The Gongsheng School of International Relations: China’s Experience

Abstract

Over the last ten years or so, there has been an active scholarly exploration into the concept of “gongsheng” and related theory-building in the Chinese international relations (IR) community, so much so that it has become a school of thought. Looking at the recent developments, the gongsheng school of Chinese IR is still growing and taking shape. This chapter seeks to summarize the use of the gongsheng concept in China's IR studies and the progress of gongsheng theory in the past decade. This academic history shows that the study of gongsheng is an academic exploration that has been pursued with vigor and vitality. An academic theoretical school whose core concept is gongsheng has already taken its initial shape in China's IR community, and it will continue to grow.

Much lively discussion has been had about the concept of “gongsheng” and related theories in the Chinese international relations community in the last ten years, so much so that it has become a school of thought. Looking at the facts of the matter, the gongsheng school of Chinese International Relations is still growing and taking shape.

Exploration of this topic began with the research community in Shanghai. The field of sociology played an important role in this regard, particularly the sociologist Shoujun Hu of Fudan University. There is, of course, a reason for this. According to Professor Hu, he was initially inspired to imagine gongsheng as a sociological concept by the research of biological gongsheng (symbiosis).¹ Professor Hu pioneered these views in 1998. He wrote:

What is social symbiosis? The prerequisite for social gongsheng is equality among all people. People are inherently equal. Regardless of any biological and social differences, such as those of religion, class, gender, occupation, or age, as long as you respect others’ civil rights, you possess the equivalent civil rights. There are differences of interest among people and among classes. There is of course conflict and competition, but this does not mean one wishes to destroy the other party; rather, this is the precondition for gongsheng. This is social gongsheng.²

The following year, Hu wrote the paper “A Theory of Social Symbiosis,” in which he introduced the basic principles of social gongsheng:

• 1. Interpersonal relations are both mutually exclusive and complementary.

• 2. Equality is a prerequisite for gongsheng.

• 3. The method of gongsheng is the interplay between struggle and compromise.

• 4. Law sets the parameters for the process of gongsheng.

• 5. Social development is the improvement of symbiotic relations.

• 6. Gongsheng and competition work together.³

After introducing and developing this academic theory, it was crystallized into the 2006 book, A Theory of Social Symbiosis [gongsheng],⁴ which may be considered the first systematic study of the theory of social gongsheng. Around this time, Hu established the Institute of Social Gongsheng at Fudan University, which organized research activities.

Afterward, the work and publications of the Shanghai-based sociologists attracted the attention of the international relations community. Yingzhong Jin, secretary-general of the Shanghai Society of International Relations, was one of the earliest to notice the significance of social gongsheng theory on international relations research and published papers related to this topic in the Shanghai-based journals Social Sciences, International Outlook, and International Observer.⁵ Jin believed that “gongsheng” reflected the reality in the international society and was a basic path to the development of the international society. It was precisely the countless effects of symbiotic relationships—production, expansion, extension, and development—that spurred the growth, formation, and strengthening of gongsheng in the international society that brought the need for development and transformation to international society. Gongsheng in the international community was realized through the process of nations and other actors seeking self-actualization, which introduced the issue of how to reconcile the notions of subjectivity with gongsheng. According to the view that differences are equal to contradictions, it is impossible to avoid there being contradictions between nations and other actors in the process of building gongsheng. Respecting the equal rights of sovereign nations is respecting subjectivity of sovereign nations. Essentially this means respecting subjectivity of a nation's people, of their right to protect and develop themselves, and pursue self-actualization. The equal rights of sovereign nations are realized through the process of international social gongsheng.

