Human Rights Education in China: Perspectives, Policies and Practices 981191303X, 9789811913037

Citation preview

Weihong Liang

Human Rights Education in China Perspectives, Policies and Practices

Human Rights Education in China

Weihong Liang

Human Rights Education in China Perspectives, Policies and Practices

Weihong Liang Faculty of Education University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China

ISBN 978-981-19-1303-7 ISBN 978-981-19-1304-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword

“Interestingly, the People’s Republic of China recently announced a National Human Rights Action Plan (2016–2020) with a pledge to actively promote human rights education and training at all levels, from schooling in K-12 and university as well as training of civil servants and professionals, including within the Communist Party” (State Council, 2016). I included this statement in my keynote address on “Global Challenges and Responses in Human Rights Education,” at the Council of Europe’s 3rd Human Rights Education Youth Forum in Budapest, Hungary, in November 2016. The audience of 200+ youth workers from throughout Europe responded with utter surprise and disbelief, much like my graduate students at the University of San Francisco (USF) when I have shared similar information in lectures. Most educators in the Global North, like the general public, do not regard the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as a leading promoter of human rights; quite the contrary. So, learning that China has widely adopted and, in fact, implemented three National Action Plans for Human Rights Education between 2009 to 2016 disrupts preconceived notions. This apparent contradiction provokes many questions about human rights education (HRE) in China: What is the relationship between state policies and educational programmes around human rights? Is there a universal definition of HRE, or how do definitions change according to particular cultural contexts? Who defines and “owns” HRE—the government or the stakeholders like teachers, parents, and students? What does HRE look like in schools? Indeed, these questions could—and should—be raised not just of the PRC but of every member state of the United Nations. Grappling with and addressing these questions is why Dr. Weihong Liang’s book, Human Rights Education in China: Perspectives, Policies, and Practices, is so urgently needed: it serves to inform audiences outside China of the policies and practices of HRE throughout the country. Furthermore, it critically analyses the implementation of HRE curriculum and pedagogy in schools through the use of grounded qualitative methods, providing an important model for research in any global setting. In all honesty, I have been eagerly awaiting this book so that I can assign it as a text in my Human Rights Education course at USF as well as share it with colleagues and the broader HRE community.

v

vi

Foreword

I first met the author, Dr. Weihong Liang, in 2016 at the George Arnhold International Summer School on Education for Sustainable Peace at the Georg Eckert Institute in Braunschweig, Germany. This programme, which I had the privilege of co-facilitating along with Felisa Tibbitts (US and Netherlands), Audrey Osler (Norway), and Abraham Magenzdo (Chile), brought together HRE scholars/teachers from a wide range of countries, including Pakistan, India, Russia, and China. Dr. Liang, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Hong Kong, had just finished collecting data in a secondary school for her qualitative study of HRE in the PRC. Given my long-time interest in Chinese history from my undergraduate years, I was fascinated by her research and eager to see how it would evolve. Far exceeding my expectations, this book not only presents a comprehensive picture of HRE in China but also extends beyond this to make a unique contribution to the broader field of HRE. The first section of this book presents an unusually sophisticated theoretical framework, supported by extensive scholarly research, to analyse the historical development of human rights and HRE universally and in China particularly. Especially outstanding is Chap. 3, Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas, which traces the intellectual roots of human rights from ancient China through the present day in Confucianism, liberalism, nationalism, and cosmopolitanism. Quite succinctly, Dr. Liang concludes this section by identifying the tension between Chinese and Western conceptions of human rights: Though China totally agreed with the UDHR [Universal Declaration of Human Rights], the CPC-led state placed the right to subsistence and development as the top human rights priority; thus, civil and political rights have been secondary to economic and social rights, and human rights are closely related to sovereignty in China’s human rights discourse; in contrast, the UDHR values civil and political rights above economic and social rights (p. 71).

Following this comprehensive theoretical overview is the second section of the book which focuses on the development of HRE curriculum and pedagogy in the PRC, and how this is carried out in schools. Through Dr. Liang’s in-depth qualitative study of one secondary school known for its promotion of HRE, we gain a vivid picture of what HRE actually looks like in daily practice based on interviews with teachers and staff along with classroom observations. We learn of the strengths and weaknesses of “embedded HRE,” the model in the PRC where HRE does not exist as a distinct subject but rather human rights-related themes are integrated into subjects like moral education. These final chapters elucidate the interplay between HRE policies and practice in China. Dr. Liang has written a book that is unique in the field of education. It is extremely rare to find a text like this one that combines such a brilliant theoretical/historical analysis with a skilful depiction of educational practice in schools. As you will see while reading the chapters that follow, this book is a precious gift to anyone interested in the field of HRE as well as in comparative education, intellectual history, and Asian

Foreword

vii

studies. I thank Dr. Weihong Liang for all the labour and love she put into this valuable book and am deeply honoured by her invitation to write the foreword. February 2022

Prof. Susan Roberta Katz International and Multicultural Education University of San Francisco San Francisco, USA

Susan Roberta Katz is a Co-Editor of the book Bringing Human Rights Education to US Classrooms: Exemplary Models from Elementary Grades through University (2015).

Preface

My interest in exploring theoretical and empirical issues about human rights education (HRE) is closely related to my journey in search of citizenship education and social changes in China’s historical and cultural roots. Citizenship education, HRE, and related programmes share the underlying assumption that education matters. Their common goals are protecting students from discrimination, intolerance, and violence and developing students’ critical thinking and skills for participation. There has been a consensus on integrating HRE in education systems to facilitate the learning and exercise of human rights. However, HRE is elusive, as there are different views about the appropriate aims and content, though with the global recognition on teaching human rights in schools. Besides, the conception of human rights is debated in scholarship regarding whether they are innate or created and in which sense human rights could be seen as universal or relative. Therefore, I have a great interest in researching the topics of human rights and HRE. The important framework that situates human rights within an individualistic context is ably defended, yet a conception that connects human rights with communitarian conditions and traditions is usually unnoticed. In this book, I note that universal human rights are initially presumed, but cultural interpretations, to some extent, are important validating sources for human rights. HRE in this sense includes all these considerations, which is, to some extent, a top-down affair that includes different perspectives to depict a complex picture with certain pros and cons. In Chinese schools, students’ feelings about and sense of belonging to the community/society are important goals of citizenship education. This is rooted in the Confucian traditions and China’s history to build an independent and strong Chinese nation against foreign imperialism in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Late Qing and Republican scholars saw citizens as morally autonomous societal members who possessed certain rights and who could exercise civic virtues and improve the common good, while the nation was a collective entity composed of its citizenry. Citizens’ individual rights were seen as a means to the national ends—national strengthening for the common good. While the post-1949 traditions emphasized both the economic and political tasks in education. Whereas the economic tasks of education were proposed to equip citizens with academic knowledge and technical ix

x

Preface

skills to contribute to China’s economic development, the political task was to further socialism, to nurture socialist persons and cultivate their collective political identity, and to improve the level of ideological understandings to defend proletarian politics. Though with the process of globalization that has affected the narratives of citizenship and rights in curriculum, the cultivation of multilevel citizenship through education has become the main goal of citizenship education; the national cultural identity still has been placed as the top priority. It addressed the balanced development of individual rights and collective interest, which is rooted in China’s traditional ideas of the reciprocal relationship between the individual and community for the public good, where the most disagreements over human rights arise between China and the West. Based on these debates, I have a strong curiosity in studying about how HRE has been developed in China, regarding the perspectives, policies, and practices in school settings. I then turned my interest into HRE research and conducted a case study as a window to explore some empirical findings of Chinese HRE. Since the 2000s, China has explicitly dealt with HRE in public training and school education, such as the series of white papers on human rights which address the development of HRE publicity and training activities. The rights of persons as individuals are increasingly anchored in national standards and have become more apparent in China’s educational systems. A significant forward is the stipulation of the national human rights action plans, in 2009, 2012, and 2016, respectively, requiring schools to integrate HRE into relevant school courses and activities, as the key carrier subjects. The national strategies aimed to equip students with human rights knowledge and skills, which delineates an overview of citizenship the state expected students to become to live in the multilevel polity. However, how China’s deeply embedded philosophical and cultural traditions shed light on the ideas of human rights and citizenship, and how people perceive those conceptions and respond to the policies given by central authorities are still under-researched, not to mention the debates surrounding human rights and HRE between China and the West. This book aims to contribute to the literature on human rights and HRE, particularly in the context of China. It adopts an interpretive, qualitative-driven approach to examine and theorize the perspectives and practices of HRE in schools in China. I hope that a Chinese lens will contribute to informed discussions about the understanding of human rights conception, and what and how HRE should be delivered in the school’s day-to-day life. I think that the principle of education matters should be emphasized in HRE and related programmes to empower children, who are citizens in the present not for the future, for participating in the multilevel society. This book is based on my Ph.D. thesis, completed in the Summer of 2018. Parts of the book were expanded and adapted from the journal articles that were generated from this research project, including two articles—“Teachers’ responses to human rights education policies and practises in a Chinese secondary school,” Journal of Moral Education, 2019, 49(4), 529–544, and “China’s search for human rights education in secondary schools,” Prospects, 2017, 47(1), 41–53; and a book chapter “Ideological orientations and pedagogization of citizenship and human rights in China,” that has been published in the book “Research on Global Citizenship Education in Asia: Conceptions, Perceptions, and Practice” by the Information Age Publishing.

