iChina: The Rise of the Individual in Modern Chinese Society

The individualization thesis, I think, has now become an essential idea in our understanding and interpretation of the present stage of modernity. Despite its importance, those who reject modernity to be singular or modernization to be a set of monotonous processes may view the individualization thesis to be flawed, as it has mostly – if not only – being applied to a specific part of our world, namely North America and Europe. In this respect, there is much to be said on whether the individualization thesis is also useful in understanding and interpreting societies outside those areas. In this respect, the volume iChina: The Rise of the Individual in Modern Chinese Society edited by Mette Halskov Hansen and Rune Svarverud is surely a welcome addition to the study of individualization as well as modernity in general. Indeed, as Beck and Beck-Gernsheim write in the Forward of this volume, that the book has successfully “depict[ed] the Chinese path towards individualization in conceptually acute and empirically sensitive terms” (xiii, my emphasis), as well as “contributed to the current debate over theoretical development in sociology [of modernity]”(xiii) by (re)directing our attention towards individualization outside North American and European countries by focusing on individualization (and the concept of individual) in another place, i.e. China.

The volume consists of 10 articles (including the Forward by Beck and Beck-Gernsheim and the Introduction by Yunxiang Yan) that examine individualization (and the concept of individual) in contemporary Chinese society from various disciplines, e.g. anthropology, literature, philosophy/history of ideas, legal studies. Provided the importance of Beck and his collaborators in the study of individualization, it is relatively unsurprising that most of the collected articles are built on their idea of individualization, but it is worth pointing out that Yunxiang Yan, who pioneered the study of individualization in Community China in his Private Life under Socialism: Love, Intimacy, and Family Changes in a Chinese Village, 1949-1999 (2003), is also figured prominently in the volume.

The wide range of topics covered is definitely the strength of this book. The contributors has examined Chinese rural youth, elderly, private business people, young (urban) volunteers, contemporary Chinese literature, intellectual discourse, law, and returned overseas Chinese in connection to individualization and the concept of individual. In this review, I shall not attempt to provide a summary of each chapter in the volume, as Yan has done an admirable job in the Introduction in offering a clear overview of the book as well as the significance of each chapter to the study of individualization and the concept of individual. Also, as an occasional ‘user’ of empirical research, I do not see myself to be sufficiently qualified to discuss the findings in some of the chapters that are primarily based on fieldwork. So, instead, I shall review the book from the perspective of a researcher in philosophy and social and cultural theory, and I want to note one problem I have in reading this book, namely the relation(s) between individualization and the concept of individual. More specifically, while it is possible to discern two running themes in the volume, namely (i) the process of individualization (ii) the concept of individual in contemporary Chinese society, their relation is not always clear in the volume. Particularly, the chapters on contemporary Chinese literature (Chapter 5), intellectuals and intellectual discourse (Chapter 6) and laws in China (Chapter 7), which focus on the concept of individual, are seemingly disconnected from earlier chapters and the last chapter. In this sense, this book could be benefited by a more detailed discussion of the relation between individualization and the concept of individual in contemporary Chinese society. In this regards, it is perhaps helpful for readers to bear in mind two different questions when reading this book, namely “what is the Chinese path of individualization?” (or, “how does contemporary Chinese society individualize?”) and “what is the ‘Chinese individual’ in contemporary Chinese society?”

Moreover, none of the contributors in the volume has discussed the normative significance (including, e.g. ethical and political implications) of their works. This is, to a large extent, understandable, because the volume aims to provide a better understanding and interpretation of individualization and the concept of individual in contemporary Chinese society; however, I think, this also presents a missed opportunity to utilise the findings for other issues. For instance, Jørgen Delman and Yin Xiaoqing (Chapter 3) have discussed the case of Sun Dawu, i.e. a private businessman who proposes his own market ethics and attempts to promote his own political agenda in China, which certainly has normative imports to the discussion of market ethics, (re)empowering Chinese citizens and reforming the political institution, etc. in China. Similarly, in his discussion of criminal justice in China, Klaus Mühlhahn (Chapter 7) has only mentioned human rights in passing. Indeed, many of the articles present in this volume, I believe, can definitely advance our understanding and interpretation of individualization in contemporary China, but they can also provide important pieces in discussion of ethical, social and political issues in China.

In summary, the editors of this volume have done a laudable job in bringing together articles from various disciplines, which provide the readers an interesting an fruitful discussion of the process of individualization and the concept of individual in contemporary Chinese society. I will certainly recommend this book to researchers who work on individualization and modernity in general as well as those who do research on Chinese society. I will also invite those who are working on ethical, social and political issues in contemporary China to read this book, as there is much to be gained from their findings.