Due to various historical and realistic reasons, there is a contradiction between theoretical equality and the actual inequality of the equal rights of sovereign nations, a contradiction that can only be changed by a country consistently displaying its ability to self-actualize in the process of international social gongsheng. As the trend toward economic globalization grew, there appeared in the international community a global system with economic globalization as its driving force, thereby forming a state of coexistence and interactive connection between the international system and the global system. In other words, this is the state in which the network of international social gongsheng exists, and the fundamental course of its development is achieved through the transformation and development of the international and global systems. Both the international system and the global system are part of the gongsheng networks, and both are realized through the process of gongsheng.⁶

In July 2012, the Shanghai Society of International Relations celebrated the 25th anniversary of China's first international relations theory symposium by holding another symposium called “Academic Symposium on the Creation of China's International Relations Theory System.” Some scholars from disciplines outside of international relations, such as Shoujun Hu, were invited to attend the symposium, a move which reflected the event organizers’ vision, showing the positive, liberated ideas that could be generated when boundaries between disciplines were crossed. In a report he delivered at the symposium, the president of the Shanghai Society of International Relations, Jiemian Yang, noted that the first symposium on international relations theory in China was held when China was beginning its reform and opening up period and connecting with the international community in 1987. The main focus then had been on incorporating knowledge from the international community. The current symposium, however, was being held at a time when China had deepened its reform and was opening up and interacting with the international community. The focus of the theoretical structure construction was on internally generated or collectively co-generated international relations theories, aimed at analyzing principles and trends of activities guiding China and the rest of the international community. Yang added that Shanghai was the center of creation for international relations theories in China and that the development of a “Shanghai school” of international relations was presently underway.⁷ Yang did not elaborate what exactly he meant by using the word “presently,” but it was a fitting usage when applied to the rise of the “gongsheng” school of international relations.

In 2013, two scholars from Fudan University, Xiao Ren and Changhe Su, published two papers—“On the Principles of the Gongsheng System of East Asia” and “The Possibility of a Gongsheng International System”—respectively in the seventh and ninth issues of the influential academic journal World Economics and Politics. These papers received lots of attention. Xiao Ren's paper studied the traditional endogenic order of East Asia. The characteristics of this order are that each country, big or small, had its own place; smaller countries respect larger countries, and larger countries abided over smaller countries; and politics and economics work together to sustain a peaceful regional order. On the surface, this type of order appears to lack equality, but at its essence, it allows for harmonious coexistence. Each agent defines itself and mediates its relations with other countries based on its status, creating a “gongsheng system.” The framework of the East Asian endogenous system and the many factors behind the operation of its endogenous order primarily include different methods of interaction, such as tributary trade, voluntary exchange, peaceful coexistence, and shared legitimacy. Each factor is rich with content, and together they form the principles that create and sustain this gongsheng system.⁸

Changhe Su's paper took a critical view of the international relations theory of the West, and of Anglo-American theory in particular, drawing attention to the gongsheng phenomena that had appeared in current international relations. On the basis of drawing on China's experience participating in the international system and probing the patterns behind the development of international relations, the paper explored the significance of the gongsheng proposition in constructing a new model of relations between large countries, new types of international relations, changes in the international system, and improvements to global governance in an increasingly generative multipolar world. In recent years, some Chinese scholars have started thinking about the possibility of a symbiotic international system from the perspective of gongsheng. In Su’s view, “the logic of gongsheng” as a starting point can provide us with an alternative for thinking about the development of international relations. As a mixture, the modern world contains both a parasitic international system⁹ and the opportunity and possibility to develop a symbiotic international system. Su believes the change of current material power and some consensus in the realm of ideas are amassing favorable factors for the generation of a mutualistic symbiotic international system.¹⁰

Two young Beijing scholars, Lili Xiong (University of International Business and Economics) and Xuefei Chen (China Foreign Affairs University), wrote articles expressing different views from the above two papers. Both of their respective articles were published in the fourth 2014 edition of Exploration and Free Views, published by the Shanghai Federation of Social Science Associations. In his article, Xiong wrote that existing interpretations of the “gongsheng” theory emphasize the principle of national sovereignty as a basic condition for the realization of gongsheng in the international system. Furthermore, the principle of national sovereignty reflects a high amount of respect for and protection of each country's individual interests. If, as existing arguments about gongsheng international systems have stated, the gongsheng nature of domestic society can be inferred from people's social attributes, and the gongsheng nature of the international system can be inferred from the gongsheng nature of domestic society, then, likewise, the competitiveness of domestic society can also be inferred from people's individual attributes and, following this, the competitiveness of the international system can be inferred from the competitiveness of the domestic society. If people's social and individual attributes cannot be fully eliminated, and if neither one of them is able to claim dominance over the other, this implies that domestic society is, on a certain moral and legal basis, a type of society that combines competition and cooperation; and that the international system is, based on certain principles of international law, a system that combines competition and cooperation.¹¹

