, regardless of where they are from, wants to be called brainwashed. It is natural to behave defensively when confronted with such an accusation.
Chinese are no exception.
Therefore, we must approach the following topic with extreme sensitivity. A proper answer must not exude arrogance or judgement. Neither should it deflect the question with misdirections or whataboutism.
It is difficult to formulate an answer that will offend nobody. Nevertheless, this essay will focus merely on the facts, without any personal input or judgement, and will hopefully be as objective as possible.
Please note that the question “Does China brainwash its citizens?” inherently contains two more questions within itself:
One,
“Does China attempt to brainwash its citizens?”
and two,
“If so, are these attempts successful?”
ie, asking whether or not Chinese citizens are effectively brainwashed by their state.
In order to answer the first question, we must first define what “brainwashing” is. I have compiled a short list of questions that need to be considered if we are to ultimately judge whether or not China (or more specifically, the CCP) attempts to brainwash its citizens. The questions we need to go over include:
- What narrative is the state trying to propagate?
- Does the state allow for plurality of opinions? If so, to what extent and on which subjects?
- Is there tolerance for peaceful dissenters and protestors?
- How much is reported in official media and how are these matters portrayed? Is there tolerance for independent media or freedom of the press?
- How strong is the state’s level of censorship?
- What sort of entertainment media is encouraged and how subject is it to censorship?
- How objective are the state’s textbooks, curricula, and overall education regarding political matters?
- Does the state have “red lines” that are forbidden to be discussed or compromised?
- Are citizens of the state capable of debating logically with objective rationality or do they tend to fall back on emotive outbursts?
- Do citizens of the state tend to reuse the same handful of talking points in every debate?
And finally, to address the second question,
- Overall, how effective are these efforts in brainwashing Chinese citizens?
As a bonus, we can provide context with a post-script question:
- Relative to other countries, how does China’s level of “brainwashing” compare?
Whether or not brainwashing is inherently a bad thing is another point we can briefly touch upon.
Without further ado, let’s delve in.
What narrative is the state trying to propagate?
China’s official narrative is that China is a resurging power. While China claims to not seek to overthrow the United States as the world hegemon, Chinese official narratives also posit that for the majority of human civilization, China was the center of the world and held the world’s highest GDP, greatest intellects, most successful empires, and most benevolent rulers. Some dynasties are brushed off as corrupt or incompetent (ex. the Song), but on the whole Chinese civilization is revered. The previous “Century of Humiliation” was only a bump in the radar of human history, and, inevitably, China will rise again to its rightful place as the greatest, most successful, most benevolent empire on the face of the Earth.
Foreign countries, particularly Western countries, are routinely depicted as arrogant, violent, self-righteous, and misguided. Overwhelmingly, all Western countries are a conglomerate and vaguely-interchangeable “white nations,” with more or the less the same anti-Chinese agendas born from their inherent white arrogance, ignorance, misunderstanding of history, and jealousy.
China’s official ruling party, the CCP, is perfect. The central leadership has never made a single mistake and always makes every correct decision to bring the Chinese people to power and prosperity. Because the CCP is so busy, they may overlook small, neighbourhood issues. Luckily, citizens can bring such issues the CCP’s attention (a traffic light went out, a small river is flooding) and these issues will actually be remedied. However, any large-scale decision affecting the future or direction of the country is unobjectionably 100% correct. Such decisions are better left to the qualified experts in the CCP’s meritocracy. Ordinary citizens are not as educated as CCP officials and therefore have no right to share dissenting opinions, lest they stir up rumours or provoke trouble.
If pressed, the CCP’s founding figure, Mao Zedong, could be admitted as divisive figure (“70% good, 30% bad,” as famously quoted by Deng Xiaoping). Since Mao, however, there has never been a single mistake made in the CCP’s central authority or policies. In the off chance that a corrupt official is found within the inner circle of the CCP, he is discovered and purged immediately.
Finally, all of China’s troubles are the result of foreign meddling. Foreign countries took advantage of China during a brief period of weakness. China does not seek revenge, but will become strong and prosperous to ensure that it can never be victimized by foreign powers ever again.
This is more or less the official narrative that the state attempts to propagate
Does the state allow for plurality of opinions? If so, to what extent and on which subjects?
