Contesting Chineseness: An Examination of Religion and National Identity in Mainland China

Abstract

For citizens of many countries around the world, religion is a necessary—though often contested—component of their national identity. From the vantage point of the symbolic boundaries approach, we argue that the Chinese government and various other social actors are in contestation to define “Chineseness” in religious terms. Using data from the 2007 Spiritual Life Study of Chinese Residents, this study explores the extent to which religion functions as a constitutive part of Chinese national identity. We find that the effectiveness of the Chinese government's demarcation of the symbolic boundaries around Chineseness related to religion varies across religious groups. Believers of each religion are likely to be strong advocates for their own religion's connection to Chinese national identity. Among the religions, traditional Chinese religions tend to demonstrate a stronger affinity with one another than with Christianity. Daoists are a particularly strong contestant in aligning Daoism with Chineseness, to the extent that they discredit the other religions’ suitability for the Chinese. We discuss the implications of these findings and point out directions for future research.

Studying Religiosity and Spirituality: A Review of Macro, Micro, and Meso-Level Approaches

“…Other approaches find counter-trends for broad religio-ethnic identities. For example, Lu and Gao (2018) contest the notion of 'Chineseness' based on the existence of important within-nation religious diversity.…”

“…The remaining 10 macro-level studies, the included countries were: China (2), Taiwan (1), North Korea (2), Sri Lanka (2), India (1), Iran (1), Iraq (1), Lebanon (1), and Pakistan (1). The remaining publication types included one conference paper and 13 articles in these journals: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (10), Sociology of Islam (1), Field Methods (1), and Voluntas (1): (Lee 2018;Susewind 2015;Barter and Zatkin-Osburn 2014;Buckley and Mantilla 2013;Conway and Spruyt 2018;Lu and Gao 2018;Luria et al 2017;Mataic 2018;Svensson 2016;Van Heuvelen 2014;Woods 2012;Wright and Palmer 2018;Acevedo and Shah 2015;Lee and Han 2016).…”