Preface

xi

They were adopted and spread through different parts of the book to fit the structure and flow of discussion in the book. This book project relies on a network of supporters and friends. First, my earnest gratitude goes to Prof. Wing-Wah Law of the University of Hong Kong, my Ph.D. supervisor, for his valuable guidance, assistance, and encouragement in researching this topic. I deeply appreciate his awesome supervision, and the patience and tolerance with which it was provided. He had showed me what constitutes good research and supported me whenever I had difficulties. I learned a lot from his enthusiasm for research and his virtues as a good teacher. Also, I would like to express my true gratefulness to Dr. Dan Wang for her careful suggestion, feedback, and support in guiding me to conduct this study. Moreover, I would like to thank all the participants from the sampled school for facilitating my data collection, for their willingness to collaborate, and hospitality during the fieldwork in Shenzhen, China. For ethical considerations, I cannot list their names, but all deserve to be mentioned for their contributions to this study. I am very grateful to the reviewers who provided constructive comments on my book proposal and the manuscript. My special thanks go to Prof. Susan Roberta Katz of the University of San Francisco for her encouragement and acceptance of my invitation to write the Foreword of this book. Last, my profound gratitude goes to my beloved family, for their love, trust, and affection. My heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Cheng Feng for always supporting me and believing in me, and for inspiring me to be the best version of myself. Braunschweig, Germany August 2021

Weihong Liang

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 8

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Human Rights Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . Innate or Created? Debates on Human Rights Conceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Rights and Cultures: Universal and Relative Characters . . . . . . . . HRE as a Strategy for Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 12 13 16 20 29 30

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . Confucianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liberalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cosmopolitanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 38 42 50 52 53

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights in Modern China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Rights, Xin-min, and National Self-strengthening in the Late-Qing China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legislation, Gong-min, and Human Rights for Nation-Building in the ROC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Party-State as Definer and Shaper of Human Rights and Citizenship in the PRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 69 69

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends . . . . . . Pedagogization for Awakening the Nationhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Political Education: Making Chinese Citizenry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 74 76

59 60 61

xiii

xiv

Contents

Global Citizenship Education and HRE in a Global Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Chinese Lens on HRE: Approaches and Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 86 90 91

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expectations of Promoting HRE in Chinese Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Making the Governance Structures Democratic and Participatory . . . . . . . Teaching Human Rights Through Key Carrier Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conducting Human Rights Promotional Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Creating a School Culture Favourable for HRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97 98 100 104 107 109 112 112

7 Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School . . . . . The Construction of HRE from Policy to Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faithful Implementation per Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supportive Promotion Adapting Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unsupportive Acceptance Changing Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teachers’ Perceptions and Concerns in HRE Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115 116 119 121 122 124 125 126

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Evaluation of HRE Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Students’ Evaluations on the School Human Rights Climate . . . . . . . . . . . Students’ Self-reported Perceptions on Human Rights Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . Students’ Self-reported Preferences on HRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Views or Answers? Critical Reflections on Students’ Self-reports . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129 130 132 137 143 146 148 148

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Relativization of Human Rights and HRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottom-up Voices: Actors, Roles, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Socialization Project as Contextualized Practices for Citizenship-Making in Chinese School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Implications of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closing Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151 152 154 156 162 165 167

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Acronyms

CPC CYL HRE MoE PRC ROC UDHR UN

The Communist Party of China The Communist Youth League of China Human Rights Education Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China The People’s Republic of China Republic of China Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Nations

xv

Chapter 1

Introduction

China, which has been challenged by Western countries for its human rights record, has no independent, specific human rights education (HRE) subject in its national curriculum. This does not necessarily mean, however, China does not promote human rights and HRE in school systems. This book explores the perspectives, policies, and practices of HRE in the Chinese context, and examines what and how HRE have been promoted in its education system. It includes an empirical case study to reveal how interactions between different actors shape and facilitate students’ perceptions of human rights and HRE. The examination of HRE in a Chinese lens cannot be separated from an analysis of general studies on human rights and HRE, as these can improve our understanding of both. The analysis of scholarship in this book therefore first examines general literature on human rights and HRE, and then specific literature in the Chinese context. This book starts by exploring extant literature to gain an understanding of existing theories of human rights and HRE. A number of studies have examined the concept and history of human rights, and how human rights are understood from historical, legal, and sociocultural perspectives (e.g. Klug, 2000; Osler & Starkey, 1996). Several studies have investigated, from different theoretical perspectives, whether human rights are inherent or socially constructed (e.g. Beitz, 1979, Dembour, 2010), universal or culturally specific (e.g. Donnelly, 1984; 1989; 2007), and how human rights are connected to different societal contexts within thin (individualistic) or thick (communitarian) societies (e.g. Freeman, 2000; Chan, 2000; Walzer 2018); however, these studies have paid little attention to other culturally-specific contexts, like Asian values, in explaining conceptual human rights frameworks, and have not responded to China’s specific situation. General theories of human rights inform the framework of human rights, and how human rights are grounded in different perspectives. These literatures help us to understand where, why, and to what extent agreements are reached and disagreements continue in theoretical debates over human rights. Human rights are about guaranteeing individual liberty against infringement by the state and more—establishing social conditions conducive to the living of dignified © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_1

1

2

1 Introduction

human lives. In this book human rights concept has been defined as an evolving and complex concept, including values as specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and international human rights laws (including rights of the person; rights associated with the rule of law; political rights; economic rights; and rights of communities), and underlying principles (e.g., justice and peace, dignity, freedoms, equality, democracy [including citizenship and participation], etc.) and interpretations thereof. Numerous studies have developed various topics for and theories of human rights that facilitate a general understanding of HRE (e.g. Bajaj, 2011; Tibbitts, 2002; Tibbits & Kirchschlaegar, 2010) and the implementation thereof (Flowers, 2000). Studies have mainly focused on such concerns as linking HRE development and international advocacy and policy (Flowers, 2004; Lohrenscheit, 2002; Tibbitts and Fritzsche, 2006), promoting HRE in relation to how targeted institutions, objectives, and levels of stakeholders complement each other (Bajaj, 2011; Gerber, 2008; Tibbitts, 2002), and how HRE projects are implemented globally and nationally. One perspective on HRE found in international policies holds that HRE aims to create a universal human rights culture and life-long learning through fostering knowledge, skills, and attitudes, both at the societal level and through individual empowerment (Amnesty International, 2012). HRE is ascribed to different models, according to different strategies, groups, and approaches, each serving distinct goals and powers (Bajaj, 2011; Tibbitts, 2002). Different institutions implement HRE by locating HRE in formal school and non-school settings (Flowers, 2007; Meintjes, 1997; Reardon, 2009; Teleki, 2007). However, the general literature on HRE has paid little attention to the underlying assumptions of different approaches to HRE, and how nationallyand culturally-specific situations shape policies, conceptions, and practices of HRE in school systems. The gap can be partly addressed by specific research on human rights and HRE in China, which has distinct approaches to HRE in national context and local practice. Proceeding from a socially- and culturally-relative orientation, this study clarifies Chinese doctrines that inform various arguments about human rights and HRE. Research on theories of human rights in China examines the complexity and ideological orientation of human rights, from a cultural and historical perspective. Some studies examined such inclusive elements of human rights in Confucian thoughts as natural equality, the relationship between individuals and the state, and free expression and political participation serving the common good for a humane way of life (e.g. Chan, 1999, Chang, 1998); while numerous studies of concepts of human rights in the late Qing dynasty (1860s to 1911) maintain that, to cope with social changes arising from the coexistence of Western values and Chinese traditions, China selectively absorbed certain Western human rights concepts at the time (Judge, 1998; Zarrow, 1998) to make a strong Chinese nation. Research on human rights in the Republic of China (ROC) (1912–1948) states human rights were codified in laws that expressed concern for individual rights, while emphasizing the supremacy of collective interests when responding to social transitions (Angle and Svensson, 2001; Feng, 2011).

1 Introduction

3

A number of studies have focused on concepts of human rights, as seen through the eyes of China’s early communists’ (1920s–1940s), who contended individual emancipation and individual rights must reflect national interests and goals for nation building (Angle, 2002; Svensson, 2002). Research into human rights discourse and the dynamics and complexity of the meaning of human rights in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) contends human rights ideas were associated with social changes in different periods since 1949, as defined by the state and codified in the PRC’s Constitution and laws for human rights protection and enforcement. All these ideas depict how human rights narratives have been involved in the process of China’s nation-building and nation-rebuilding in its modern history. As a result, the development of HRE in China is closely related to the intertwined relation between politics and education for making the national identity among Chinese people. Chinese studies examine the progression of HRE in China’s policy-making that facilitates the promotion of HRE in both public training and education systems (State Council, 2009, 2012, 2016). Despite there being no independent, specific HRE subject in Chinese school curricula, studies suggest the integration of HRE within existing forms of (formal and informal) education designed for disseminating human rights knowledge and shaping individual moral and political outlooks, including moral education, citizenship education, political education, and legal education, as well as other types of educational projects, both in school systems and in non-school settings (e.g. Oud, 2006; Zhang et al., 2000). Besides several studies looking at explicit HRE curricula at Chinese law schools and for training officials (Cui, 2005; Gu, 2005; Liu, 2013; Sun et al., 2005), existing researches examine the efforts of government, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions to publicize human rights knowledge and enhance awareness of human rights among Chinese citizens (Smith and Bai, 2011; Zhang et al., 2000). The existing literatures on human rights theories in China suggest that human rights relate to individual liberation and nation building; as such, human rights discourse in China has evolved with culturally- and historically-based explanations. Studies of HRE in China maintain China has made positive steps towards creating a culture of human rights through political, educational, and public efforts using an integration approach, although many issues continue to influence the topic. With these studies explaining the complexity of human rights and HRE issues in the Chinese context, however, in what ways Chinese schools develop HRE, how bottom-up educators implement HRE in response to national or local policies, and how students perceive human rights and HRE, are not thoroughly researched in extant literatures. The interplay among different actors in the promotion of HRE in China’s school system is also under-researched. These gaps can be addressed through this study’s proposed theoretical framework and research questions. This study thus concerns the interplay among different actors, including the international community, the state, the school and its members, in shaping and facilitating the understandings and practices of HRE. It unpacks the discourses, policies, and practices of HRE in the Chinese context, such as the historical narratives of human rights involved in the building of the Chinese Nation, the national strategies to promote HRE in public activities and in school settings, how people perceive and

4

1 Introduction

interpret human rights and HRE in response to policy provisions given by different levels of stakeholders, as well as the facilitating conditions and challenges to the development of HRE in China. To explain these questions this study assists in the development of a theoretical framework to explain how HRE promotions address both macro- and micro-level considerations, and what shaping factors influence the targeted groups’ perceptions and actions. The empirical case study in this book selected Shenzhen city that has been actively involved in the citizenship education curriculum reform as its fieldwork site. A citizenship education project in Shenzhen has been conducted with the cooperation of local education departments, external educational experts, and a third-party organization, and practised in several schools. The project included Know Yourself, Respect, Caring, Rationality, and Responsibility, and designed local textbooks for teaching and socializing students into participatory citizens, into which such human rights themes are explicitly embedded as dignity, citizens’ rights, justice, responsibility, participation, and so forth. Through purposive sampling, a public junior secondary school was chosen as the venue for collecting data. It was the first public secondary school established after the creation of a specific economic zone in Shenzhen, and featured students from diverse backgrounds. The sampled school was representative for promoting three main aspects of embedded HRE: firstly, it conducted varied curricula and extracurricular activities—concerning citizens’ equal rights, participation of every citizen, environmental issues and so on—to help students succeed in their school and community; secondly, it developed various ad hoc activities (e.g., rule of law education) to enhance students’ understandings of the rule of law, rights and responsibilities, and legal-related studies; thirdly and particularly, the sampled school required teachers to promote students’ potential and full-personality development (an important aim of HRE referenced in the UDHR), by cultivating future citizens with “fourhaves” (namely, having civic literacy for modern society; having elite dispositions; having creativities; and having international visions) that would enable them to live in a multi-levelled world (according to the school document). Teachers were also expected to care for students’ full human and academic development, shape their lives and awaken their talents, and create a democratic, equal, and interactive dialogue with students. This study used four complementary data-collection methods—document analysis, semi-structured interviews, non-participant observation, and a student questionnaire survey—for triangulation. Firstly, to depict the general picture of HRE in secondary education, this study analysed documents, in particular policy documents, curriculum guidelines, and syllabi, and school textbooks concerning HRE carrier subjects, which have been propaganda tools used by the nation-state to transmit socio-political values. Reviewing policy documents helped this study to understand macro-level policies and how bottom-up administrators and educators should implement HRE in response to the expectations laid out therein. Analysing textbooks and materials helped to uncover the goals, structure, and focus of HRE, to what extent HRE has been integrated into existing forms of education, and how.

