Tocqueville's Law and the Current Social and Political Situation in China

1. The Art of Domination

In his book Political Order in a Changing Society, American political scientist Samuel Huntington examines the political upheaval that occurred around the world in the 20 years following World War II—coups, revolutions, bloodshed, etc.— - After that, reiterate "Tocqueville's Law":

 Among the laws that govern human society, there is one clearest and clearest: If people want to keep their civilization or hope to become civilized, then they must improve and improve the art of dealing with each other, and the speed of this increase and improvement Must be at the same rate as the advancement of status equality.

The "equality of status" in this passage, the French original is égalité des conditions, also translated as "equality of status", was first proposed by Tocqueville in "On Democracy in America", Tocqueville's entire history in Christian Europe , the observation that "equality of identity" has moved forward century after century, everything seems to be an irresistible, even divine, movement. In the historical process of "identity equality", as long as people have social interactions, the homogenization movement will be unstoppable. Therefore, one new social class after another will participate in public affairs, that is, enter political life. However, when the "art of domination" cannot keep up with the historical process of "identity equality", new social classes have emerged in the public space, but they cannot be effectively ruled, which will inevitably subvert the previous political order and bring about political turmoil. Thus, the mismatch between "art of domination" and "equality of status" was, in Huntington's view, the source of all postwar political turmoil.

The solution given by Huntington is to discuss how to avoid political instability from the perspective of "the art of domination", that is to say, Huntington is talking about how to "produce" political order. Just as when discussing the economic order, the planned economy starts from production and the market economy starts from demand. In discussing the political order, in addition to the production perspective of the political order, there is another research approach, that is, by examining the development status of "identity equality", to identify people's need for "the art of domination". Furthermore, according to the needs, the "art of domination" that is adapted to "equality of identity" should be developed, so as to ensure that the "art of domination" can always adapt to the development and changes of "equality of identity".

Therefore, in our "demand-side" thinking that subverts the direction of Huntington's thinking, examining the immediate state of the historical process of "identity equality" will become an essential homework for all "art of domination".

Tocqueville's "identity equality" refers to the equality of people's identities in the public sphere. Before entering the public sphere of the community, people are alienated from each other and have no comparability, which means neither equality nor equality. Inequality, equality or inequality of identity exists only when people enter the community to participate in public affairs. Therefore, the historical process of "identity equality" is also the historical process of people's participation in public affairs.

2. From "every man has the responsibility" to "every man has the right": our exact position in the "change unseen in three thousand years"

From the perspective of the historical process of "identity equality" in the entire Chinese cultural tradition, where do we stand?

Whether it is the Chinese tradition, which views the development of traditional history and culture in terms of "the unity of man and nature", or the Western tradition, which views the progress of civilization in terms of the spiritual development of human beings, we can return to the deepening of our understanding of "human beings" to confirm that we are in "" Equality of Status” in the historical process.

Since the "people" who were mandated by heaven in the poetic era were differentiated from the "people", it was the "people" rather than the "people" who participated in public affairs. The identity of "people" is excluded from public affairs, so Confucius said, "there is a way in the world, and the common people do not discuss it"; "people" are excluded from historical memory, which is why the "Historical Records" records only emperors and generals. Heroes and martyrs and no cause for civilians.

In Chinese tradition, only by becoming a "person" can one appear in history as a collective memory, and "person" means the identity of participating in public affairs. How to understand "people"? Who qualifies as a "person"? The struggle for the right to interpret these issues, as well as for the control of public affairs, has been extremely fierce in every period of history. From the conflict between man and king brought about by the different understandings of "the unity of heaven and man" or "the unity of heaven and king" in the Han Dynasty, to the scholar-bureaucrats in the Song Dynasty who "worried before the world and worried about the world" and ruled the world together with the Son of Heaven, the connotation of "human" Expanding to include more and more educated classes. With the improvement of the education level of the common people, in the Qing Dynasty, Confucianism realized a great reversal on the issue of common people's participation in public affairs. They believed that common people had the responsibility to participate in public affairs. Once civilians have the responsibility to participate in public affairs, the words "people" and "people" are combined into one and become "people".

The summary of the words "every man is responsible" was put forward by Liang Qichao in 1915, on the eve of the rise of the New Culture Movement. From Gu Yanwu to Liang Qichao, "every man has a responsibility" is not only a great progress in history, but also brings new problems, that is: every man has a responsibility but no power. The mismatch between powers and responsibilities has brought great confusion to the participation of civilians in public affairs. Civilians participated in public affairs in the way of "every man's responsibility". In the Qing Dynasty, there was the Taiping Rebellion Movement before and the Boxer Movement later. All ended in chaos and disaster.