China’s constitution claims to guarantees freedom of speech. However, the Subversion of State Power clause and Protection of State Secret clauses are often used to silence and imprison dissenters.¹
Chinese Law forbids the advocacy of separation of any part of its claimed territory from mainland China, or public challenge to the CCP’s domination of the government of China.
The 2020 World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), shows that China is the world’s biggest jailers of journalists. China is currently holding around 100, of whom the vast majority are Uyghurs.²
The CCP effectively monopolizes organized political activity in China. There is, therefore, no possibility of genuine electoral competition at any level of government, nor within the Party itself.
Local officials are chosen by election, and even though non-Communist Party candidates are allowed to stand, those with dissident views can face arbitrary exclusion from the ballot, interference with campaigning, and detention.³
The most recent major movement advocating for political freedom was obliterated through the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the estimated death toll of which ranges from about 200 to 10,000 depending on sources.
The following is a short list of incidents relating to the CCP’s tolerance regarding plurality of opinions:
- In November 1992, 192 Chinese political activists and democracy advocates submitted a petition to the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China to introduce political reforms. One of the six demands was the ratification of the Covenant. As a reaction to the petition, the Chinese authorities arrested Zhao Changqing, proponent of the petition, and are still holding a number of activists for attempted subversion.
- The CCP commonly claims political dissenters are suffered from “mental instability.” 1992, Wang Wanxing was arrested for displaying a pro-democracy banner in Tiananmen Square. After Wang’s arrest, his wife was forced to sign a statement that would confirm his “unstable” mental state. She was promised his immediate release. Instead, Wang was placed in the Beijing Ankang hospital to be tortured. Finally he was exiled to Germany in 2005.⁵
- In 2008, the CCP promised to issue permits authorizing people to protest in specifically designated “protest parks” in Beijing.⁶ However, a majority of the applications were withdrawn, suspended, or vetoed, and the police detained some of the people who applied.⁷⁸
- In 2008, ITV News reporter John Ray was arrested while covering a ‘Free Tibet’ protest.⁹ Three years after, the Chinese government detained 831 Tibetans as political prisoners; of these 831 prisoners, 12 are serving life sentences and 9 were sentenced to death.
- Other political prisoners include journalist Tan Zuoren, human rights activist Xu Zhiyong, and journalist Shi Tao. Tan Zuoren was arrested in 2010 and sentenced to 5 years in prison after publicly speaking about government corruption as well as the poorly constructed school buildings that collapsed and led to the deaths of thousands of children during the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan. Xu Zhiyong was sentenced to four years in prison in 2014 after gaining a significant social media following and using it as a platform to express his sociopolitical opinions. Shi Tao was sentenced to 8 years after publicizing the list of instructions that the Communist Party sent journalists regarding how to report the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.¹¹
- In March 2020, China expelled employees of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.¹²
- In June 2020, Sun Qia, a Chinese-born woman who immigrated to Canada and a Falun Gong practitioner, was sentenced to eight years in jail for belonging to a spiritual movement that Beijing calls a “cult.” Ms. Sun told a lawyer that she was mentally tortured in the prison and pepper-sprayed while restrained.¹³
- In July 2020, Ren Zhiqiang publicly denounced Xi Jinping over the handling of China’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. By September he was sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment, after a one-day trial.¹⁴
- Australian TV host Cheng Lei working at China’s state broadcaster was detained by the Chinese authorities in August 2020. Lei had been detained without any charges and is still imprisoned to this day.
- Human rights activists Xie Xang made them mistake of protesting, slandering the government’s names on social media, and filing lawsuits against officials. As a result, he was interrogated while shackled onto a metal chair, forced to sit in stressful positions for a set amount of time, and tortured physically and mentally. He also quoted his interrogators stating that he was told that “I could torture you to death and no one could help you.”¹⁵
Basically, any political criticism is unacceptable in China.
Is there tolerance for peaceful dissidents and protestors?
China’s Constitution claims that “citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration.” However, the practice of these rights are tightly proscribed, generally under the auspices of maintaining “social stability.” Paradoxically, the Constitution also declares it to be the duty of Chinese citizens to “fight against those forces and elements […] that are hostile to China’s socialist system and try to undermine it.”
