Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE May 2019 The Minzu Debate: Policy Subsystem, Knowledge Community, and Academic Discourse in Post-Mao China’s Ethnic Policy-Making Sinan Chu Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/etd Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Chu, Sinan, "The Minzu Debate: Policy Subsystem, Knowledge Community, and Academic Discourse in Post-Mao China’s Ethnic Policy-Making" (2019). Dissertations - ALL. 1006. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/1006 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract How do intellectual innovations in policy fields occur under authoritarian China? In this study, I answer this question through a political-sociological investigation of the academic policy debates of the People’s Republic of China about its ethnic minority policy (a.k.a. “minzu policy”) in the Post- Mao period. Building off existing literature, I propose a theory of academic policy debates. This theory is predicated upon the political-institutional context of a policy subsystem and the internal dynamics of the knowledge community. My central argument can be summarized as follows: academic policy debates in Post-Mao China vary along two dimensions – the level of academic politicization and the theoretical heterogeneity; consequently, a debate on a given topic is a function of a) the level of conflict within the policy subsystem and b) the level of fragmentation within the knowledge community. To demonstrate this theory, I trace the changes in the conflict of policy subsystem, the fragmentation in the knowledge community, and the character of academic policy debates regarding China’s ethnic minority policy from 1979 to 2017. As I show, during this period, academic debates about minzu policy went from moderate-to-intense debate within the minzu studies paradigm to a heightened inter-paradigm debate – as the conflict among policy elites and fragmentation within the knowledge community increased – only to become somewhat moderated following the direct intervention of the party leadership to unify policy discourse. This study makes three main contributions: 1) it offers the first systematic study of the dynamics in academic knowledge production behind China’s multiethnic governance since 1979; 2) it provides a political- sociological account of the academic policy debates in Post-Mao based on a diachronic analysis of the minzu debate, thus advancing our theoretical knowledge about the political-sociological conditions for intellectual innovations in contemporary PRC’s policy field; and finally, 3) it suggests insights for understanding intellectual innovations in policy fields under authoritarian regimes more broadly. The Minzu Debate: Policy Subsystem, Knowledge Community, and Academic Discourse in Post-Mao China’s Ethnic Policy-Making Title Page By Sinan Chu Bachelor of Law (International Politics), Nanjing University, 2007 Master of Arts (Political Science), Syracuse University, 2011 Master of Arts (International Relations), Syracuse University, 2011 Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Syracuse University May 2019 Copy Right Page Copyright © 2019 Sinan Chu All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements This dissertation would not have possible without the unwavering support and endless patience of my professors, colleagues, friends, and family during the past five years or more. Gavan Duffy was the earliest advocate of this project. My confidence in pursuing this topic also benefitted from a number of great teachers whose seminars offered me the opportunity to develop the initial idea into a proposal. I will always remember the encouraging words from them: Kristi Anderson, Norman Kutcher, Mark Rupert, and Robert A. Rubinstein. Brian Taylor has been the main disciplining voice throughout the entire process, encouraging me to push forward while keeping me on track and urging me to meet deadlines. His straightforwardness struck me as too harsh when I first entered the program. But I learned to appreciate this very quality years later, especially during my fieldwork. It was also during this time that I learned that Brian could also play the role of a more compassionate advisor. It was not for his email in the winter of 2014, I might have decided to give up the topic altogether. Gavan Duffy never ceased to surprise me with his eccentric perspectives, from the first interaction in his seminar on qualitative method and in every encounter we had since then. But his dedication to inspire students to think out of the box and to challenge convention was no doubt one of the greatest gifts to me. One might find it challenging to find him in early mornings. But for having an intellectually stimulating conversation, there is no better interlocuter than him. I owe him greatly for many things he did for me, which I hope one day I could repay. Hongying Wang’s comments were always straightforward, almost surgically precise, while also genuinely constructive. Working with her on a few projects prior to my dissertation helped me familiarize myself with archival research in China. Her involvement in my preliminary fieldwork as early as 2013 as well as those in the later stages brought me numerous precious advice. Countless times I found myself going through her old comments and being inspired in different ways. I miss dearly all the chats we had in her old office in the Eggers, where I always felt safe and confident to present ideas. Norman Kutcher’s support can be always counted on. He knows best how to convey his concern and critics in a way that the receiver truly appreciates them: he never dictated what to do; instead he let me come to the conclusion that he had in mind. One valuable lesson – among many others – that I learned from him is to pay attention and care to the human aspect of a research. It means not just taking in account specific individuals in what I write, but more importantly taking time and care to attend those relationships with the people I work with in my research and learn to appreciate them as precious as the knowledge I gain from studying them. Dimitar Gueorguiev taught me to plan ahead – not one step, but ten. “Keeping in mind the big picture” was, for him, not only an analytical perspective which political scientists are best equipped to offer, but a principle that a professional academic should resolutely follow in his career. Meeting him in his office has been always exciting, stressful, mind-bending, and immensely rewarding. Working with Dimitar, despite only in the later stage of my research, has had the greatest influence on my thinking about Chinese politics in general. His breath of knowledge on China and endless energy always puts me to shame and motivates me to try harder. Heike Holbig came in at a critical stage of this project. To me, her presence symbolizes the supportive environment that the German Institute of Global and Area Studies stands for: empowering researchers through respectful and constructive engagement. During my time in Hamburg, Heike closely followed the evolution of this manuscript through its multiple versions, providing input and advice at every step. Looking back now, it is clear to me why she initially iv declined my request to have her advising me at GIGA: she so generously spent her time for me that it is no exaggeration to say that without her help, the writing would have taken far longer than it did. Lily Ling was the best teacher, mentor, colleague, and friend one can hope for. Always energetic, positive, confident, and sharp, Lily brought in a constant stream of passion and critical spirit into everything she did, which influenced greatly how I approach research and my life in general. I felt extremely privileged to have worked with her on a number of projects, through which I was constantly impressed by her ability and determination to go beyond the conventions and fight for what she believed in. Her sudden passing in late 2018 was the most devastating thing to me. Words cannot express my pain every time I read our past correspondence. I was blessed to have her mentorship and friendship as a junior scholar and I will forever miss her. Since the day I began my graduate study in the fall of 2008, a full decade has passed. Too many people have generously offered their help to me. Terrell Northrup and Francine D’Amico offered me the most valuable teaching experience from which I continue to benefit to this day. Besides being a great scholar, Jon Hanson stands as a role model of mentorship that I can only hope to come close to one day. Terry Lautz helped sustain my confidence in this project in so many ways and I am more than grateful for his guidance and friendship. Gareth Fisher has been always generous in sharing his experience with me, not to mention his limitedness cheerful attitude. Chatting with Caroline Tong in her Tsinghua office allowed me to calm down and refocus when I did not believe it was possible to finish the project. My sincere thanks to Xueyi Chen, who always believed in me and encouraged me, as well as my apologies to her, for I could not have returned her favor as I promised. One does not fight through the graduate school alone. I was honored to have had the company of many great people in my journey and continue to enjoy their friendship. Evan’s passion and productivity in research put everyone around him to shame. One can always count on his intellect, though not for planning a road trip from Syracuse to New Orleans.