1 Introduction

5

Secondly, the researcher interviewed school leaders, subject teachers and students to gain insights into the content and development of embedded HRE in the sampled school, and the evaluation of HRE practices from a student perspective. Individual, semi-structured interviews with school members revealed their in-depth views of and attitudes towards HRE. The interview questions focused on school staffs’ perceptions of macro HRE policies; how they perceived HRE goals, content, and pedagogies; HRE-related curricula and activities in which they had participated; their expectations, descriptions, and evaluations of HRE; and difficulties encountered. Students’ self-reports on HRE learning and the school’s human rights culture were also included in the interview protocols. All interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed verbatim, with the agreement of the interviewees. School leaders in charge of teaching and student affairs were interviewed, as they were influential in school-wide issues, decided the goals, resources, and approaches devoted to HRE carrier subjects, and may have directly intruded on classroom teaching by affecting teachers. Eight school leaders were interviewed, including the viceprincipal, two school leaders from the teaching and research office, and two responsible for student affairs, and two from office of school safety affairs, along with one district educational officer in charge of the local citizenship education project. Teachers are important classroom figures with decision-making power, in terms of selecting materials and pedagogies for teaching HRE carrier subjects, thus bridging the intended and implemented HRE. Interviewing teachers provided information about their perceptions, experiences, and practices of HRE, and the difficulties they encountered in delivering HRE, linking to the findings in Chap. 7. Nine subject teachers who delivered HRE carrier subjects (coded as T01–T09) were interviewed. Interviewing students unpacked the student self-conception on HRE and the school human rights culture, linking to the findings in Chap. 8. Students who were surveyed were randomly interviewed: one or two students from each class were selected to be interviewed, for a total of forty respondents (coding as S01–S40). The information of interviewees and the codes assigned to them have been attached in Table 1.1. Thirdly, the researcher observed lessons and activities conducted in HRE carrier subjects. Non-participant observation provided this study observational evidences of how teachers implemented HRE in varied teaching activities, their behaviours and communications, and daily-life school discourses. In analysing the collected data, the researcher used NVivo software to code data and group data into meaningful themes, and then used content analysis to develop categories, by grouping the sets formed in the previous step into sets of similar phenomena, for systematic analysis. Data were analysed to support variations between policies and teachers’ responses, for example, how teachers perceived HRE and policies, versus how teachers taught human rights in HRE carrier subjects. The research then gathered the diverse categories together to establish possible patterns in the categorized data, and discuss findings and possible explanations. Fourthly, to evaluate students’ perceptions on the school human rights climate, a student questionnaire was administrated to obtain general ratings that students assign to human rights concerns in their school, providing findings of Chap. 8. The survey was administrated to students enrolled in the 7th and 8th grades in the case

6

1 Introduction

Table 1.1 Information of the Interviewees Code Position to the school P01 L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 L06 L07 T01 T02 T03 T04 T05 T06 T07 T08 T09

School leaders school vice-principal teaching and research office staff; moral education department staff student affairs office staff; the staff coordinating the activities of the Communist Youth League (CYL) safety office staff teaching and research office staff; moral education department staff student affairs office staff; the staff coordinating CYL activities safety office staff staff of district education institution Subject teachers moral education teacher (Grade 08) moral education teacher (Grade 08) citizenship education teacher (Grade 07) moral education teacher and citizenship education teacher (Grade 07) moral education teacher and citizenship education teacher (Grade 07) history teacher (Grade 07) moral education teacher (Grade 08) moral education teacher and citizenship education teacher (Grade 07) foreign teacher and coordinator for citizenship education project (Grade 07)

school, such that participants’ mean age at time of testing was at least 13.5 years. The criterion is the same as that used in the large-scale comparative studies of citizenship education, such as the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study. A total of 1,228 questionnaire were collected, in which 1,053 questionnaires were effective based on the student response, for a validity percentage of 86%. Students were invited to rate statements from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). The data has been coded in SPSS Statistics for further analysis. To improve the reliability, the distribution and collection of questionnaires had minimum involvement from the principal and teachers, who had power over the students, and no school authorities were on scene when students were filling out the questionnaires. Based on its findings, this study demonstrates despite there being no independent, specific HRE subject, human rights and related themes and contents are integrated into all aspects of life in secondary school, including school curricula (as key carrier subjects), extra-curricular activities, school management, and environments. To conceptualize the findings, this study suggests a theoretical framework for understanding HRE in China as a socialization project promoting human rights and HRE as prescribed by the state on its own term and contextualized in China’s conditions, but with flexibility for bottom-up educators to interpret and implement HRE. Such

1 Introduction

7

project socializes students to become the citizens the different stakeholders wanted them to become, in accordance with each party’s perceived conditions and needs, in a multilevel (global, national, local, and school) world. HRE, as a socialization project, results from the interplay of different actors, who play different roles and use different coping strategies to fulfil expectations prescribed by multiple stakeholders, and to shape HRE contents and promote their versions of human rights and HRE among students. HRE implementations at the sampled school included enforcing HRE policies (tailored policies to meet school conditions and needs); teachers using different ways to interpret and implement those expectations into related educational activities; and students perceiving what, how, and how well HRE has been promoted in their school. This book improves our understanding of Chinese HRE in different lens. It enriches the literature by revisiting theories of human rights and HRE, and supplements the theoretical debates on human rights by analysing ideas and discourses of human rights in China’s context, from a cultural and social perspective. It supplements studies of HRE that underlie the interplay among different stakeholders in shaping HRE in Chinese school settings, by showing the school’s, teachers’, and student’ approaches to understand and implement HRE. Chapter 2 reviews general human rights theories, especially the theoretical debates about whether human rights are innate or created and the relationship between human rights and cultures, to identify conceptual understandings of human rights. Then, it introduces diverse views on and topics in HRE, in terms of international HRE policies, theories of HRE research, and issues concerning the implementations of HRE, based on an understanding of human rights from a multidisciplinary perspective. China’s deeply embedded philosophical and cultural traditions shed light on its ideas of citizenship and human rights, and the reciprocal relation between the individual and community. Chapter 3 presents four ideological orientations, including Confucianism, liberalism, nationalism, and cosmopolitanism, that affect China’s human rights ideas, and how discourses on human rights have been affected by and synchronous with social changes, throughout Chinese history. It reveals the state as the principal actor in defining, selecting, and prioritizing human rights for China’s nation-building over time. Chapter 4 reviews the citizenship projects and the pedagogization of human rights in China for the national ends, at different historical stages. Chapter 5 examines the curriculum development of Chinese HRE, including its political provisions, political education for citizenship-making, and the development of global citizenship education and HRE in a Chinese lens, all of which suggest the evolving themes and trends of HRE in Chinese education systems. Especially, it unpacks what kinds of Chinese citizenry the state wanted its students to become in fulfilling the political and economic tasks of education, and how the state promoted indirect HRE in school curricula. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present and discuss the major findings of an empirical case study, organized according to how different actors—as units of analysis—perceive and interpret HRE in response to macro and local/school expectations. Specifically, Chap. 6 analyses the sampled school’s role as a provider of HRE in fulfilling national

8

1 Introduction

expectations for HRE promotion, and in tailoring those expectations to suit the school’s conditions and needs. Chapter 7 illustrates teachers’ actions in implementing HRE in schools, by presenting three major patterns of their responses to the HRE policies and practices thereof—faithful implementation per policies, supportive promotion of HRE adapting policies, and unsupportive acceptance of HRE by changing some expectations. Chapter 8 introduces students’ perceptions of the extent to which their school could be considered as human rights friendly, how they understand and interpret human rights values learned and level of participation, as well as how well they perceived HRE to have been delivered in their school. These three chapters demonstrate that the key actors (school, educators, and students) played different roles in the process of HRE development in response to expectations placed on them. Chapter 9 concludes this book by conceptualizing HRE as a socialization project for citizenship-making in China. Through the project HRE has been integrated into the school day-to-day life as prescribed by the central authorities, but with flexibility for different actors to interpret and practice the embedded HRE. It suggests that Chinese HRE could be considered in a minimum framework, with which HRE aims to enhance students’ knowledge and awareness of human rights and levels of participation. The transformative function of HRE has been paid little attention in Chinese HRE. Last, it revisits human rights theories and HRE research, and presents the study’s theoretical contributions, limitations, and future directions.

