How Chinese See the World: China’s Geocentric Worldview

In this episode of 22 George Street, we explore the unique worldview that has shaped China’s perception of itself and its place in the world for centuries. Known as the “Middle Kingdom,” China historically saw itself as the cultural and political center of civilization, with a worldview similar to medieval Europe’s geocentrism, where all things revolved around a central point. This perspective, reinforced by concepts like the Hua-Yi Distinction—which classifies people as either “civilized” (within China) or “barbaric” (outside)—has profoundly influenced China’s approach to both domestic and international relations. We discusss how this "geocentric" mindset created a rigid cultural hierarchy, often leading to isolationism and resistance to external ideas, even in the face of global advancements. Join us as we examine how this perspective affects China’s interactions with the world today, shaping its policies, partnerships, and the collective psyche of its people.

Transcript

Welcome to 22 George Street podcast. I'm your host, George. As China stands as the world’s second-largest economy and the leading exporter, interactions with Chinese businesses, people, and institutions have become increasingly common on the global stage. To facilitate collaborations and protect your interests, it’s essential to grasp the mindset that shapes Chinese society. Today, we’ll explore a worldview deeply rooted in their history, culture, and philosophy. Through this lens, we’ll unlock insights into the thinking patterns and motivations that shape China’s interactions with the world. 

Writers like Lu Xun have examined this perspective from within, critiquing certain aspects of the Chinese character, such as a tendency towards obedience, indifference, and a deeply ingrained social hierarchy. Ba Jin, another prominent thinker, spoke out about the rigid social structures and the challenges of individual expression within a closed society. And then there are Western observers, such as John Barrow from the British Macartney Embassy, who viewed China’s society as conservative and often resistant to foreign influence. Each of these observations hits upon essential truths, but the true picture is complex and not easily summed up in a single phrase. 

So, to explore this complexity, I've developed a model that we’ll call the "Trinity of the Chinese Mindset." This framework—built on an ancient hierarchy-driven worldview—forms the foundation for understanding Chinese thought, behavior, and even its future trajectory. By unpacking this “Trinity” across the next three episodes, I hope to offer you a clearer lens through which to view the Chinese worldview. 

In philosophy, a worldview is more than just a perspective; it’s an interpretive framework through which individuals and societies understand their place in the world. For thinkers like Hegel, worldview was both individual and societal, shaped by culture, history, and shared experiences. Kant believed our understanding of the world is shaped by inner structures of thought, almost like mental lenses. In China’s case, geographical isolation and historical emphasis on centralization fostered a worldview that doesn’t easily adapt to external influences. Meanwhile, Wittgenstein argued that language shapes thought. The unique structure of the Chinese language, often poetic and rich in imagery rather than strict logic, has contributed to a distinctive way of interpreting reality, one that can seem unusual to Western observers. 

Even today, traces of a pre-modern worldview are visible in the way China views itself—a perspective similar to the "geocentric" model of medieval Europe. This worldview—what we could call the “China-Centric” model—places China as the “Middle Kingdom” around which other nations revolve. Much like medieval Europeans, who saw Earth as the center of the universe, many in China historically viewed their nation as the cultural and political center, surrounded by lesser, “barbaric” civilizations. 

In ancient times, humans everywhere shared a limited understanding of the world around them. With no advanced mapping tools or telescopes, civilizations developed perspectives centered around their own territories, explaining the unknown in relation to what they knew. For ancient China, this worldview manifested through concepts like the "Nine Provinces" and the "Four Seas," with China, or the "Central Plains," imagined as the cultural, geographical, and political heart of civilization. 

This phenomenon wasn’t unique to China. In ancient Egypt, for instance, the Nile Valley was seen as a “divine land,” blessed by the gods, while the surrounding deserts represented chaos. The Greeks had Delphi, the “navel of the world,” said to be marked by the gods themselves as the earth’s center. Northern European mythology placed a “World Tree” at the heart of existence, linking realms together and symbolizing a central axis around which all else revolved. 

Over time, however, what started as a simple self-centered view of the world was elevated to a system supporting political legitimacy. The ruling classes gradually co-opted this worldview to strengthen their hold on power, promoting it as an official narrative. Philosopher Louis Althusser’s concept of the “ideological state apparatus” can help us understand this shift: institutions, from governments to churches, craft worldviews that serve their power structures and embed these beliefs in the minds of the people. 

For China, this meant that when explorers like Zheng He and Western missionaries introduced new geographic knowledge and scientific ideas, these advances often went ignored or dismissed. Maintaining the narrative of China as the "Heavenly Empire" required viewing foreign science as mere “Western curiosities.” This cultural outlook wasn’t simply imposed from above; it was one that people actively embraced. Even today, many individuals, without prompting from authority, view territorial expansion or assertive foreign policy as ways to prove China’s strength on the world stage. 

In many ways, this enduring mindset limits China’s perspective within a “medieval” framework, a worldview that hasn’t significantly shifted in response to major historical developments. Unlike in Europe, the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution did not occur in China. The “Great Divergence” after the 19th century saw the West rapidly outpace China in technological and economic advancement, and only in the 1980s did China begin to escape the Malthusian trap, with the majority of its population finally having enough to eat. 