Poorly defined anti-subversion laws, such as article 105 of the criminal code, may be used to criminally prosecute individuals seeking to exercise the rights of assembly, free speech, or demonstration. Other citizens engaged in various forms of protest may face administrative punishment, such as sentencing to forced labor terms.
No matter how peaceful the protest, if the target is the central authority, then the CCP will respond with any number of measures, including suppression, censorship, the imprisonment or “re-education through labor” of dissidents and activists.
Basically, protesting the central government is illegal in China.
How much is reported in official media and how are these matters portrayed? Is there tolerance for independent media or freedom of the press?
Reporters Without Borders consistently ranks China very poorly on media freedoms in their annual releases of the Press Freedom Index, labeling the Chinese government as having “the sorry distinction of leading the world in repression of the Internet”. For 2019, China ranked 177 out of 180 nations, behind only Eritrea, Turkmenistan, and North Korea as having the least freest press in the world.
Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and until the 1980s, almost all media outlets in Mainland China were state-run. Independent media outlets only began to emerge at the onset of economic reforms, although state media outlets such as Xinhua, China Central Television (CCTV), and People’s Daily continue to hold significant market share. Regulatory agencies, such as the General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) and the National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA), continue to set strict regulations on subjects considered taboo by the government, including but not limited to the legitimacy of the Communist Party, government policies in Tibet and Xinjiang, pornography, and the banned religious topics, such as the Dalai Lama and the Falun Gong.
Media controls were most relaxed during the 1980s under Deng Xiaoping, until they were tightened in the aftermath of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Protests. They were relaxed again under Jiang Zemin in the late 1990s, but the growing influence of the Internet and its potential to encourage dissent led to heavier regulations again under the government of Hu Jintao.
The media and communications industry in China is administered by various government agencies and regulators. The principal mechanism to force media outlets to comply with the Communist Party’s requests is the vertically organized nomenklatura system of cadre appointments, and includes those in charge of the media industry.¹⁷
The CCP utilizes a wide variety of tools to maintain control over news reporting including “direct ownership, accreditation of journalists, harsh penalties for online criticism, and daily directives to media outlets and websites that guide coverage of breaking news stories.”
Under Party General Secretary Xi Jinping investigative journalism has been driven almost to extinction within China.¹⁸
- The CCP uses a variety of approaches to retain some control over the media: It requires that newspapers be registered and attached to a government ministry, institute, research facility, labor group, or other State-sanctioned entity.
- Entrepreneurs cannot establish newspapers or magazines under their own names, although they reportedly have had some success in setting up research institutes and then creating publications attached to those bodies.
- It still occasionally jails or fines journalists for unfavorable reporting.
- It imposes other punishments when it deems that criticism has gone too far. For example, it shut down the magazine Future and Development in 1993 for publishing two articles calling for greater democracy in mainland China, and it forced the firing of the Beijing Youth Daily’s editor for aggressively covering misdeeds and acts of poor judgment by party cadre.
- It continues to make clear that criticism of certain fundamental policies — such as those on PRC sovereignty over territories under Republic of China administration and Tibet and on Hong Kong’s future in the wake of the transfer of Hong Kong sovereignty on July 1, 1997 — are off limits.
- It has set up numerous official journalists’ associations — the largest is the All-China Journalist Federation, with more than 400,000 members — so that no single entity can develop major autonomous power.
- It holds weekly meetings with top newspaper editors to direct them as to what news items they want focused upon and which stories they want to go unreported. The controversial closure of the Freezing Point journal was generally unreported in mainland China due to government orders.
- It has maintained a system of uncertainty surrounding the boundaries of acceptable reporting, encouraging self-censorship. One media researcher has written that “it is the very arbitrariness of this control regime that cows most journalists into more conservative coverage.”
- In 2019, All-China Journalists Association updated its code of ethics and mandatory exam requiring journalists to be guided by Xi Jinping Thought.²⁰
Independent reporting? Freedom of the press? In China? Forget it.
How strong is the state’s level of censorship?
