Twitter acquired Threader! Learn more

Mike Gow 高英智
+ Your AuthorsArchive @mikeygow Lecturer (Asst Prof) in Bus Mgt @EHU_Business Consumerism, Citizenship & Identity in Xi Jinping’s China. Father 父亲 Husband 丈夫 Brother 兄弟 Son 儿子 #Everton #Celtic Sep. 11, 2021 2 min read

Excellent insight into New Era superstructure reforms

The entertainment industry - like all industries - can no longer prioritise profit over legal compliance and ethical conduct

A reconfiguring of #CorporateSocialResponsibility seems underway in #China

 https://www.caixinglobal.com/2021-09-04/weekend-long-read-why-chinese-pop-stars-are-expected-to-be-moral-models-and-fail-101768643.html 

@kaiserkuo reads the article here on the excellent #podcast series #ChinaStories

 https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/china-stories/id1550780030?i=1000534981365 

This is all part of the state’s drive to use legislative and regulatory power to construct a vast cultural panopticon.

Any cultural space - be it commercial or a site of civic participation - must only permit displays which are consistent with state notions of citizenship.

This is something at the heart of an analysis myself, @jonlsullivan and @Prof_Chadwick published in 2019

The article examine China’s football development - with a relevant excerpt that applies to broadly to both cultural and entertainment industries below.

Who we are as citizens is defined by our values, but we express our identity and citizenship and values through consumption far more extensively than through our explicit political activity

The products we buy, the services we use, the clothes we wear, the films and tv shows we like, the sports we follow or participate in, the games we play, the music we listen to.

It indicates to others who we are.

Entertainers, entrepreneurs, athletes, film stars, online influencers, fashion icons - all become vessels for the mediation of state values

Charities, NGOs, educational institutions - these (as I’ve argued in the past) constitute the space where *consent* to the state vision is mediated. If they do not fulfil this role, they will not be permitted to operate.

They are not separate from the state, but combine with the *coercive* institutions of political society (party, govt, legislature, judiciary, police, paramilitary) to form the integral state

But there is a need to integrate the private sector into a theoretical model of the state in contemporary China.

Corporate citizens seem to fulfil three key roles in the reform of the superstructure.

Firstly, they are themselves “citizens” - compelled via legislation and regulation to perform citizenship in adherence with the state vision.

They cannot operate unless first being legally and morally compliant with the state vision.

Secondly, and we’re seeing this in corporate training initiatives within companies, they are “civic spaces” where employees (individual citizens) perform duties in manner reflecting good citizenship

They are sites of citizenship performance by individual citizens (people)

And finally, they provide products and services for the consumer market which allow for the visible expression of good citizenship by their customers

published a “crackdown breakdown” and I wonder how many of these are primarily “economic” policy as opposed to primarily “superstructural”.

How many are about creating good corporate citizens for the New Era?

Are they “different crackdowns”?

 https://supchina.com/2021/09/09/chinas-red-new-deal-a-guide-to-all-the-different-crackdowns-on-companies-going-on-right-now/ 

To even define these recent policy developments as “crackdowns” requires us to conceive of the private sector as separate from the state (or at the very least hold the normative view that it *should be*)

We really need to be asking the question: is that actually the case?


You can follow @mikeygow.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Follow Threader