I’m seeing a potential discrepancy or contradiction between my readings in my Ethnicity & Identity paper and my China and the World paper. Everything i’ve read on China indicates the CCP has an undying commitment to the state system and the sovereignty of each state in that system. My readings this week elaborate a little further and tell me that, at least in China, the state dictates both culture and interest for the people (not a big leap to call those integral parts of a nation).
So when i read Paul Spoonley for my Ethnicity & Identity paper saying, “it is the nation that has been problematised and has become de-hyphenated from the state,” that things start to get a little dicey.
If nations are no longer inextricably attached to states or geographical locations we’ve officially become a global society where nation-hood is mobile and state-hood is transferable. Okay, so maybe all the pieces aren’t in place yet for a global culture to exist, but we’re at least driving down the on-ramp and getting ready to merge onto the highway. We can always get off at the next exit, but we’re going this direction for the time being regardless.
Global anything seems to be a big issue for China, or at least the CCP. Global culture, global spread of democracy, U.S. global hegemony, it’s all an issue for the CCP that feels like it’s very existence is threatened by these forces. If Spoonley is right and nations and their states aren’t tied to one another anymore then China has to face the possibility that the state does not create the nation and that the national identity of China is an independent entity.
Is it possible for China to maintain this ideology while the rest of the world “de-hyphens”? I don’t think the CCP can exist if the Chinese nation decides it, rather than the state, forms it’s identity and culture.
Is this all just a chicken and egg question with no good answer?