The Chinese government asserts that it has the legal right to control the content within all media capable of reaching a wide audience, including television, print media, radio, film, theater, text messaging, instant messaging, video games, literature, and the Internet. The CCP asserts that their censorship rules do not infringe on their citizens’ right to free speech.²¹ Since Xi Jinping became the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (de facto paramount leader) in 2012, censorship has been “significantly stepped up”.²²
The Chinese government regulates the creation and distribution of materials regarding Chinese history. Particular emphasis is placed on combating “historical nihilism”. The Communist Party’s historical research body, the Central Committee Party History Research Office, has defined historical nihilism as that which “seek[s] to distort the history of modern China’s revolution, the CPC and the armed forces under the guise of reevaluating existing narratives”, and thus countering such nihilism is “a form of political combat, crucial to the CPC leadership and the security of socialism”.²³
One example of this is the censorship of historical writings about the Cultural Revolution. Although the Chinese government now officially denounces the Cultural Revolution, it does not allow Chinese citizens to present detailed histories of the suffering and brutality that ordinary people sustained.
Major media outlets receive guidance from the Chinese Department of Propaganda on what content is politically acceptable.²⁵ The PRC bans certain content regarding independence movements in Tibet and Taiwan, the religious movement Falun Gong, democracy, the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre of 1989, Maoism, corruption, police brutality, anarchism, gossip, disparity of wealth, and food safety scandals.²⁶ ²⁷
The Chinese government censors content it considers contrary to Chinese moral and cultural norms. Content censored on moral grounds has included pornography in China, violence in films; “low-culture” and morally “problematic” performances, such as hip-hop or those featuring visibly tattooed artists and LGBTQ content on television.²⁸ ²⁹
The Communist Party also often employs teams of writers (写作组) to write articles under pseudonyms for the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, as well as other journals. These writing teams are most often employed by the Central Propaganda Department, the Central Organization Department, and the Political and Legislative Affairs Committee. The main purpose of these writing groups is to spread the opinions and political thoughts of the Chinese Communist Party without these ideas being perceived as propaganda. Writing teams consistently use the same pseudonyms to write about specific topics that they specialize in. For example, Ke Jiaoping is the pseudonym for a writing group that publishes articles about technological education and He Zhenhua is the pseudonym for a writing group that publishes articles opposing separatism.
Foreign and Hong Kong news broadcasts in mainland China from TVB, CNN International, BBC World Service, and Bloomberg Television are occasionally censored by being “blacked out” during controversial segments. It is reported that CNN has made an arrangement that allowed their signal to pass through a Chinese-controlled satellite. Chinese authorities have been able to censor CNN segments at any time in this way.³¹ CNN’s broadcasts are not widely available throughout China, but rather only in certain diplomatic compounds, hotels, and apartment blocks.
Numerous content which have been blacked out has included references to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Dalai Lama, the death of Zhao Ziyang,³³ the 2008 Tibetan unrest, the 2008 Chinese milk scandal and negative developments about the Beijing Olympics.³⁵
All audio visual works dealing with “serious topics” such as the Cultural Revolution must be registered before distribution on the mainland.³⁶ For example, The Departed was not given permission to screen because it suggested that the government intends to use nuclear weapons on Taiwan. Films with sexually explicit themes have also been banned, including Farewell My Concubine, Brokeback Mountain and Memoirs of a Geisha. Warner Brothers never submitted The Dark Knight for censors, citing “Cultural sensitivities in some elements of the film” due to the appearance by a Hong Kong singer whose sexually explicit photographs leaked onto the internet. Films by PRC nationals cannot be submitted to foreign film festivals without government approval.³⁷
China’s state-run General Administration of Press and Publication (新闻出版总署) screens all Chinese literature that is intended to be sold on the open market. The GAPP has the legal authority to screen, censor, and ban any print, electronic, or Internet publication in China. Because all publishers in China are required to be licensed by the GAPP, that agency also has the power to deny people the right to publish, and completely shut down any publisher who fails to follow its dictates.³⁸
China has historically issued bans to music acts who proclaim support of Tibetan independence or otherwise interact with the Dalai Lama, such as Oasis — which had concerts cancelled after lead singer Noel Gallagher had performed in a concert to benefit the movement, Maroon 5 — which had concerts cancelled after a band member made a Twitter post celebrating his 80th birthday, and Lady Gaga — who became the subject of a ban issued by the Publicity Department after having posted an online video of her meeting with him.³⁹ ⁴⁰
In 2004, the Ministry of Culture set up a committee to screen imported online video games before they entered the Chinese market. It was stated that games with any of the following violations would be banned from importation:
- Violating basic principles of the Chinese Constitution
- Threatening national unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity
- Damaging the nation’s glory
- Disturbing social order
As the 2008 Chinese milk scandal broke out in September, the Chinese government also denied speculation from western media outlets that their desire for perfect games contributed towards the allegedly delayed recall of contaminated infant formula. This caused deaths and kidney damage in infants.⁴¹ ⁴²
In January 2011, Boxun revealed that the Politburo member responsible for the Propaganda Department, Li Changchun, issued instructions for the Chinese media to downplay social tensions on issues such as land prices, political reform and major disasters or incidents, and to ensure reporting does not show the Communist party negatively. The Party warned that the media must “ensure that the party and government do not become the targets or focus of criticism”, and any mention of political reforms must reflect the government in a favourable light.