References Amnesty International. (2012). Becoming a human rights friendly school: A guide for schools around the world. Amnesty International Ltd. Angle, S. C. (2002). Human rights in Chinese thought: A cross-cultural inquiry. Cambridge University Press. Angle, S. C., & Svensson, M. (2001). The Chinese human rights reader: Documents and commentary (1900–2000). M.E. Sharpe Inc. Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508. Beitz, C. R. (1979). Human rights and social justice. In P. G. Brown & D. Maclean (Eds.), Human rights and US foreign policy (pp. 45–63). Lexington Books. Chan, J. (1999). A confucian perspective on human rights for contemporary China. In J. R. Bauer & D. A. Bell (Eds.), The East Asian challenge for human rights (pp. 212–240). Cambridge University Press. Chan, J. (2000). Thick and thin accounts of human rights: Lessons from the Asian values debate. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 58–73). Curzon Press. Chang, W. (1998). Confucian theory of norms and human rights. In W. Theodore De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 117–141). Columbia University Press. Cui, X. (2005). Qianyi Zhongguo Jingcha de Renquan Jiaoyu [Some preliminary remarks on human rights education for the Chinese police]. Paper presented at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute of Law International Seminar on Human Rights Education, Beijing.

References

9

Dembour, B. (2010). What are human rights? Four schools of thought. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(1), 1–20. Donnelly, J. (1984). Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 6(4), 400–419. Donnelly, J. (1989). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. Donnelly, J. (2007). The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 281–306. Feng, J. (2011). The commencement and evolution of the thought of human rights in modern China (1840–1912). Social Sciences Academic Press. Flowers, N. (2000). The human rights education handbook: Effective practices for learning, action, and change. Human Rights Education Series, Topic Book. The Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Flowers, N. (2004). How to define human rights education? A complex answer to a simple question. In V. B. Georgi & M. Seberich (Eds.), International perspectives in human rights education (Vol. 112, pp. 105–127). Bertelsmann Foundation Publication. Flowers, N. (2007). Compasito: manual on human rights education for children. Directorate of Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.eycb.coe.int/compasito/ Freeman, M. (2000). Universal rights and particular cultures. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 43–57). Curzon Press. Gerber, P. (2008). From convention to classroom: The long road to human rights education. Doctoral Dissertation, Law School, The University of Melbourne Gu, S. (2005). The empowering nature of human rights education and the state obligations [Renquan Jiaoyu de Fuquanxing yu Guojia Yiwuxing]. Paper presented at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute of Law International Seminar on Human Rights Education, Beijing. Judge, J. (1998). The concept of popular empowerment (Minquan) in the late Qing: Classical and contemporary sources of authority. In W. Theodore De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 193–208). Columbia University Press. Klug, F. (2000). Values for a godless age: The story of the UK’s new bill of rights. Penguin Books Ltd. Liu, S. (2013). Zhongguo Gaoxiao Renquan Jiaoyu de Huimou yu Zhanwang: Jianlun Renquan Jiaoyu dui Renquan Fazhan Huanjing de Jichuxing Zuoyong [A retrospective and prospective look at human rights education in chinese universities and colleges: A simultaneous discussion of the basic effects of human rights education on the human rights development environment]. Human Rights, 5, 30–32. Lohrenscheit, C. (2002). International approaches in human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(34), 173–185. Meintjes, G. (1997). Human rights education as empowerment: Reflections on pedagogy. In G. J. Andreopoulos & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights education for the twenty first century (pp. 64–79). University of Pennsylvania Press. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (1996). Teacher education and human rights. David Fulton Publishers. Oud, M. (2006). Creative tensions and the legitimacy of human rights education—a discussion on moral, legal and human rights education in China. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(1), 117–125. Reardon, B. A. (2015). Human Rights learning: Pedagogies and politics of peace. In B. A. Reardon & D. T. Snauwaert (Eds.), A pioneer in education for peace and human rights (pp. 145–164). Springer. Smith, R., & Bai, G. (2011). Creating a culture of human rights education in China. Retrieved from http://rwi.lu.se/app/uploads/2012/04/Human-Rights-Education-in-China-Smith-and-Bai.pdf State Council. (2009). National human rights action plan of China (2009–2010). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2012). National human rights action plan of China (2012–2015). Beijing: State Council.

10

1 Introduction

State Council. (2016). National human rights action plan of China (2016–2020). Beijing: State Council. Sun, S., Peng, X., Li, W., Wang, G., & Liu, H. (2005). Daxue Falv Yuanxizhong de Renquanfa Jiaoxue [Human rights teaching at university law schools]. Paper presented at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Institute of Law International Seminar on Human Rights Education, Beijing. Svensson, M. (2002). Debating human rights in China: A conceptual and political history. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Teleki, K. (2007). Human rights training for adults: What twenty-six evaluation studies say about design, implementation, and follow-up. In Human Rights Education Associates (Ed.), The research in human rights education paper series 1 (Issue 1). Human Rights Education Associates. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ 74BF01F5CE2682EEC12574C600519C87-HRA-Aug2007.pdf Tibbitts, F. (2002). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 159–171. Tibbitts, F., & Fritzsche, P. (2006). International perspectives of human rights education. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(1), 1–15. Tibbitts, F., & Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2010). Perspectives of research on human rights education. Journal of Human Rights Education, 2(1), 8–29. Walzer, M. (2018). Foreword. In Seth D. Kaplan (Ed.), Human rights in thick and thin societies: Universality without uniformity (pp. xv–xvi). Cambridge University Press. Zarrow, P. (1998). Citizenship and human rights in early twentieth century Chinese thought: Liu Shipei and Liang Qichao. In W. T. De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 209–233). Columbia University Press. Zhang, L., Wang, J., & Wang, M. (2000). China: Legal education. Human rights education in Asian schools, 3, 41–45. Retrieved from https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/pdf/asia-s-ed/v03/ 06li.pdf

Chapter 2

Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

Historically, perceptions of what constitutes human rights are not universal; the concept included neither women’s nor economic and social rights to the extent it does today. In literature, Freeman (2000) conceptualized universal human rights as a set of minimum standards for individuals to lead a life of dignity, which could be regarded as a thin account of human rights. While Chan (2000) argued for a thick account of human rights that is often unnoticed, noting that all perspectives depict different dimensions of the same picture and are elaborated in a particular society, considering its cultural, economic, and political circumstances. Walzer (2018) situates human rights within societal contexts; he describes thin societies as those that are individualistic and organized around ideas of individual freedoms and thick as societies that are communitarian and ’pull the individual into a tight web of obligations and responsibilities in a hierarchical society” (p. xv). Although human rights have received a lot of attention and debate in recent studies, agreeing on a general theory is challenging (Douzinas, 2000; Turner, 1993). Human rights are contentious, as they are associated to historical developments (Klug, 2000; Moyn, 2010), social backgrounds (Freeman, 2011; Turner, 1993), cultural traditions (Donnelly, 1982a, 1999; Tiwald, 2012), and philosophical foundations (Fagan, 2012; Feser, 2012; Freeman, 1994). To help explain the complexity of human rights framework, this chapter examines major theories of and debates surrounding human rights in general scholarship and how different perspectives help understand this study to identify the research gap and introduce a theoretical framework. In particular, it explores theoretical debates about whether human rights are innate or socially constructed, and the relationship between human rights and cultures. Similarly, HRE is a contentious topic, as it is connected to historical changes and diverse theoretical and implementation issues (Tibbitts & Fritzsche, 2006; Tibbitts & Kirchschlaeger, 2010). Based on the examination of human rights from diverse perspectives, this chapter reviews three main categories of HRE research in general literature. First, it reviews international and regional HRE policies, involving the use of institutions and documents as key means of defining and promoting HRE. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_2

11

12

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

Then, it introduces general theories of HRE research with targeted groups, models, typologies, and pedagogical considerations of HRE. Finally, it examines the issues of HRE implementations, with particular attention to good practices. HRE has spurred much discussion in theory and practice, as there are different views about its appropriate content, goals, and methodologies. This chapter concludes by examining the helpfulness and limits of these theories and debates in interpreting human rights and HRE in a general lens.

A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Human Rights Concepts This section helps this study to engage critically with various human rights concepts that have evolved from “historical, legal, and sociological” perspectives (Osler & Starkey, 1996), all of which are interrelated. The historical perspective conceives of human rights in terms of norms and instruments that have arisen from struggles for freedom in different periods (Hunt, 2007; Ishay, 2008); human rights are seen as the result of human beings’ struggles to achieve or become worthy of the respect of others, within their historical context (Bowring, 2008). Various events, actions, and movements comprise the history of human rights (Vasak, 1977), which spans three indivisible generations, moving from civil and political rights in the first wave, to social and economic rights in the second, and finally to solidarity rights in the third. Human rights were first enshrined at the global level in 1948, with the adoption of the UDHR by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly. The historical perspective presents that these human rights evolved from historic struggles and grew into an international commitment; however, the perspective cannot explain the national obligations to which nation states commit when they sign and ratify international human rights conventions. A legal perspective holds that commitments to international human rights law need to be operated by legal and political institutions at the nation-state level (Morsink, 1999). In the respect, the UDHR is an epoch making international human rights law enshrining “a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations” (Preamble). Subsequent international human rights institutions and laws have been built to protect and promote human rights, and governments assume certain specific obligations when they sign and ratify human rights conventions. The UDHR demands that nation states develop legal frameworks in line with their international human rights commitments and promises, and that they enforce those standards, which in turn affect their and their citizens’ behaviours (Nair, 2011). However, the legal perspective cannot explain the social reality of human rights issues; instead, it falls to the sociological perspective on human rights to critically examine how governments, institutions, and individuals uphold or violate human rights. A sociological lens is concerned with why discrimination and human rights abuses persist, and how they can be addressed. A basic presupposition underlying the perspective is that “human dignity is especially vulnerable to state threats and actions” (Eddy, 2007). Turner (1993) contended human rights are “social claims for institu-

A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Human Rights Concepts

13

tionalized protection” based on the frailty of the human condition, as much as efforts to provide and protect universal equality. The perspective aims to explain the development of social structures and institutions to protect people from unjust conditions, particularly human rights violations. Thus, moral communities are created to support the demands of human rights, dignity, and justice, and the power of the state should be regulated and administrated fairly and justly to protect citizens’ rights. Critically examining human rights from varied perspectives is helpful for developing a deeper understanding thereof. However, such multidisciplinary perspective cannot explain the conceptual complexity of human rights, for instance, whether human rights exist naturally, or are created. Similarly, it helps to explain human rights as historical and social products (Feuer, 2002), but cannot explain whether human rights are universal, or culturally relative. The following sections will examine two key theoretical debates, which discuss whether human rights are innate or socially constructed, and whether human rights are universal or culturally relative, aiming to explain thoroughly the contentious concept of human rights in different contexts.

