Why Can’t China Take Criticism?

Why do the Chinese often appear to struggle with criticism? In this episode of 22 George Street, we explore why criticism, especially from Western nations, often provokes defensive responses from China. From phrases like “What about America’s racial inequality?” to “What about Britain’s colonial past?”, these rebuttals reveal more than mere defensiveness—they reflect deep cultural values, historical grievances, and intellectual traditions. We dive into three key reasons behind this phenomenon: China’s lack of an Enlightenment-era embrace of critical thinking, a narrow intellectual foundation rooted in Marxism and Confucianism with limited integration of modern social science, and cultural and historical factors like collectivism, face culture, and the emotional framing of state authority. By unpacking these dynamics, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of why criticism is often perceived as an attack in China, rather than an opportunity for dialogue. Don’t forget to like, share, and subscribe for more insightful discussions!

Transcript

 Welcome to 22 George Street, I’m your host George. Merry Christmas. In today’s episode, we’re addressing a thought-provoking question: Why do the Chinese often appear to struggle with criticism? 

When Western media critique China—whether it’s about political institutions, economic policies, or societal issues—the response often pivots to deflect attention toward the flaws of the accusers. Phrases like, “What about America’s racial inequality?” or “What about Britain’s colonial past?” are common rebuttals. But these responses are more than simple acts of defensiveness—they reflect a deeper cultural, historical, and intellectual framework that shapes how China engages with criticism. 

In this episode, we’ll break down this phenomenon by exploring three key factors that contribute to it. 

First. China’s Lack of an Enlightenment Legacy. 

To understand China’s response to criticism, we must start with its culture. Unlike Europe, China did not experience an Enlightenment—a movement that championed reason, skepticism of authority, and critical thinking as tools to improve society. 

The Enlightenment gave rise to the idea that progress comes from questioning and challenging the status quo. Philosophers like Kant, Voltaire, and Rousseau encouraged societies to embrace scrutiny as a means of understanding and improvement. In contrast, China’s intellectual tradition has often valued harmony, order, and deference to authority over open critique. 

Without a historical foundation rooted in critical inquiry, China’s societal norms are less receptive to the notion that criticism is a constructive force. Instead, critique is often interpreted as a threat to social cohesion or an attack on authority. 

For example, while Western societies might view public protests as a means of holding power accountable, Chinese culture tends to see such actions as disruptive and harmful to collective stability. This divergence helps explain why criticism—especially from the West—is often met with suspicion and resistance in China. 

Second. Limited Understanding of Social Science. 

Another critical factor is the limited influence of modern social science in China’s intellectual framework due to the information censorship. While the world has developed robust methodologies to study society using quantifiable data—spanning democracy, governance, inequality, and institutional performance—China’s academic focus has historically been dominated by Marxism and traditional Confucianism. 

Social science allows societies to measure and understand complex phenomena. For example, democracy is evaluated using metrics like Freedom House’s Democracy Index, while corruption is assessed through Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. These tools enable nuanced comparisons between nations, offering insights into what works and what doesn’t. 

However, in China, there is often a lack of awareness or acceptance of these frameworks. Discussions about governance or social issues are frequently filtered through Marxist or Confucian lenses, which lack the empirical, comparative approaches that define modern social science. 

This intellectual gap can lead to dismissive responses to external critiques. For instance, when Western nations raise concerns about judicial independence in China, the rebuttal might focus on perceived hypocrisy rather than engaging with the metrics or evidence underpinning the critique. This not only sidesteps the issue but also reflects a deeper resistance to adopting methodologies that might expose institutional weaknesses. 

Finally. There are Historical Roots of China’s Sensitivity to Criticism. 

Most importantly, Collectivism and the Role of Face. 

China’s collectivist culture plays a significant role in shaping its relationship with criticism. In collectivist societies, the reputation of the group—whether a family, community, or nation—takes precedence over individual concerns. As a result, criticism of one aspect of the group is often seen as an attack on the whole. 

This is compounded by face culture, which emphasises maintaining dignity and avoiding public embarrassment. Criticism, especially from outsiders, risks “losing face,” not just for the individual or institution in question but for the entire nation. 

For example, if a Western journalist criticises environmental pollution in China, the response might be defensive, focusing on pollution elsewhere rather than addressing the issue. This reaction stems from a desire to protect the nation’s image rather than engage in self-reflection. 

In addition, China’s Myopic Worldview. 

China’s historical worldview, shaped by centuries of seeing itself as the “Middle Kingdom,” has created a sense of cultural superiority and a deep sensitivity to external judgment. This is reinforced by the Century of Humiliation, a period of foreign domination that left a lasting scar on China’s national psyche. 

As John Fairbank’s “contact and conflict” theory suggests, China’s historical interactions with the West have often been framed as adversarial. Today, this manifests in a tendency to interpret Western criticism as an extension of historical efforts to undermine China. 

For instance, when Western nations critique China’s human rights record, the response often includes reminders of historical injustices committed by those same nations. This defensive posture, rooted in historical grievances, deflects attention from the critique itself. 

Last but not least, Confucianism and the Emotional Framing of State Authority. 

Confucianism has deeply influenced Chinese governance and societal norms, particularly in its analogy of the state as a family. In this framework, the government is likened to a parent, while citizens are its children. This emotional framing fosters loyalty and protectiveness toward the state, making criticism feel like a betrayal. 

In Western democracies, governments are seen as public servants, accountable to the people. In China, however, the state is viewed as a moral authority, deserving of respect and deference. This cultural difference creates a significant barrier to accepting external criticism, which can feel not only disrespectful but also destabilising. 

For example, when discussing public health failures or governance inefficiencies, the phrase (“The state has it hard too”), is commonly invoked. This emotional appeal shifts the focus from systemic issues to the challenges faced by the state, effectively shielding it from scrutiny. 

China’s sensitivity to criticism is not only a matter of pride or propaganda—it stems from a interplay of its cultural values, historical experiences, and intellectual traditions. These factors deeply influence how criticism is interpreted and how responses are shaped, creating a dynamic that is both unique and revealing. 

Thank you for joining us on 22 George Street. If you enjoyed this episode, please like, share, and subscribe to support the show. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday season. Until next time—keep questioning, keep learning, and keep listening. Ciao!