"Everyone's responsibility" eventually matured into a Mao-style "mass movement." The characteristic of mass movements is that individuals are only members of the class "mass", and class membership means that, like animals, the life and death of the individual is not important, only the continuation of the population is important, and the individual has no rights and only has the responsibility for the reproduction and survival of the population. Therefore, " The masses" have only responsibilities and no rights. In this way, Mao miraculously achieved "every man's responsibility" when civilians had no personal rights. This model of mass movement pervaded the entire Mao era, but the consequence of the mass movement of "every man has responsibility but no power" is that after Mao's death, more than 100 million people believed that they were politically wronged or implicated. Inappropriate accusations, if not so, in order to achieve communism, individuals can even sacrifice their lives, what is the point of being wronged? Under the enormous pressure of rehabilitating, the ruling efficiency of the "mass movement" dropped to the lowest point, and the "art of ruling" in which power and responsibility did not correspond could no longer be maintained.

It was at that time that the system could not solve the employment of millions of educated youths returning to the city, and had to let them fend for themselves. This gave birth to the urban self-employed, and individuals had a living space outside the system. Since then, starting from property rights, "personal rights" has gradually become the theme of the times. The development of the entire era of "reform and opening up" has benefited from the "personal rights" that recognize the rights of the common people to have (property) property rights. Just as economics explains that defining property rights can bring about economic prosperity, China's economic development for more than 30 years is only because it echoes the historical process of "every man's right".

However, rights are not just property rights. The historical stage from "every man has the responsibility" to "every man has the right" is the precise position of our three thousand years of social transformation - with the historical process of "identity equality" as the substance. A historical process is far from over and will occupy the core of contemporary history.

3. The "Art of Domination" is at a loss in the face of the historical process of "identity equality"

The state of development of the "art of domination" is measured by the efficiency with which the ruler's intentions are transformed into the intentions of the ruled. In the specific context of China, "credibility" once indicated this conversion efficiency.

If we look back on a series of events that have occurred in public spaces in recent years, not only the historical process of "identity equality" is clearly visible, but also the changing trajectory of the "art of domination" with "credibility" as an indicator.

In early 2008, when "credibility" first became a buzzword in the media, few people would have noticed it, and that was probably the first sign of the divergence between "official" and "credibility". Previously, "official" was "credibility", regardless of each other, and there was really no need for two words to refer to each other. Therefore, in the "South China Tiger Photo Incident", on October 30, 2007, Guan Ke once called "Shaanxi Forestry Industry". The official identity of the director of the Information and Publicity Center of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China said: All the doubts about the photos of the South China tigers come from the people, and there have never been official doubts. Guan Ke used this to emphasize the unquestionable credibility of the South China tiger photo.

It can be seen that at that time, Guan Ke could still think without hesitation that the official is credibility, and credibility is the official. In this case, of course, the people do not have credibility. If this is the case, then the "art of domination" and the historical process of "identity equality" are matched.

However, as soon as Guan Ke's assertion came out, he was immediately met with overwhelming counterattacks. At noon that day, China's largest photography website "Sex Ying Wuji" specially set up a "Temporary Forum on the South China Tiger Incident", showing that the people are not in chaos, and they can debate in an orderly manner; "Edit" immediately launched the "Color Difference Analysis and Identification Method", and the netizen "Sanqiu" followed up with the "Perspective Transformation Analysis Method", all of which pressed Guan Ke with professional and authoritative technical analysis; netizen QQTV contacted the international authoritative Tiger Foundation, Some people contacted the international authoritative academic journal "Science" to seek authoritative opinions. Soon, the battle for the credibility of the government and the people will come to an end. On the evening of November 3, at the invitation of Shaanxi TV's "Broadcast Tonight", Guan Ke appeared in front of the public as a "Ping An Demo Broadcaster". Even Guan Ke, who publicly stated a few days ago that the public does not have credibility, has also achieved a dramatic role reversal, and turned to express his opinions as a "civilian" in order to demonstrate his credibility.

The transfer of public credibility from the official to the private sector can be described at a glance within these five days. At the same time, the two-tier hierarchy between officials and the people that has been formed since the Song Dynasty—in the depths of people’s perceptions—shows signs of disintegration.

Next, it was also in the forum of "Sex and Shadow". In the "Tibetan Antelope Photo Fake Incident" in mid-February 2008, the counterfeiters abandoned all official backers and desperately sought help for themselves despite winning many official awards. A folk identity of "protecting Tibetan antelope". Since then, it has become an irreversible reality that the public has more credibility than the official, and it has become an unconscious and habitual notion. Therefore, when the anti-CNN youth in April get angry, even if it is an official meaning, it must be said in a private capacity, and it cannot be credible. As a result, after 2008, the long-dormant "Internet commentators" emerged. To make their opinions credible, officials must pay to hire people to pretend to be civilians to bless them. Unfortunately, it didn't take long for the identity of the online commentator to be seen, and after that, the self-made five made their debut. Self-drying five means "five cents with dry food", and its meaning is to emphasize that "my folk identity is real, not hired by money". These identities are quickly tainted with the flow of involuntary (autonome) speech, so that all available dignified and indecent identities are exhausted, and in the end the "criminal suspect" has to go to CCTV himself Self-incrimination in front of the camera, it seems that only the words of "criminal suspects" can be trusted by the public. Is it true that only "criminal suspects" have credibility in the great China? To use their words to quell the doubts of the world?