Innate or Created? Debates on Human Rights Conceptions A key theoretical debate surrounding human rights in general literature is whether they are innate or socially constructed. This dispute can be approached from various viewpoints, including natural rights theory, deliberative theory, the social justice model, and the protest theory of human rights, all of which have different perspectives on who is entitled to possess human rights, the ultimate basis of human rights, and the relationship between individuals and society. Natural rights theory, for example, conceives of human rights as innate, and holds that every human being possesses them equally, simply by virtue of being a human being; in other words, human rights are grounded in human nature (Donnelly, 1982b, 1989; Donnelly & Howard-Hassmann, 1987; Goodale, 2009; Perry, 2000). This theory has four interrelated interpretations that shape the concept of human rights. First, human beings naturally possess human rights. Some scholars (e.g. Donnelly, 1982b; Dworkin, 1978) noted that human rights can be viewed as negative in character and consequently absolute, typically take priority over other (utilitarian) considerations (Donnelly, 1982b), and can be exemplified as claims on which “no one … may permissibly infringe.” Ultimately, human rights derive from the inherent dignity of human beings, and are therefore universal and equally held by all humans (Hart, 1955), free of external influence from other persons and institutions. However, this does not mean one has human rights just because one is a human; rather, natural means rational in terms of natural rights theory (MacDonald, 1946). Caranti (2012), in critiquing Kant’s contention that freedom and equality are inborn rights, asserted that human rights are based in reason and autonomy; human behaviour, as a whole, is subject to free rational deliberation.

14

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

Second, from the perspective that natural implies “based upon rationality or reason,” human rights arise from humans’ need to enjoy a life of dignity (Bay, 1982; Donnelly, 1989). The fundamental basis for the possession of human rights can be analysed from two approaches—interest theory and choice theory. Interest theory views human rights as grounded in nature, and existing to promote and protect certain pre-existing interests essential to one’s being a human being (Finnis, 2011; Freeman, 2011; Nussbaum, 2001). Choice theory, on the other hand, contends that the possession of human rights promotes the actualization of free choice to secure equal individual liberty (Gewirth, 1982), and should reflect the minimum requirements for human dignity or moral personality (Donnelly, 1989; Donnelly & HowardHassmann, 1987). In other words, what human life ought to be is the result of human choice of and human decisions regarding a particular moral vision of human potentiality (Feuer, 2002; MacDonald, 1946). Thus, human rights are a social practice that aims to realize a specific vision of human dignity and potential by institutionalizing basic rights. Third, natural rights theory offers a list of rights that varies with each exponent. MacDonald (1946) asserted there are some rights to which human beings are entitled, ranging from Hobbes’ right of self-preservation, to the rights to life, security, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property championed by liberal theorists, to the right to work or to sufficient maintenance suggested by modern socialists. Among these numerous rights lists, human rights can be seen as both legal rights and moral rights; that is, moral and legal concepts that limit the power of government. On the one hand, natural rights emerge from natural law theory, and human rights are therefore commonly argued to have legal and political characteristics; on the other, human rights, being grounded in human nature, are universal and free, and thus take priority over other moral, legal, and political claims. Fourth, in discussing the relationship between natural rights and the civil state, a key concept is the social contract, which natural rights theory contends allowed modern civil society to develop from a pre-political state of nature, imbuing people with certain rights that none may violate (Boisen, 2012). Human rights are bound up with social agreements concerning the worth of societies and social institutions, through which free individuals form institutions with the power to arbitrate and protect their natural rights, to lead a life of dignity. Natural rights theory helps one understand human rights belong to all human beings naturally, by virtue of their common humanity; however, human rights, to some extent, do not fit natural rights theory, as they are supposed to be pre-institutional and timeless. This may suggest that human rights are “unambiguous and uncontroversial,” noted by Dembour (2010), which cannot explain human rights in terms of the social practices through which they come into existence. Unlike natural rights theory, which views human rights as innate, three other schools of thought associate human rights with institutional environments rather than natural conditions. The first school of thought is the deliberative school of human rights, which focuses on justification rather than foundation (Nickel, 1987), and therefore conceives of human rights as legal and political principles upon which liberal societies have agreed; constitutional law, for instance, is a prime expression of

Innate or Created? Debates on Human Rights Conceptions

15

agreed-upon human rights values (Campbell, 2011; Ignatieff, 2001), and one through which specific human rights are created to guide human actions. The perspective tends to reject the natural element, as human rights are realized through “liberal, democratic, and fair processes that enable good political governance” (Dembour, 2010). Human rights become universal through the global adoption of liberal values, as everybody gradually becomes convinced that human rights are the best possible legal and political standards for ruling a society. The second school of thought is the social justice model, which contends that human rights are basic requirements of global justice (Beitz, 2003). Beitz (1979) argued that human rights belong to institutional environments, particularly culture and economic development. Unlike the interest theory approach, which ground human rights in human nature, social justice model contends that human rights are intended to satisfy various human interests underlying the principles of social justice, generally in Rawls’ sense. Justice principles express the conditions under which “social institutions may be regarded as morally legitimate” (Beitz, 1979). Social justice is the source of human rights, and a society’s basic institutions are intended to distribute the benefits and burdens of social cooperation. In this sense, social and cultural conditions and political problems constrain the realization of human rights. As social justice ought to be an essential consideration when making such largely utilitarian choices, human rights are regarded as both the conditions for and results of social justice. Dembour (2010) suggested a third school of thought, the protest school of human rights, which (similar to the social justice model) regards human rights as the result of struggles for claims. It focuses primarily on redressing the injustices suffered by specific individuals, such as the unprivileged and the oppressed (Baxi, 2012). For instance, feminists and child rights advocates illustrate the relationship between human rights and social justice (Talbott, 2007); from their perspectives, human rights can be seen as claims that allow the status quo to be contested in favour of the oppressed. The school does not reject the transcendental source of human rights, but emphasizes human rights as part of the tradition of human struggles and social movements (Baxi, 2012; Stammers, 2009), and asserts that the realization of human rights lies in the perpetual fight for justice. In addition, while it does not reject the idea of human rights law, it sees such law as a routinization process more intended to perpetuate elites, than to advance true human rights ideas. In discussing the natural or socially-constructed nature of human rights concepts, there is some literature on human rights which discussed their intrinsic and instrumental purposes for helping people to be able to actively engage in the processes of social constructing just what their rights are in both ideological and practical senses. For example, Sen (1999) addressed the capability for freedom and exercise of rights, noting that without the full right to free speech, one cannot develop his/her natural capacity to engage effectively in deliberative processes of political participation. Gregg (2011) had a different view on human rights concept, pointing out there are no agreements as to by what provenience human rights exist, nor which are fundamental and which secondary. Gregg drew on social construction insights to show how human rights ideas might be grown in local soils, and conceived of human rights as local

16

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

constructions of “limited but expandable validity,” from a social constructionist perspective. Gregg (2011) argued human rights are culturally particular and valid only locally to promote a community’s self-representation in ways allowing for diversity, because “recognition of the incommensurability of different cultures need not entail an uncritical tolerance of just about anything” (p. 7). It provides guidance on such questions as what conception of the good life they presuppose. While these theories help to explain human rights in an institutional environment, they cannot explain which human rights humans should possess, as they see human rights as having emerged from social agreements and/or struggles. Not all human interests required to guarantee social justice are human rights; if they were, the human rights list would be remarkably long and uncoordinated (Donnelly, 1982b). Though general theories of human rights help to explain the societal agreements through which human rights seek social justice, they cannot explain in which sense human rights are universal, and in which sense they are relative.

Human Rights and Cultures: Universal and Relative Characters A further ongoing theoretical debate surrounding human rights in general literature is whether human rights are universal, or culturally relative. This dispute can be examined in terms of in which sense human rights can be said to be universal, and the role culture plays that affect the understanding of human rights.

Universal Nature of Human Rights The universality of human rights has probably been the most discussed issue in literature on human rights, particularly since the ratification of the UDHR by the international community. The universal character of human rights concepts could be seen from three perspectives. Firstly, in the sense that human beings possess human rights simply by being human beings, human rights can be understood to be universal possessions grounded in human nature. Thus, human rights are conceptually universal, and therefore equal and inalienable in nature (Donnelly, 1982b, 1984). In this sense, a recurrent proposition is that human rights are self-evidently true, and thus ought to be honoured as universal moral truths that apply to everyone, even those people living in cultures that do not believe in such rights (Mayerfeld et al., 2007). This perspective is specifically asserted in the United States Declaration of Independence, which begins with the words, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Human Rights and Cultures: Universal and Relative Characters

17

However, a central question surrounding conceptual universality is, which human rights should be considered universal? Cranston (1983) contended that natural rights can be understood as universal moral rights, which demand liberty and security. Talbott (2005) suggested a list of nine rights that should be considered universal (including political rights and the right to subsistence, education, freedom of thought and expression, autonomy, among others) to enforce the entire package of rights. Secondly, in the sense that they have been international accepted, human rights can be said to be universal. Generally speaking, the list of international human rights has been forged through a continuing political and legal consensus (Donnelly, 1982b; Espiell, 1998) involving sociopolitical and cultural movements. The endorsement of internationally recognized human rights can be seen as a series of widely-ratified treaties on human rights, and particularly of the foundational UDHR, which is indirectly tied to universalism through the promotion and protection of human rights (Espiell, 1998). The universal character of human rights thus can be seen in claims and provisions (found in international human rights documents) referring to the equal, inalienable, and inviolable rights of all members of the human family. In addition, social justice movements have increasingly adopted the language of human rights, further contributing to a consensus on human rights in the international community. Thus, in relation to social developments, the universal character of human rights arises from the advocacy of people, states, and other political actors that characterize human rights as essential to their vision of a life of dignity. In this sense, human rights can be regarded as a part of the modernity of political ideas. Thirdly, human rights are functionally adopted to promote new political orders intended to protect individuals from violations of their human dignity. For instance, the American and French Revolutions first used the idea of human rights and citizens’rights to facilitate social and political transformations of modernity, and to limit the power of the state. The functional universality of human rights depends on their ability to protect human dignity from pressing systemic threats. Therefore, the endorsement of human rights can be viewed as the political conceptualization of justice in society (Bielefeldt, 2000; Donnelly, 2007; Peetush, 2003), within which equal and inalienable rights are held by free and equal citizens. Accordingly, a universal consensus on human rights can be regarded as an “overlapping consensus” (Rawls, 1993), or an agreement by different groups on certain norms that ought to govern human behaviour. While human rights are, in a way, universal, both conceptually and from internationally accepted perspectives, three facets of that universalism have been criticized. To begin with, human rights are universally possessed, but not universally enforced. The universal human rights list is conceptual and of little practical significance in most discussions related to the impact of states, markets, colonialism, and various other social forces. Internationally recognized human rights rely on national acceptance and enforcement, as states may be vulnerable to external pressure and thus enticed to act in certain ways. In addition, placing heavy emphasis on the universality of human rights became essential in the aftermath of the Second World War, and the language of human rights became a powerful means of expressing political claims. Human rights have

18

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

been regarded as authoritative moral, political, and legal powers, and consequently might become ideologically hegemonic in international communities and transcultural societies. Some scholars (e.g. Mickelson, 1998; Rajagopal, 2000) noted that the existing human rights corpus reads some countries as either respecting or violating human rights, generally compared to the West and Western values. Proponents of human rights are thus inspired to show cultural respect; for instance, the international consensus on human rights has been directly bound up with the issue of cultural diversity and regional particularity in respect of human rights (OHCHR, 1993, Para. 5). Most critics of Western-style human rights universality are proponents of Asian and/or Islamic values (Dallmayr, 2002); universal human rights should leave space for national, regional, and cultural diversity and particularity.