In 2013, The Beijing News, a Communist Party-run newspaper, noted that the Publicity Department employed over 2 million ‘public sentiment analysts’ across the country, who monitor comments on particular topics on the Chinese Internet and compile reports for relevant government or Party bodies if discussion crosses certain thresholds, which in turn decide if and how to respond. ⁴⁵
China has also begun a larger campaign on foreign media, including continuing crackdowns on banning foreign cartoons from Chinese prime time TV, ⁴⁶ and limits on screening for foreign films could be seen as a continuation of cultural-minded censorship.
Foreign TV shows and films on internet also become the target of censorship. In July 2017, Bilibili removed most of its American and British TV shows, and all foreign categories like “American drama” to comply with regulations. ⁴⁷ In order to limit outside influence on Chinese society, authorities began to restrict the publishing of children’s books written by foreign authors in China from early 2017, reducing the number of these kind of books from thousands to hundreds a year. ⁴⁸
In 2018, a number of agencies underwent a reorganization designed to strengthen Party control of media.⁴⁹ Most of the duties of the General Administration of Press and Publication (previously the State Administration for Press Publishing Radio Film & Television), which licensed and censored all content publishers within China, including in print, audio, and Internet formats, were taken over by the new National Radio and Television Administration under the authority of the State Council. Film and press work was transferred directly to the Publicity Department in the form of the State Film Administration and State Administration of Press and Publication.⁵⁰
The Communist Party punished foreign journalists by failing to renew their credentials when foreign journalists criticized the Communist Party’s policies. On 19 February 2020, China announced the revoking of the press credentials of three Wall Street Journal reporters based in Beijing. China accused the “Wall Street Journal” of failing to apologize for publishing articles that slandered China’s efforts to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, and failing to investigate and punish those responsible.⁵¹
But of course, we cannot talk about censorship in China without the big one, the crown jewel of Chinese censorship: The Great Firewall.
China’s internet censorship is regarded by many as the most pervasive and sophisticated in the world. According to a Harvard study conducted in 2002,⁵² at least 18,000 websites were blocked from within the country, and the number is believed to have been growing constantly. Banned sites include YouTube (from March 2009), Facebook (from July 2009), Google services (including Search, Google+, Maps, Docs, Drive, Sites, and Picasa), Twitter, Dropbox, Foursquare, and Flickr.
Naturally, the government has implemented rules and preventative measures to counter the spread of negative public opinion regarding the Communist Party and governmental affairs. For example, Article 246. Section 1 in Criminal Law states that unlawful posts that are shared over 500 times or seen over 5000 times will result in the poster being charged with up to 3 years in prison.⁵³ The Chinese government also employs people as “black PRs” to remove information from the Internet and criticize those who speak negatively about the government.⁵⁵ Network operators are obligated by the Cyberspace Administration to assist the government in monitoring and removing “illegal information” online.⁵⁶ Moreover, the Cybersecurity Law that went into effect on 1 June 2017 forces internet providers to identify internet users, facilitating control and monitoring of public expression online. The State Council has the right to cut off network access or shut down internet access in response to incidents it deems a risk to national security. For example, in response to the 2009 riots in Xinjiang, the Chinese government restricted internet access in the region and shut down the social media platforms Twitter and Fanfou.
