CHINA SINCE TIANANMEN: The Politics of Transition

The U.S. view of China remains heavily influenced by the suppression of protest there in 1989: a monolithic and ruthless Communist Party versus pro-democracy and Western-oriented intellectuals. Yet in the intervening years, shows Fewsmith, a Boston University international relations professor, things have changed and become much more complex, in the party, among intellectuals and between the two. Party conflict continues to revolve around questions of state ownership versus the free market, but there is also debate about the effects of reforms regarding regional inequality, corruption and Chinese autonomy in an increasingly globalized world. These concerns also inform intellectual debate, and while many intellectuals still hold to the need for Western-style democracy, others are not so sure. One school of thought argues that a strong state and institutional stability must be China's primary concerns. Another contends that China must find its own path to development, which includes safeguarding many of the Maoist era notions of collectivism, and must beware of U.S. attempts to control Chinese policy and even Chinese ways of thinking. A strong nationalistic streak has also emerged in much intellectual thought that at times, as during the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, ties into popular nationalistic sentiments and presents a strong challenge to the party's continued efforts at economic modernization. Fewsmith's examination of the intellectual climate in China, and how the party tries to control and coopt China's intellectuals, while more for the specialist, is intellectual inquiry of the highest order and a revealing and surprising glimpse of a society deeply questioning just where it is going. (Sept. 20)