In Chen's article, she wrote that the theory of a gongsheng international system was constructed by comparing China and the West. This construction depends on shifting toward a more empathetic way of thinking, but the Chinese and Western experiences on which this shift is based might not be balanced. Although the “theory of the East Asian gongsheng system” is conceptually reconstructed based on the historical comparison, it ignores the genesis of the East Asian gongsheng system, largely turning the exercise of tradition reconstruction into that of a tradition deconstruction.¹² These views and criticisms involve some serious issues. There is much to discuss, for example, regarding how to balance the Chinese and Western experiences on which the new theory is based. In speaking of the “genesis” of the East Asian gongsheng system, Chen refers to the period from the Han to the Tang dynasties in Chinese history, of which there is obviously a lot to discuss as well. But there seem to be some significant misunderstandings in Chen's text. She writes, for example, “the problematic thinking, core concepts, and basic assumptions of Su's and Ren's papers reveal a serious bias in favor of notions of power, national strength, and exchange.”¹³ This is a misreading and miscomprehension which does not conform to the facts.

Professors Ren and Su wrote their own separate papers addressing the issues brought up by Xiong and Chen—one titled “The Existence and Longevity of the Gongsheng System—A Response to Lili Xiong and Xuefei Chen”¹⁴ and another titled “Constructing a World Order with Neo-Universalism—More Thoughts on the Problems of Gongsheng”¹⁵—both of which were published in the eleventh 2014 edition of Exploration and Free Views. These articles further expounded on relevant historical and theoretical issues. Ren wrote that the theory of gongsheng did not negate the existence of individual interests. On the contrary, the gongsheng system is built upon a recognition of individual interests. Ren raised two more important points in his paper. Firstly, the theory of gongsheng recognizes the diversity of things and believes that diversity is the fundamental or perhaps even essential form of things. This is a crucial starting point for the gongsheng theory. Even more important is the idea that similar pluralities (multitudes of things which are alike, homogeneous) can live in a state of gongsheng; dissimilar pluralities can also live in a state of gongsheng; and, furthermore, they should live in a state of gongsheng. We should advocate for open gongsheng among heterogeneous parties. We should tolerate and coexist with types of people and things that are different from us. We should appreciate their characteristics and aptitudes and even strive to learn from and absorb them ourselves. This is a higher, more advanced form of gongsheng.

Next, gongsheng is different from and advances further the concept of “coexistence.” The concept of gongsheng includes two levels of meaning: surviving together and growing together. Surviving together is basic. It is not an “every person for themselves” state. Surviving together is peace. It means living one's own life and allowing others to live theirs. But growing together (gongsheng) is a higher-level state that exceeds the above. The concept of gongsheng rises above the concept of coexistence because it emphasizes the fact that actors are not independent but connected. There exist many different interactive relationships among the actors. Each actor is an energetic “life,” and their actions incite growth in one another. The essence of gongsheng is not in striving for similarity, nor is it in tolerating the existence of alterity; it is striving for constructive growth in interaction and complementarity under the premise of diversity. The universal existence of the gongsheng phenomenon and the characteristics of the survival and growth of things illuminate how we should develop the international community.¹⁶

In his paper, Changhe Su pointed out that gongsheng does not mean the absence of conflict. The factors causing conflict and contradiction will always exist. This is simply the way things work. The world is full of contradictions and could not be otherwise. Furthermore, the theory of gongsheng states that things support one another. It rejects binary opposition and does not advocate for conflict among diverse actors. One of the primary concepts of the gongsheng theory is guanxi 关系 (relationship). In gongsheng, as in guanxi, power based on force and ability does not necessarily bestow a dominant position to those who wield it. In a gongsheng system, each actor is related to others in a mutually reliant state of guanxi. This can explain why, in a gongsheng system, the difference between large and small (actors) often loses its significance because they are all mutually reliant. Thus, it cannot be said that a larger actor will necessarily dominate a smaller actor, nor can it be said that a smaller actor must capitulate to a larger one. In the context of the international system, this means that large and small countries depend on each other for survival. Since relational and not causal power is the prime factor at play, large and small countries can accept coexisting in a state of gongsheng.