Rights and Cultures: Relative Character of Human Rights Unlike universalism, which contends that human rights are universal both conceptually and in terms of international acceptance, cultural relativism regards human rights as culturally specific, meaning their character is bound up with cultural elements— e.g., religion, traditions, and political and legal practices (Donnelly, 2007)—that distinguish different human groups. This section examines the relationship between human rights and cultures to determine in which sense human rights are relative, and what role culture plays in determining their validity. The culturally relative perspective typically demands respect for cultural differences (Perry, 1997), and has probably been the most contentious issue in discussions on human rights theory. In such discussions, culture refers to those local cultural traditions that determine the existence and scope of the human rights enjoyed by individuals in a given society (Bogicevic, 2013; Teson, 1984). Cultural relativism claims that substantive human rights standards vary between cultures, nations, and communities, and necessarily reflect the idiosyncrasies thereof. It demands respect for communal autonomy and self-determination (Donnelly, 1984), and suggests cultural variability is based on local moral rules and social institutions, and is thus exempt from legitimate external criticism. Thus, cultural relativism contributes to enculturation (Renteln, 1988). The validity and meaning of human rights are relative to cultural diversity, national and regional particularities, and various historical, social, and political contexts (Donnelly, 1984; Teson, 1984). For instance, Bell (1996) discussed East Asian criticisms of traditional Western approaches to human rights for identifying a culturally sensitive approach, and suggested that East Asian conceptions of vital human interests may justify political practices that may differ from the human rights regimes normally endorsed in Western countries. These disputed points of human rights discuss criminal law, social and economic rights, the rights of ethnic minorities, and the attempt to universalize Western-style democratic practices, etc. An important question regarding the culturally relative perspective on human rights is whether all human rights are relative. Donnelly (1984, 1989) argued for

Human Rights and Cultures: Universal and Relative Characters

19

“weak” cultural relativism, noting that culture may be an important validating source for moral rights or rules; human rights universality is initially presumed, but deviations in culture, human groups, and communities limit potential violations of human rights’ universal character. Three types of variation in cultural relativity can be identified—the substance of human rights, the interpretation of individual rights, and the form of implementation of human rights. The foundational level of variation can be specified as the conceptual formulations of human rights. To the extent that human rights are grounded in human nature, they can be seen as relative, as human nature itself is somewhat culturally relative (Donnelly, 1984), and humans are shaped in different ways by different cultures (Perry, 1997). The shaping effect of culture on individuals is systematic, and may lead to the superiority of a given social type in different cultures; thus, the presence and expression of human nature is, in part, a response to culture. In addition, moral values and social institutions are, in part, “in their genesis, historical specific and contingent” (Donnelly, 1984); they show the cultural and historical variability of internal standards that may be unacceptable, per external principles. The second type of variation is the relativism of human rights interpretations, particularly the understanding that individual rights should serve the common good (Cohen, 1989). From a cultural relativism perspective, a society instructs its members to pursue collective rights to protect human dignity and public interests. Different social systems propose distinct collective rights to serve what those systems deem the common good. Thus, cultural relativism acknowledges different interpretations of individual rights, as they relate to human life with dignity. Therefore, human rights are regarded as different moral claims and rules that are owed to moral agents in a specific cultural community. The third type of variation is bound up with variations among the cultures in which an interpretation of human rights is implemented. Some scholars contended that human rights are relative, in practice (Donnelly, 1989; On, 2005), and their enforcement should consider national and regional particularities, and various historical, cultural, and religious variations (Espiell, 1998); for instance, an obligation to respect peoples’ cultural identities, local traditions, and customs clearly exists in international law (Teson, 1984). With specific references to Asian societies, several declarations deal with the development of a regional human rights body. For instance, the Law Association of Asia and the Pacific promoted the Draft Pacific Charter of Human Rights (1989) to facilitate the popularization of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Asian countries. In addition, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Human Rights Declaration (2012) contributes to the social development and justice, the full realization of human dignity and the attainment of a higher quality of life for peoples of member states. Asian states refer to the impact of their diverse cultural traditions on the provision of human rights (Cerna, 1994); the Bangkok Declaration (1993), for example, “recognize[d] that while human rights are universal in nature, they must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving process of international norm-setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various histori-

20

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

cal, cultural and religious backgrounds” (Article 8). As Gibb (2003) argued, Asian countries have maintained that the recognition of cultural relativism is prerequisite to interpreting human rights standards for application, as their societies have different priorities and concerns. While it is helpful to understanding the relative character of human rights, some have criticized that relativism might confuse human rights with the implementation thereof, and that the choices made in societies often reflect the interests of the ruling elites, rather than those of the entire culture, let alone those of its lower-rung members (Halliday, 1995). Scholars (e.g. Ong, 1999; Sen, 2006) have also argued that these cultural essentialisms might be used by political leaders to justify authoritarian rule and the denial of basic human rights in some cases. The debate on the universal or relative character of human rights might result in radical relativism or universalism, and a dichotomistic analysis of culture as being either irrelevant to the universal validity of human rights or the sole source thereof. Some defend a comprehensive explanation of human rights validity in favour of formulation of relative universality (Beitz, 2001; Donnelly, 1984, 2007; Halliday, 1995; Perry, 1997), which states that basic human rights are relatively universal. The universal versus culturally relative debate helps to justify, taking account of universal conditions, deviations of culture, and other forms of relativity, in which human rights are regarded as appropriate mechanisms for the protection of human dignity and social justice in distinct societies. This study examines a culturallyrelative perspective that suggests the position a culture enjoys affects the understanding of human rights, say, the role different cultures play in determining the validity and promotion of human rights. Even though existing discussions on human rights concepts foster the understanding of the complexity of human rights concepts, general theoretical perspectives on human rights cannot interpret how China respects and promotes human rights, nor the substance and scope of human rights in the Chinese context. These two theoretical debates help to justify the point of the departure in the book to relate human rights concepts, reality, and history with cultural relativization and social construction of human rights discourse. To supplement human rights theories from diverse perspectives and contexts, the next chapter will introduce the ideological orientations of China’s human rights discourse for clues of potential continuities or changes in policies and understandings on human rights, and how those debates reflect China’s internal backgrounds and stance on human rights.

HRE as a Strategy for Development HRE has spurred much discussion in literature about its contents, aims, and methodologies, as it is connected to diverse theoretical and implementation issues. This section unpacks three main categories of HRE research. First, it reviews the policymaking of HRE in international and regional contexts, involving the use of institutions and documents as key means of defining and developing HRE. It then introduces

HRE as a Strategy for Development

21

diverse models, typologies, and pedagogical considerations of HRE in literature. Finally, it examines HRE practices with particular attention to good practices.

Historical Movements and HRE Policies Modern HRE is closely associated with movements to promote human rights awareness, and the redress of violations through education, training, and activities. HRE promotions in international and regional policies address questions of who is responsible for HRE, aims, suggested themes and learning outcomes, as well as approaches to promote the intended HRE and all related practices. Though some scholars (e.g. Gregg, 2011) contend there are no generally accepted histories of human rights ideas or movements for human rights, international policymaking on HRE has normally passed through three stages as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms has strengthened. The first stage stemmed from the founding text of the UDHR, which directed HRE to better embody human rights principles and to fulfil the lifelong-learning process. Since then, the right to education and the aims of HRE have been addressed in various international documents, and in the work of NGOs, grass-roots organizations, and professional associations. The second stage focused on policies addressing the teaching of human rights in formal school systems, in the context of national and international dimensions, from the 1970s to the 1990s. Developments in HRE were elaborated in pertinent key documents, such as the 1974 Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace, and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; the 1978 International Congress on the Teaching of Human Rights; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, which outlined minimum standards for guaranteeing children’s human rights globally; the 1993 World Plan of Action on Education for Human Rights and Democracy; the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights; and the 1995 Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy. Since then, HRE has officially become a central means of integrating human rights concepts, norms, and values within mainstream educational systems, globally. The third stage involved policies dealing explicitly with HRE in non-school settings and education systems in international society, to cultivate a universal culture that respects and protects human rights and fundamental freedoms. For instance, the UN Decade for HRE (1995–2004) aimed to build a universal human rights culture by imparting knowledge and skills, and moulding attitudes (OHCHR, 1996). It introduced HRE into formal school systems, and into training and activities adopted by diverse institutions, and sought to promote a general understanding of the basic principles and methodologies of HRE, to offer a specific framework for action and strengthen cooperation, from the international level to the basic level. Unlike the UN Decade for HRE, which focused on the community level, the World Program for HRE (2005–ongoing) emphasizes individual human development skills. The programme proposes policies, studies, strategies, and implementations