Sina Weibo has an internal censorship department that issues its own directives in line with government authority requirements and employs its own censors to monitor content. The Committee to Protect Journalists has published documents it said are from the Weibo censorship department between 2011 and 2014 that detailed the methodology: “… Sina’s computer system scans each post using an algorithm designed to identify politically unacceptable content… [p]osts are flagged by the algorithm and forwarded to the department’s employees, who decide their fate based on the instructions listed in the censorship logs.”
Lastly, in June 2020, the CCP passed the Hong Kong national security law. Deliberately vague, it authorizes the arrest of anyone for committing anything that could be misinterpreted as “treason, secession, sedition, or subversion against the Central People’s Government,” no matter how slight.⁵⁷ Wearing a pro-democracy T-shirt? Treason. Sharing a BBC article online? Treason. Looking at a police officer wrong? Treason. Walking down the wrong street at the wrong time? Treason. The most amazing part of the new law is the clause that stipulates any individual can be arrested for any action he committed at any time in history on any part of the planet. Spent ten seconds reading a CNN article ten years ago when you were living in the US? Treason. The Hong Kong National Security Law is generally regarded as the final death blow to any semblance of freedom Hong Kong had left.
To summarize, China is the censorship capital of the world. Only North Korea could compete with the scope of the CCP’s censorship campaigns.
What sort of entertainment media is encouraged and how subject is it to censorship?
In China, all films must be reviewed by the China Film Administration (国家电影局) under the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) before it can be released.⁵⁸
Films have been censored in China for as far back at 1949. The regulations have fluctuated over the years. I won’t bore you with each development, and instead I’ll only go over the current (as of June 2021) guidelines.
The most recent update was in 2016, in which the 12th Standing Committee of the National People's Congress at its 24th session passed the new PRC Film Industry Promotion Law (中国电影产业促进法). We’ll be focusing here on Article 16, which states that films must not contain the following:
- Violations of the basic principles of the Constitution of China, incitement of resistance to or undermining of implementation of the Constitution, laws, or administrative regulations;
- Questioning national unity, sovereignty or territorial integrity
- Harming “national dignity,” honor or interests
- Reporting of ethnic history or ethnic historical figures contrary to the Party line, injuring ethnic sentiments or undermining ethnic unity
- Inciting the undermining of national religious policy, advocating cults or superstitions
- Endangerment of “social morality,” disturbing “social order,” undermining social stability
You may read for yourself here:
A translation of China's Film Industry Promotion Law 2016
In 2017 the China Netcasting Services Association, an online broadcasting industry body subject to SAPPRFT and Ministry of Civil Affairs, issued a set of guidelines, signaling detailed control on all forms of audiovisual web content, including films:
- Defamation of revolutionary leaders, “heroes,” People's Liberation Army, armed police, national security apparatus, public security apparatus, and the judiciary branch, etc;
- Pornography, masturbation, homosexuality, hentai, extramarital affairs, one-night stands, sexual freedom, wife swapping, prolonged or provocative scenes of physical intimacy;
You may read for yourself here:
In short, a film may never air in Chin if it depicts any sort of alternative to the Party narrative. Neither the government nor any of its official branches must be questioned at any level, under any circumstance.
Wikipedia has a list of banned films in China:
List of Banned Films in China - Wikipedia
And edited films in China:
List of Edited Films in China - Wikipedia
Give it a look. You may be surprised at some of the stuff you see there (yes, Christopher Robin is banned in China. So no, the Winnie the Pooh meme is not just a joke)
Meanwhile, film writers, directors, and actors that make pro-China or pro-CCP films receive massive grants from the government. As of 2018, China’s propaganda department officially received control of China’s entire film and television industries, and personally finance pro-China content.
So, if you look at filmmaking from a business perspective, you will never not make a profit if you make a pro-China film because the CCP will finance more than enough of your costs.
This effectively incentivizes filmmakers to self-censor and extol praise for the Party in the pursuit of money.
How objective are the state’s textbooks, curricula, and overall education regarding political matters?
It should come as no surprise by now that censorship and indoctrination are two staples of Chinese education.