The greatest wisdom of the philosophy of gongsheng lies not in opposition and antagonism, but in seeking unity through complementary symmetry and equality in opposition. Remembering this is crucial to understanding the theory of gongsheng. Binary opposition and confrontation are in the “genes” of monotheistic civilizations. In Chinese civilization, however, the notion of harmony means seeking unity among dualistic and diverse dynamics. In Changhe Su's view, a major problem of Western political thought is the question of how to treat others. Although the West itself has engaged in introspection about its historical expansionism, invasions, massacres, and racial genocides, it still cannot provide a way out of the dualistic and confrontational thinking. In recent international politics, this expansionism can be seen in the barbaric Western interventions in West Asia and North Africa. “In light of this, I place my hopes for international politics on Chinese international political thought and not Western international political thought, despite the latter having no shortage of its own ideals for the international order.”¹⁷ These views undoubtedly entail rich connotations.

In March 2015, Xuefei Chen's article, “Is an All-New Gongsheng System Possible?” was published on the news site Guanchazhewang 观察者网.¹⁸ In this article, Chen wrote that in the current rapidly-changing state of the world, when taking a long-term view, China's conceptual view of the world order should combine the notions “deconstruction” and “reconstruction.” That is to say, it cannot only choose to dismantle the current conceptual framework of the world order without making creative space for the establishment of a new one. In this sense, the “gongsheng system” discussed in Changhe Su's article “The Possibility of a Gongsheng International System” and Xiao Ren's article “On the Principles of the Gongsheng System of East Asia” is an academic concept well worth exploring deeply. Su believes that the “Fei Xiaotong rule”¹⁹ of the diverse gongsheng and interaction among civilizations is the intrinsic value of the “gongsheng-type international system.” By using short-term strategies like inclusive progress, collaborative trust, and cooperative international administration, China might be able to avoid the outmoded Western approach where rising and entrenched powers are pitted against one another. This is the Chinese way of “approaching the problems of international politics and solving them, as well as the future direction for international relations.”²⁰ Establishing the studies of the world order from a Chinese perspective and a local starting point, Ren's article pointed out the inherent defects of concepts such as the “Chinese World Order,” the “imperial Chinese order,” and the “imperial tribute system,” proposing instead the much more persuasive “East Asian gongsheng system.” The East Asian gongsheng system has an inherent logic in its long-term existence and continuation in East Asia, as well as unique characteristics, such as multiple interactive methods, tributary trades, voluntary exchanges, peaceful coexistence, and shared legitimacy. Furthermore, this order is endogenous, not exogenous. Thus, we should consider replacing the term “tributary system” with “gongsheng system” or “gongsheng order” because it is a system with multiple centers and overlapping intersections that allow each country in a region to be secure in its position.

On June 7, 2014, the Shanghai Philosophical Association, the Shanghai Sociological Society, the Shanghai International Relations Society, the Eastern Youth Society, and the Fudan University Institute of Social Gongsheng Research held a symposium called “Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Theory of Social Gongsheng,” for which philosophers, sociologists, and international relations scholars contributed papers and speeches, and where they met to discuss problems related to gongsheng theory. This type of symposium was rarely seen, reflecting the shared research interests and the similar ambition to develop gongsheng theory of Shanghai's sociologists, philosophers, and international relations scholars. At the symposium, sociologists discussed the establishment of gongsheng relations between people, between people and things, and between countries, noting that while sometimes these relations do require conflict, conflict itself is not the goal but a means to protect one's reasonable rights. At other times, actors are required to compromise and learn how to compromise. Compromise, however, is also not a goal in itself but a means of reasonably conceding to others’ interests. Conflict and compromise are carried out for the sake of gongsheng. Mutual gongsheng (mutualism) is a major trend of the gongsheng phenomenon in nature and human society. Philosophers attending the 2014 symposium expressed their wish that through discussion and research gongsheng could be seen as not merely an individual lifestyle for helping a person adapt to the world but as a way for a nation and its entire people to interact with other nations in the contemporary world.

