Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||From Maoism to Social Democracy? Measuring Class Consciousness of Chinese Urban Residents|
Social Class;Class Formation;China Study;Democratization;Economic Transition
|Issue Date:||2016-07-20 16:19:01 (UTC+8)|
|Abstract:||本文研究急遽轉型的階級結構對中國民眾階級意識與政治理念的衝擊。首先，本文發現毛澤東時代的意識形態與階級標籤，或稱之為「毛主義模型」（Maoist model），對中國民眾的身分認同仍有一定程度的影響。其次，本文區分了兩種威權體制民主化過程裡的階級政治理論：政治現代化模型（political modernization model）與社會民主模型（social democratic model），這兩種模型對於威權體制下的階級形成提出了不同的理論命題。最後，根據2003年的中國社會綜合調查（China General Social Survey）數據，本文引進新馬克思主義的中國轉型期階級分類法，並以因素分析建構出衡量主觀認知的階級認同指數、衡量政治價值的民主態度指數與衡量意識形態的平均主義指數。統計結果顯示，雖然集體與國企工人等「工人階級」仍延續毛時代以來較強的主觀階級認同與左傾的意識形態，但中國城鎮居民的階級形成，似乎正從毛主義模型朝社會民主模型轉變，其中，城市下層階級—個體戶與工人階級（包括國企與集體工人）似乎更偏好民主參與及平等主義的意識形態，而現代化理論裡作為民主化動力的新中產階級與資本家，反而比較支持共產黨的威權統治。|
Did the economic reforms and the transformation of class structure change the class identity and ideology of Chinese citizens? Three models are used to examine the changes of class consciousness and democratic attitude of urban residents in China. The first one is the “Maoist model” implied the class-labels and egalitarianism enduring from Mao’s years. The second one is the “modernization model” suggested that the bourgeoisie and middle class prefer the liberal democracy; conversely, the working class prefer socialist revolution. The third one is the “social democratic model” claimed that the working class and middle class prefer social democracy; in contrast, capitalists and cadres prefer authoritarianism. The three models are competing in terms of their explanation and expectation of class politics in China. For testing the validity of the hypotheses derived from the three models, the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) 2003, a national representative sample of urban residents, are used to investigate the class consciousness, egalitarian ideology, and democratic value of Chinese citizens. An 8-class schema—capitalist, new middle class, self-employed and unskilled workers in the private sector, as well as state cadre, state worker, collective cadre and collective worker—is introduced to define objective class locations of the interviewees. The empirical findings represent that: (1) the class-label system and ideology in Mao’s years still influence the class identity of Chinese citizens; especially, state workers and collective workers in the public sector tend to have stronger working class identity and egalitarianism. (2) In terms of the preference of democracy, the social democratic model better explains the statistical results—the urban lower classes are in favor of democracy, but capitalists, new middle classes, communist party members and state cadres prefer non-democratic values, which imply that they are in favor of the stability of CCP’s authoritarianism. The two empirical findings suggest that the class consciousness and democratic value of Chinese citizens are gradually shifting from the enduring Maoist model to the expectations of social democratic model.
|Relation:||東亞研究, 43(1), 39-86|
East Asia Studies
|Appears in Collections:||[東亞研究] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.