The sooner you realize the following fact, the sooner you will have an easier time teaching in China:
The goal of education in China is not to “educate.” It is not to produce critical-thinking learners. It is not to present objective facts. Education, just like entertainment, has the sole purpose of producing loyal and obedient citizens.
Since 2012, the Xi administration has Xi has specifically targeted libraries to censor pro-democracy books and textbooks used in schools, all to promote “patriotism and ideological purity in the education system.”⁵⁹
In 2019, the Xi administration ordered libraries and schools across the country to literally burn books that “promote incorrect global outlook and values.”⁶⁰
In Chinese universities, students attend “Ideology” classes to gain credits. At the outbreak of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, professors at Chinese universities were issued very strict guidelines for acceptable assignments regarding the situation. The following is one such marking scheme:
Chinese students are not evaluated based on how well they argue their points. They are evaluated on how closely their points align with the Party narrative. That is all.
I don’t think I need to go into further detail. One, because censorship in Chinese education is such a massive subject you could literally write a book on it, and two, everyone pretty much knows the obvious conclusion already — even the most die-hard China fans. If entertainment media in China is primarily produced to weave a non-negotiable narrative about the CCP and China, just imagine what their school system is like.
Does the state have “red lines” that are forbidden to be discussed or compromised?
When a person, agency, political party, or entire government is afraid of even discussing some topics, that means they are uncomfortable in their ability to defend their position on such topics.
The more “sensitive” a topic is for China, the less convincing their arguments are for it.
For example, China pledges to be Carbon Neutral by 2060.
Many China-critics have expressed their doubts, however, by some perspectives this goal is eventually possible.
Environmental responsibility is of course censored and manipulated in China, however, it is not a particularly contentious issue. Even official Chinese sources report the dangers of Chinese air pollution. However, their censorship is limited towards cutting back on AQI levels (reporting the their AQI at about 75% severity than the real number) and focusing on how China is improving in various environmental areas. It is not considered a “red line” because China has physical proof that it is developing more green power, electric cars, etc.
However, when China has dubious justification for a position, then that position becomes a “red line” that no one is even allowed to think too hard about. Taiwan is a ready example.
Anyone with even basic critical thinking skills can plainly see that the CCP has zero legal or political administration over Taiwan. It is undeniably a separate entity from the PRC, and making a map of both the mainland and Taiwan and coloring it in with a Chinese flag is as absurd as covering in both the US and the UK with the Union Jack. Yet, this is often a common practice in China despite its ridiculousness. Why? Because this is politically important to the CCP’s narrative.
How to reconcile this embarrassing fact, that Taiwan is not beholden to the PRC in any way and yet project the lie that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the PRC?
Make it a “red line.”
Explode with emotion at even the mention of the word “Taiwan.” Ban any flags, icons, or emojis that even remotely resemble Taiwan. Ban any word that starts with T and ends with N. The fear being, anyone who educates themselves even a little bit on the PRC-ROC dispute can clearly uncover the truth and thus lose a little confidence in the CCP’s official narratives.
Countries and administrations that are confident in their positions do not have “red lines” in this way; they let the facts and logical connections speak for themselves. China, however, does not have this luxury in some of their more preposterous assertions, and must rely on censorship and, yes, brainwashing instead.
It’s hard to find a comprehensive list of China’s “red lines;” due to the opaqueness of the regime, this list is malleable according to the Party’s interests and is always changing. From what I can infer, the following is my approximation of China’s “red lines” that may not be challenged, questioned, or discussed in any way:
- Territorial boundaries
- Taiwan
- Xinjiang
- Hong Kong
- Tibet
- The South China Sea
- Any talk of secession, or questioning China’s occupation of any territory
- Anything else that China may decide to be a “core interest” at any moment of the Party’s discretion
As you can see, basically all of these “red lines” revolve around territory. This is because basically all of China’s territory has been conquered by force, and the legitimacy of their territorial claims are fairly weak to anyone with even a superficial understanding of China’s history. Being an expansionist power, China seeks to keep an iron grip on every speck of land they have occupied so far.
Are citizens of the state capable of debating logically with objective rationality or do they tend to fall back on emotive outbursts?
I would like to keep this segment short because it’s not something that can really be objectively measured.