In the highlight of the recent human rights lawyer case, the people who spoke under the spotlight were not officials, people, professionals, or 50 cents. , An unprecedented breakthrough is that even their confession on CCTV is not credible enough. This time they rely on "foreign media" that have always been regarded as "foreign hostile forces": "South China Morning Post" and "East Web". In this way, the credibility disappeared faster than the blue sky in the smog capital. In less than ten years, the whole of China could not find credibility.

How terrifying is it for those in power to lose credibility? There are vivid examples in the transitional years of the "Old Regime and the Revolution" in France. Historian Patrice Gueniffey once said something meaningful: "On the way back to Paris from Varennes, Louis XVI made no speeches". What Gurney mentioned is that during the French Revolution in June 1791, King Louis XVI fled and was intercepted by the revolutionaries in Varenne to Paris. At that time, people along the way heard rumors that someone had kidnapped the king, regardless of gender. The young and the old brought all the "weapons" they could find, whether it was spears or farm implements, and escorted the king all the way back to Paris, spontaneously following the countless people who loved the king. It's endless [1] . However, why is it that Gurney Fei's words are meaningful? You know, the French Revolution that broke out two years ago was instigated by the journalist Camille Desmoulins who jumped to a table in a café outside the gardens of the Royal Palace and addressed the people; Robespierre, Danton At first they were just lawyers, and all of them became revolutionary leaders by speaking to the public. At the climax of the European Enlightenment, Rousseau published The Social Contract in 1762, and changed the source of political legitimacy from the will of God to the will of the people. In less than 30 years, the connotation of political legitimacy has completely changed. Political legitimacy is obtained through credibility (légitimités, the plural form of "legitimacy", that is, the concrete form). The only way for anyone to gain credibility is to tell the people your opinion and let them decide whether you can represent their will. Speaking to the public became an indispensable means of gaining credibility during this period. The political legitimacy of the French king has always come from "the divine right of the monarchy" and does not need to address the public. The connotation of political legitimacy has changed dramatically, and this change occurs in the depths of everyone's heart. The awareness of "identity equality" is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and the historical process of "identity equality" has taken a big step forward. However, the most stringent Speech censorship, blindfolded the king himself. Louis XVI lost his political legitimacy, and he didn't even notice it himself. Otherwise, he would have the best chance to speak to the people who love him so much, rebuild his credibility, and gain political legitimacy, but he wasted it without hesitation. Chance. After returning to Paris, on January 21, 1793, Louis XVI was sent to the guillotine.

What happened to Louis XVI did not escape the "Law of Tocqueville", when the "art of domination" could not keep up with the historical process of "equality of status", political turmoil could happen at any time in any unexpected way.

After 2008, the prosperity of nationalism and populism in China at least testifies to the disintegration of the two-division structure between officials and the people, and the hierarchical authority in public life is being abandoned by history. The historical process of "equality of status" has been wave after wave, from the "personal rights" that people demanded property rights in the era of reform and opening up, to the "personal rights" that people demanded individual rights in the post-reform and opening era, and rights and responsibilities are matched. process, there is no possibility that it can be blocked, even the "self-government five" is characterized by emphasis on voluntary and voluntary, different from the masses without personal will, it is also the manifestation of the process of "personal power" in a specific mental group .

4. Conclusion: Develop the "art of domination" that can face up to the "private rights"

In the midst of the changes of the past and the present, and in a situation of great changes unseen in three thousand years, China today is in the process of social transformation from "every man has the responsibility" to "every man has the right". Whether it is called "group's own power circle" or "individual rights", it is the theme imposed on our times by the historical process, which is neither escapable nor irreversible. Those who do not die will die.”

Faced with such a historical process, taking "Tocqueville's Law" seriously is not only because it is the essence of Tocqueville's thinking about the proposition of "The Old Regime and the Great Revolution", but also the foundation and starting point of all political theories of political scientists such as Huntington. , but also because it offers a straightforward solution to the most imminent danger of the age: the development of an "art of domination" that confronts the "right of the individual." The substance of all effective political action in this era, whether in the form of reform, revolution, or any other form, will only begin and end with individual rights.

August 31, 2016

[1] Timothy Tackett, Michel Vovelle et Alain Spiess, Le roi s'enfuit: Varennes et l'origine de la Terreur , Paris, Editions La Découverte, 2006, p. 103‑112.