The abovementioned academic events and the results they have accomplished reveal the growth of an academic school of thought. This growing school and its members possess the following traits:

• Firstly, they have a shared core concept, which is gongsheng. They engage in academic research and theoretical elaboration concerning this concept and maintain a certain level of academic contact with each other. It is a relaxed type of contact that preserves the spirit of discussion without getting caught up in formalities. They are joined by a shared theoretical interest and similar or adjacent academic views.

• Secondly, they possess shared academic goals, namely, developing the methods of different disciplines and the theoretical discourses of different fields from the starting point of the basic thought and concept of gongsheng. They motivate and encourage each other academically to pursue these goals both independently and jointly. They undertake separate research and gain insight from the results of each other's academic work and research, from which they devise further research work.

• Third, most of them live and work in Shanghai. Though some work outside of Shanghai, they obtained most of their academic training within Shanghai, which makes them part of the same ideological and academic tradition. As a result, they have all been influenced by Shanghai culture and history to some degree, which gives them a similar style. Shanghai is a city of migrants that is known for its mixing of Chinese and international cultures, its inclusion of northern and southern Chinese customs, and its welcoming atmosphere. Over the years it has cultivated a diverse, inclusive, and open culture, which is reflected in the academic theories that come out of the city. Living in Shanghai also makes it convenient for the scholars to stay in touch.

On the basis of the above academic explorations, Xiao Ren collated the main discussion articles into a book, Gongsheng: Rise of the Shanghai School, which was published by Shanghai Translation Publishing House in 2015. This book is a collection of the main essays written about gongsheng theory by scholars of the gongsheng school. The book's goal was to act as a summary of their work up to now, as well as lay out the group's intentions for future work. It showed the possibilities of further development of gongsheng theory, in the hopes of encouraging more progress on the basis of the most recent stage of research in China, growing the gongsheng school, promoting the development of academic theory, and allowing Chinese discourse and theories to influence the international community.

In the international relations community, this academic theoretical research, initiated by Shanghai scholars and contributed to by Beijing scholars, garnered the attention of international relations scholars in other parts of China, including the “gongsheng security” concept developed by Xuelian Liu and Lu Yao of Jilin University, whereas Shanghai scholars further developed the “gongsheng peace” concept.

On the basis of his earlier research, the Shanghai scholar Xiao Ren further explored the “gongsheng peace” concept. In his view, a transcendent method that humans have been considering for many years is establishing a supranational organization to eliminate war and realize long-lasting peace. The world government that people hope for, however, has not appeared and may never will. Global organizations like the UN have not achieved the hoped-for objective of creating a better world order. Unlike the idea of a world government, gongsheng does not need a supreme authority to maintain peace and order; rather, it suggests that peace can be achieved through gongsheng methods. What this essentially means is that international actors will not strive for uniformity; they will maintain contact with one another and exist together in a state of gongsheng. If this norm can be established, it will herald a new era of international relations.²¹

The gongsheng concept and gongsheng theory have also been put into practice and have therefore been popularized to an extent, according to some scholars.²² Some young scholars have pointed out that as the gongsheng concept has been incorporated into research of international relations and international politics; the principles of gongsheng have been gradually improved upon and an increasing number of scholars have been using gongsheng theory to study real international problems. First of all, as pertains to relations between large countries and to regional order, gongsheng theory has been widely applied to specific issues like China's Belt and Road Initiative, China-USA relations, and the Central Asia order. Additionally, as pertains to more macroscopic topics, gongsheng theory has also been incorporated into research of fields like international security, international systems, and global governance. The development of empirical research is both an affirmation of the construction of gongsheng theory and provides a good opportunity for the revision and development of the existing theory.

In a nutshell, this article has been a summary of the use of the gongsheng concept in China's international relations community and the progress of gongsheng theory in the past ten years. This academic history shows that gongsheng studies is an academic exploration and pursuit with vigor and vitality. An academic theoretical school whose core concept is gongsheng has already taken its initial shape in China's international relations community, and it will continue to grow.

This article is translated by Thomas Garbarini.