Simply ask yourself, when it comes to debating with any group of people on the internet, which group is the most belligerent, stubborn, unwilling to listen to the opposing side, uncompromising, aggressive, sensitive, emotional, fallacious, condescending, unconstructive, and confrontational?
In my experience, the answer is 100% absolutely Chinese ultra-nationalists, without a shadow of a doubt. I have never interacted with a group of netizens with a worse reputation.
I am obviously not referring to “all Chinese.” I only refer to ultra-nationalist pro-China and pro-CCP netizens.
Obviously this is a subjective experience. Perhaps other people have other perspectives.
My question is this, if most countries around the world can agree “yeah, Chinese ultra-nationalists are the worst,” and the Chinese nationalist opinion is “Yeah, everyone except us Chinese are the worst online,” what does that tell you?
Chinese ultra-nationalists, you are Bob.
Without further ado, it’s time to address the question head on:
Does China attempt to brainwash its citizens?
Yes. Oh God, yes. If this answer has not proven that for you, then nothing will.
So, naturally the next question has to be,
How effective are China’s attempts at brainwashing its citizens?
Unfortunately there’s no clear answer to this. China is a country of 1.4 billion people and generalizing all of them as either being “brainwashed” or “not brainwashed” is too general a statement for anyone to make.
Everyone will have their own metric. What would convince you either way? This is a question you have to think about for yourself.
If you’re interested in me personally, I’d say I would measure a person’s level of indoctrination based on how they perform in regards to the following questions:
- Are you able to listen to criticism of your country/your country’s administrative policies objectively?
- Are you able to respond to criticisms of your country/your country’s administrative policies without resorting to deflection, personal attacks, emotive outbursts, name-calling, or other logical fallacies?
- Are you able to respond to criticisms of your country/your country’s administrative policies coming from foreigners or will you only accept them coming from a fellow native?
- Do you, by default, consider your country’s education, media, and official statistics to be superior to those of other countries without reasonable cause?
- Do you agree that a plurality of voices and opinions is naturally more objective and trustworthy than one singular state-sponsored perspective?
- Can you list at least five to ten lies your government has tried to tell you?
- Are you able to leave your personal experiences and biases out of the equation when evaluating your own country/your country’s administrative policies? Especially if that criticism is coming from a foreigner who’s countrymen you may have had a bad experience with? (For example, have you ever had a bad experience with an Irishman, and thus are unable to listen to the opinions and perspectives of Irish people objectively?)
- Do you believe any topics, policies, or decisions are above reproach or immune to criticism?
- Do you believe sensitivities have any place in political discourse?
- And, finally:
- Do you believe yourself exceptional and somehow immune to brainwashing?
Maybe you have your own set of questions you use to measure someone’s level of indoctrination. That’s great. There’s no one way to do it and it will always vary depending on the person.
When it comes to China, I think it varies greatly. Older generations will obviously have less access to outside information. Some younger generations will too.
If it looks like I’m tapdancing around the issue, it’s because I am. Sorry, but if you’re hoping for a handy pie chart that lists “x% of Chinese are brainwashed!” I’m sorry but I don’t have it. Since I never talk about political stuff with my Chinese friends, I have no idea what most of their true political opinions are. Even if they had some anti-establishment opinions,, would they dare ever share them with anyone? Let alone a foreigner? As I’ve gone over extensively above, that’s against the law and way too risky in China.
So the question is unfortunately kind of impossible to answer. All we have to go off of is the Chinese presence online, which seems heavily slanted towards the pro-China, pro-CCP side. But online is online.
Last question: relative to other countries, how does China’s level of “brainwashing” compare?
It’s true that all countries have some form of censorship, subjective education, historical coverups, political manipulation, etc. It’s also a fact that 100% true freedom of speech does not exist, anywhere.
However, it would be an either/or fallacy to simply think all countries, curricula, and political models are on the same level.
It’s a spectrum, not a binary scale.
Simply saying “every country does it” and then finding a singular example of another country doing it in one specific instance to try and prove “everyone’s the same” does nothing to further your point. No matter what country you live in, anyone can find at least one shitty thing your country has done. But such contests are a waste of time.
The intellectually honest will try and examine on the aggregate, forming a sense of scale by which to measure all respective points of data. I’ll let the meme do the talking:
Thanks for reading.