22

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

for promoting HRE nationally in all sectors. It elaborates that HRE encompasses knowledge, values, and skills pertaining to the application of an human rights value system in interpersonal relationships (OHCHR & UNESCO, 2005). In addition, the UN Declaration on HRE and Training (2011) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Goal 4.7) (2016–2030) have been developed to ensure the promotion, protection and realization of human rights and freedoms through education and access to HRE. Several major regional policies reaffirm the promotion of HRE across nations, such as the Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and HRE (2010) emphasizes promoting the core human rights values espoused by the Council of Europe, and preventing human rights violations. In addition, the Guidelines on HRE for Secondary Schools Systems (2012) deals explicitly with HRE in secondary education, requiring member states to ensure HRE has been integrated into education systems to facilitate “systemic and effective human rights learning” for secondary students. Similar trends of promoting HRE can be identified in policy making in Asian societies, as reflected in the Sixth Workshop on Regional Arrangements for the Promotion and Protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific Region (1998), and reaffirmed in the 1999 Seoul Declaration and the Pune Declaration on Education for Human Rights, which note that education is a basic right and an essential precondition for the implementation of human rights for all, and that Asian countries recognize the importance of HRE at the national, regional and international levels. Some regional inter-governmental organizations, such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, adopted their respective human rights-related documents that support HRE, and argued that the Asian countries are characterized by significant social, political, and cultural diversity and varying levels of economic development in promoting human rights and HRE. In addition, Asian countries have promoted the use of cultural-values human rights framework for HRE in their education systems. Such framework is similar to the efforts in other cases in which culture has been used to address social justice, and to bring back deeply-held community values, such as respect for life, freedom from internal conflict and oppressive government, the protection of vulnerable groups, and the pursuit of common good for a life of dignity, etc. Asian states refer to the impact of their cultural traditions on the promotion of human rights and HRE; however, there are definitely negative aspects in every culture, and this book is therefore careful in relating cultures to human rights and HRE, and adopts a weak cultural relativism that relates human rights with cultural relativization and social construction, along with the universal validity of human rights, as discussed in previous sections. The progression of HRE in international and regional policies aimed to create both a universal human rights culture and life-long learning, at the societal and individual empowerment levels. The international policies supported by international organizations addressed the actors responsible for HRE, the sectors to which it is relevant, and its aims. All these ideas colour the comprehensive understandings ascribed to HRE, from which it has reached the agreement that HRE is defined as “training, dissemination, and information efforts aimed at the building of a universal culture

HRE as a Strategy for Development

23

of human rights through the imparting of knowledge and skills and the moulding of attitudes” (OHCHR, 1997) (Para. 11). HRE could be seen as educational practices fostering individuals’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are consistent with internationally accepted principles, the goal of which is to build a culture of respect for and protection of human rights. However, there are negative consequences to both the conceptualization and practice of HRE within the world community (Okafor and Okoronkwo, 2003). For instance, the existing human rights corpus has a binary outlook (based largely on comparisons to the West and Western values) that sees countries as either respecting or violating human rights (Gierycz, 1997; Mickelson, 1998; Rajagopal, 2000), and sees the flow of ideas from the former to the latter as a one-way street (Howard, 1993; Lewis and Gunning, 1998; Mutua, 2001). HRE reflecting such views is therefore de-contextualized and ethnocentric, due to the dominance of Western-based human rights organizations globally, and lacking in other traditions and cultures. Despite aiding understanding of HRE policies in international and regional initiatives, and developments of alternative visions of what constitutes a good life (Smith et al., 1998), HRE in international and regional policies cannot offer a systematic, theoretical explanation for the dynamics of HRE. Next section reviews different theories of HRE research to understand the underlying assumptions of approaches to HRE, and distinct contents.

HRE Research: A Multidimensional Framework Research falling under this section clarifies what HRE is, and how it is defined by different stakeholders, and in different models, ideological orientations, and pedagogical considerations. Firstly, several studies relate HRE to different stakeholders who can affect society at different levels and in different ways, as Tibbitts and Fritzsche (2006) denoted, including “axiological conscience, safeguard interests of the disadvantaged, and empowerment in an ideological-cultural framework” (Magendzo, 1997). For instance, governmental actors emphasize HRE’s harmonizing function to create peace, continuity, and social order, while NGOs tend to define HRE as transformative, stressing its potential to oppose human rights violations and protect vulnerable groups; educationalists tend to emphasize human rights values, and how to integrate HRE into established forms of education in the curriculum (Flowers, 2003). While different groups’ definitions may overlap, their perspectives illustrate differences in how HRE is conceived. Moreover, within the HRE framework, states are duty-bound to develop holistic approaches to HRE in school systems and non-formal settings (OHCHR, 1993) (Para. 33), underlying which is the need to provide a blueprint for the development of national implementation strategies, and to create a culture of HRE in its context (OHCHR, 1999; Smith & Bai, 2011). Secondly, Tibbitts (2002, 2017) presented various HRE models for examining distinct target groups, contents, and strategies for promoting HRE, and for helping

24

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

to realize human rights cultures in certain contexts. The first model is the values and awareness model, a philosophical-historical approach mainly involving school education, such as human rights-related lessons within citizenship education, history, social science and legal-related studies, and public training, such as public awareness campaigns. This model focuses on fostering human rights values by increasing human rights knowledge (Tibbitts, 1994), critical thinking (Meintjes, 1997), and the ability to analyse policy issues from an human rights perspective. The second model is the accountability model, a legal-political approach that targets those professional groups that guarantee human rights through their professional activities. In this model, human rights training centres on specialized human rights contents, outcomes, and related skills development, in accordance with different learners, and generally aims to guarantee human rights through learners’ professional roles. The third model is the transformational approach, which aims at empowering the individual and the public to recognize human rights abuses, and to commit to their prevention. The model is a psychological-sociological approach that sees human rights as a part of broader social issues, such as women’s development, economic development, and the rights of minorities, vulnerable groups, and those who have faced or are facing human rights abuses. The three models can be integrated into a learning pyramid, with the values and awareness model forming the large base, the accountability model the middle, and the transformational model at the narrow top, fostering individual, community, and societal empowerment, within and beyond school settings. Thirdly, some HRE research (Bajaj, 2011) addresses the ideological orientations of HRE, which situate the goals and objectives of HRE in relation to local, national, and international sites of power. HRE’s varied ideological contents reflect different groups’ conditions and needs, the way HRE has developed, and its expected outcomes. For example, HRE for global citizenship seeks to provide learners with membership to the international community through “fostering knowledge and skills related to universal values and standards,” and a commitment to countering injustice (Bajaj, 2011). It is rooted in a cosmopolitan ethic that is often related to universal notions of human rights, but also discusses the interplay between global and local forces. Much research (e.g. Osler & Starkey, 2003, 2005) examines the forms of education for global citizenship (world citizenship) underpinned by human rights. HRE for coexistence, by contrast, focuses on the inter-personal and inter-group aspects of human rights, and is generally focused on “where conflict emerges, not from an absolute deprivation of human rights, but from ethnic or civil strife” (Bajaj, 2011). This approach presents information in post-conflict settings to reexamine the violence in hopes of fostering respect for differences, mutual understanding, dialogues, and interactions between individuals and groups. It particularly emphasizes the role of minority rights and pluralism in creating greater empathy and understandings across groups, as part of the larger human rights framework. Some studies (e.g. Osler, 2016; Osler & Zhu, 2011) show human rights are an expression of the human urge to resist oppression, HRE thus must support students to challenge injustice, make a difference and develop solidarities at local, national, and global levels.

HRE as a Strategy for Development

25

HRE for transformative action usually involves economically or politically marginalized learners, and the need for action to resolve the gap between reality and human rights guarantees. Thus, it prioritizes analyses of how power relationships are structured, how human rights norms and standards are selectively respected, how marginalized and privileged learners might act in the face of injustice, and possibilities for greater cooperation across groups that might bring about better respect for human rights throughout society. This approach helps learners foster a sense of transformative agency as a critique of power relations, and to rethink their social realities and willingness to act. For example, Katz and Spero (2015) examined the ways of teaching for human rights in American schools, suggesting that a growing number of teachers are embracing the teaching and learning of human rights, and as a result, have contributed to HRE movements from the ground up. Through the critical pedagogies, teachers engage students in questioning social inequality issues and intend to amplify the voices of under-represented minorities. Fourthly, a contentious argument regarding HRE research concerns pedagogical considerations, including the “didactic, methodological and curricular aspects” of HRE (Tibbitts & Kirchschlaeger, 2010), and its content. Numerous studies have related HRE framework to “cognitive, attitudinal, or emotive values or skills, and action-oriented components” (Flowers, 2000, 2003; Meintjes, 1997; Reardon, 2009; Tarrow, 1987, 1992), many of which supplement each other. A number of studies have highlighted four comprehensive conceptualizations of HRE: education about human rights; education through human rights; education for human rights (Amnesty International, 2012; OHCHR, 2011); and education as a human right (Lenhart and Savolainen, 2002; Lohrenscheit, 2002). Research into the objectives of HRE implementations has examined learning about human rights and learning for human rights, and suggests HRE aims to increase individuals’ knowledge, understanding, and valuing of international human rights guidelines, as well as foster individual empowerment and participation. In addition to extant research regarding the definitions, typologies, and pedagogical considerations of HRE, a key issue is how to define related but different topics of HRE, particularly citizenship education (including its multilevelled frameworks). Some studies identify the relationship between HRE and the related subject of citizenship education, for instance, Fritzsche (2007) mentioned HRE, in practice, is recognized as “a special feature of or inclusive approach to” citizenship education. Taking the case of Hong Kong, Leung (2008) suggested that HRE is considered an aspect of civic education, though it seems to be marginal and not appropriately institutionalized. Some research has addressed the growing consensus that human rights underpin education for citizenship in a multicultural society (Hahn, 1998; Osler & Starkey, 1996), and education for human rights is fundamental to citizenship and to learning to live together (Osler, 2002). In this sense, HRE could be seen as part of global citizenship education, but it is not only global citizenship education, as curriculum is defined by government. HRE incorporates global themes/programmes for living together, but practise global themes should be relative to local and personal levels.