Drawback 1: A Fragile Dualistic Mindset. 

This worldview has created a persistent, dualistic mindset—a “frog-in-the-well” mentality, if you will. Within this view, the “inside” and “outside” worlds are seen as inherently separate. This separation often manifests as a mistrust of external ideas, an assumption that anything “outside the well” either doesn’t apply to China or poses a potential threat. This sense of “inside vs. outside” can lead even Chinese people studying or working abroad to hold a guarded, sometimes resistant view toward foreign cultures and institutions. 

But true innovation requires embracing different perspectives and engaging in the exchange of diverse ideas. The "frog-in-the-well" mentality makes this difficult, reinforcing the idea that foreign innovations are somehow incompatible with China. Practices and systems that are standard in much of the world are often seen as “not suited” to Chinese culture. This limited perspective stifles innovation, resulting in a society that’s often following rather than leading in transformative change, in both technology and thought. 

When the outside world is minimized to a simplified “other,” it can create a false sense of self-sufficiency, blinding people to the diversity of thought and possibility beyond their borders. This insular mindset can stifle the drive for self-reflection and exploration. The collective mentality begins to suppress individual voices, and this gradual shift erodes the potential for creativity and innovation. In time, a society that once had the potential to grow and adapt becomes content with its current state, no longer asking, “What lies beyond the well?” 

Drawback 2: The Collapse of the "Heavenly Empire" Persona. 

China’s ruling elite has long leaned on the idea of the “Heavenly Empire” as a means of consolidating power. However, maintaining this grand image—of a central, dominant China—has become an increasingly burdensome responsibility. This mindset undermines the government’s ability to be resilient and adaptive, both domestically and internationally. Political theorist Carl Schmitt once argued that true cooperation requires compromise, a balance of interests to sustain stability. Yet within the "Heavenly Empire" framework, any necessary concession is often seen as a “loss of face” or even a humiliation. 

For example, when it comes to border disputes, even a minor display of flexibility can lead to domestic criticism. This uncompromising need to “win twice” leaves little room for meaningful negotiation and limits China’s space for genuine international cooperation, often resulting in isolation or unresolved issues on the global stage. 

Internally, this rigid adherence to the “Heavenly Empire” image constrains governance reform. The ruling class struggles to offer more rights or social protections to citizens, fearing that any concession could be interpreted as a sign of weakness. The government’s respect for market rules, for instance, is often dismissed as indecision, while efforts to improve citizen welfare are seen as vulnerabilities in the governing structure. The leadership’s role in society is tightly bound to this “Heavenly Empire” persona, which makes even practical reforms a daunting prospect. 

Historian Mancur Olson’s “stationary bandit” theory sheds light on this issue. In closed, authoritarian systems, those in power have little incentive to share authority or resources. Instead, they strengthen control to maintain legitimacy. This pattern has played out repeatedly in Chinese history. Take the late Qing dynasty’s “Self-Strengthening Movement” and later reforms: these were pragmatic responses to Western pressures, yet they failed to take root due to fears that such modernization would tarnish China’s image as a powerful “Heavenly Empire.” In the end, this resistance to change only hastened the dynasty’s collapse. 

Such rigidity leads to an inability to adapt in times of crisis, forcing the state to rely on harsh measures instead of addressing root causes, until the entire system becomes so brittle that it breaks. 

Drawback 3: Incompatible with a Rules-Based Modern Order. 

In the modern world, international systems are structured on equality, laws, and treaties. In economics and trade especially, agreements and global norms offer assurance of fair competition and cooperation. Yet, the "Heavenly Empire" perspective makes it challenging for China to accept true equality with other nations. Treaties are often viewed as temporary concessions rather than long-term commitments. 

China’s approach to international agreements often oscillates between displays of strength and withdrawal. During moments of tension, any compromise is interpreted as a “humiliating treaty,” seemingly eroding China's status. But when pressure eases, China may revert to an elevated stance, regarding recent agreements as historical documents no longer binding. A clear example of this selective approach has been China’s engagement with the World Trade Organization (WTO). While the WTO initially opened global markets and economic growth opportunities for China, over time, China has selectively interpreted these agreements, leading to skepticism and strained economic relationships today. 

This selective adherence to agreements has also shaped domestic governance. Within the "Heavenly Empire" mindset, ad hoc policy shifts are often portrayed as expressions of authority, signaling unrestrained power. However, this inconsistency makes it difficult for citizens and businesses to plan for the long term, gradually undermining social stability and eroding trust in the system. The lack of a firm commitment to clear rules and contracts further weakens the development of a “contract-based” mentality in China, an essential aspect of functioning in a globalized economy. 

As China moves further into the 21st century, clinging to a worldview rooted in the medieval era may end up doing more harm domestically than internationally. Having missed key movements like the Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution, China’s cultural and institutional systems retain vestiges of a pre-modern society. This “geocentric” worldview has deeply influenced Chinese thought patterns, limiting their depth of understanding toward the outside world. Recognizing this mindset allows us to better interpret Chinese behavior and, perhaps, predict its future course of Chinese people. 

Thank you for tuning in to 22 George Street. I’m George, and I look forward to seeing you next time! Ciao.