26

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

Fritzsche (2007) has suggested that citizenship education and HRE are commingled, based on their shared underlying assumption that education matters, and common goals of promoting participation and protecting students from discrimination, intolerance and violence. The difference between the two terms concerns mainly their focus, rather than their goals and practices. For example, citizenship education focuses on the development of students’ identification with, feelings about, and sense of belonging to a shared society, its rights and responsibilities, and their participation therein (Osler & Starkey, 2005); HRE, on the other hand, focuses on caring for dignity and justice, and building a universal human rights culture that protects and promotes dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms (OHCHR & UNESCO, 2005). In addition, citizenship education and HRE have different scopes in terms of their contents regarding membership, rights and responsibilities, and participation. While citizenship education relates to the civil, political, social, economic, legal, and cultural spheres of society, HRE is concerned with the broader spectrum of human rights in every aspect of lives in the multi-levelled world. Though citizenship education and HRE both include membership, citizenship is underpinned by political and legal understandings of the individual (Fritzsche, 2007), and addresses both unity (nation-building) and diversity (Osler & Starkey, 2006); human rights involves inclusive membership in the world (Osler & Starkey, 2005), underpinned by human nature based on ethical and legal conceptualizations of the individual (Fritzsche, 2007). In the respect, citizenship education involves “a status, a feeling, and a practice” of belonging to the nation (a shared political community) (Osler & Starkey, 2005), while HRE is about translating human dignity and human rights principles into teaching for justice (Osler, 2016). While it is helpful to understand the theoretical nature of HRE, these theories are necessarily lacking in details and depth. Theories of HRE research cannot explain where to locate HRE in and out of schools to facilitate individuals’ or groups’ learning about human rights. These deficiencies can be explained by rethinking the contents and methodologies within multiple HRE practices, from national-level enforcements to grassroots developments by different stakeholders, and HRE promotion in both school systems and non-school settings.

Locating HRE in School Settings Top-down HRE policies are interpreted and implemented differently from the bottom-up by different stakeholders and educators in different contexts. An ongoing discussion about HRE implementation is where to locate HRE in relation to other forms of education, in both formal school systems and non-school settings. General literature reflects four major issues regarding HRE implementation. The first concerns non-school-based projects promoting HRE. Numerous studies reflect the approach of locating HRE in non-school settings through distinct instruction in educational projects; for instance, locating HRE in training projects

HRE as a Strategy for Development

27

for professional social workers and government officials, community development programmes, and general public training (Teleki, 2007), as well as HRE programmes related to potentially such vulnerable populations as women and minorities (Amado, 2005; Kostadinova et al., 2010), as these embody practical implementation orientations and follow-ups for addressing HRE as possible subjects and objects of human rights learning. The second issue involves regional and country-specific HRE practices that attempt to present human rights themes and methodologies through educational standards and curricula. Tibbitts and Kirchschlaeger (2010) introduced a 19-country investigation of inter-American HRE that explored the indicators of HRE principles, mechanisms for promoting HRE, and HRE contents, as well as specialized programmes and educational units. HRE in the school systems of Europe, central Asia and North America investigated 101 examples of good HRE practices in basic education and teacher training, and described five main aspects of HRE, including: “guidelines and standards; approaches and practices to improve the learning environment; teaching and learning tools; professional development; and evaluation approaches” (Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of OSCE, 2009). Numerous other studies have examined national efforts to locate HRE in education systems and statewide curriculum standards (e.g. Banks, 2001; Gerber, 2008; Kati & Gjedia, 2003; Keet & Carrim, 2006; Lapayese, 2005; Müller, 2009). Some Asian institutions, such as the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Centre, have attempted to investigate Asian culture and human rights in the AsiaPacific region through a series of regional and national fact-finding studies, mainly focusing on HRE training, education policy, textbook analysis, and institutions in Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, India, and China (Asia Pacific Human Rights Information Center, 2000). It addressed how implicit HRE has been developed in Asian societies. The third issue relates to HRE within school curricula and its key carrier subjects or modules. Some studies have examined HRE that is subsumed within existing formal school curricula, focusing on HRE content, how HRE is related to other subjects, cross-curricular themes or activities, and pedagogical conditions. Efforts to locate HRE in schools concern the related education forms that comprise HRE, such as history, citizenship education, peace education, and the humanities, as well as other embedded versions of HRE. HRE, as shown in Fig. 2.1 is closely associated with the evolution of human rights concepts, the over-arching values of HRE, various educational programmes already developed in school systems (Flowers, 2007), and the different disciplinary lens through which researchers critically view human rights and HRE. The integration of HRE into school curricula aims to foster students’ learning about human rights knowledge and values (such as human rights history, documents, issues, and topics), and human rights-related skills (including interpersonal skills, documentation and analysis skills, and action skills) (Flowers, 2000). The fourth issue regards the study instruments used to evaluate HRE from diverse perspectives, including the individual, community, teaching methodology, and school environment perspectives; for instance, one 10-country study evaluated the impact

28

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

Fig. 2.1 Integration of HRE within school curricula

of HRE at the individual, institutional, and community levels (Tibbitts et al., 2010). Tibbitts and Kirchschlaeger (2010) illuminated the measures for evaluating HRE that mainly include students’ conceptions of human rights; the impact and effects of HRE; values learning in HRE; methods of HRE, including participation assessment, cognitive learning, cooperative learning, and perspective taking evaluation; experience; and tools for evaluating human rights-friendly schools. For instance, Amnesty International (2012) described ten principles a human rights friendly school should have. This kind of school embraces human rights as core operating and organizing principles, involving democratic governance, equal access to education, participation in school life, the integration of human rights into school subjects, and respectful language and behaviour, etc. Differently, Shiman and Rudelius-Palmer (1999) investigated a scale—Taking the Human Rights Temperature of Your School—through which students and teachers evaluated their school’s human rights climate and the factors influencing that climate. 25 items were adopted in this scale to assess human rights conditions in schools, and to reflect critically on forces that affect the human rights climate, as well as help the school derive an action plan that improves human rights. This scale has the Chinese version with modification of the wording, and has operational regulations for quantitative evaluations. Likewise, Fong (2004) developed the Indicators and Evaluative Checklists for Human Rights Friendly Environment in Schools to query the ethos in Taiwanese schools from ten major areas, such as a secure school environment; a

HRE as a Strategy for Development

29

friendly school echo; the uphold of students’ human rights; equal and fair treatment; protection of and appeal for rights; respect for diversity and differences; democratic participation and learning; the implementation of HRE; teachers’ professional autonomy; as well as being loved, respected, and blessed. Despite being helpful in terms of understanding HRE in international and regional policies, HRE research in theoretical discussions, and different aspects of HRE implementation, these studies can explain neither HRE situated within specific cultural, social, and political contexts, nor dialectical enforcement. This chapter has explored HRE practices at the global, regional, national, and school levels; however, the general literature has paid little attention to how China promotes HRE in its specific context and local practices. As such, the following chapters unpack the Chinese approach to human rights theories and HRE promotion.

Summary An analysis of general experiences provides an understanding of the complexity of human rights concepts, and reveals frameworks for examining the issues, contexts, and actions surrounding human rights, from historical, legal, and sociological perspectives. Theoretical debates as to whether human rights are innate or socially constructed help to explain the origins of human rights and their ultimate basis, as well as the relationship between human rights and social development, by referencing theories of natural rights theory, the deliberative school of human rights, the social justice model, and the protest school of human rights. This helps to answer where, why, and to what extent agreements are reached and disagreements persist regarding human rights. Other theoretical debates help to reveal in which senses human rights can or cannot be considered either universal or culturally relative, and in what ways culture validates human rights. General perspectives offer a more comprehensive understanding of HRE in international policy frameworks, research into HRE theories (e.g., definitions, models, orientations, and pedagogical considerations), and issues concerning HRE implementation. The general scholarship provides a lens through which to understand the developments and main concerns in HRE. However, a Chinese lens on human rights ideas and HRE are under-researched. The following chapters will unpack the discourse, ideological orientation, and education on human rights in China from a cultural and historical perspective, in which the perceptions, values, and actions of different stakeholders and agents are emphasized.

30

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

References Amado, L. E. (2005). The human rights education program for women: Utilizing state resources to promote women’s human rights in Turkey. In N. L. Pearson (Ed.), New tactics in human rights project. The Center for Victims of Torture, New Tactics in Human Rights Project. Amnesty International. (2012). Becoming a human rights friendly school: A guide for schools around the world. Amnesty International Ltd., Peter Benenson House. Asia Pacific Human Rights Information Center. (2000). Human rights education in Asian schools (Vol. 3). Retrieved from https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/human_rights_education_in_asian_ schools/section1/2000/03/volume.html Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508. Banks, D. N. (2001). What is the state of human rights education in K-12 schools in the United States in 2000? A preliminary look at the national survey of human rights education. Paper presented at The Annual Meting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle. Baxi, U. (2012). The future of human rights (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press India. Bay, C. (1982). Self-respect as a human right: Thoughts on the dialectics of wants and needs in the struggle for human community. Human Rights Quarterly, 4, 53–75. Beitz, C. R. (1979). Human rights and social justice. In P. G. Brown & D. Maclean (Eds.), Human rights and US foreign policy (pp. 45–63). Lexington Books. Beitz, C. R. (2001). Human rights as a common concern. American Political Science Review, 95(02), 269–282. Beitz, C. R. (2003). What human rights mean. Daedalus: On International Justice Winter, 132(1), 36–46. Bell, D. A. (1996). The east Asian challenge to human rights: Reflections on an east west dialogue. Human Rights Quarterly, 18(3), 641–667. Bielefeldt, H. (2000). “Western” versus “Islamic” human rights conceptions? A critique of cultural essentialism in the discussion on human rights. Political Theory, 28(1), 90–121. Bogicevic, M. (2013). Cultural relativism and human rights. International Journal of Rule of Law, Transitional Justice and Human Rights, 3(3), 151–156. Boisen, C. (2012). The limits of ethics in international relations: Natural law, natural rights and human rights in transition. Theoria, 59(133), 98–101. Bowring, B. (2008). Misunderstanding MacIntyre on human rights. Analyse & Kritik, 30(1), 205– 214. Campbell, T. (2011). Rights: A critical introduction. Taylor & Francis. Caranti, L. (2012). Kant’s theory of human rights. In T. Cushman (Ed.), Handbook of human rights (pp. 35–44). Routledge. Cerna, C. M. (1994). Universality of human rights and cultural diversity: Implementation of human rights in different socio-cultural contexts. Human Rights Quarterly, 16(4), 481–508. Chan, J. (2000). Thick and thin accounts of human rights: Lessons from the Asian values debate. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 58–73). Curzon Press. Cohen, R. (1989). Human rights and cultural relativism: The need for a new approach. American Anthropologist, 91(4), 1014–1017. Cranston, M. (1983). Are there any human rights? Daedalus, 112(4), 1–17. Dallmayr, F. R. (2002). “Asian values” and global human rights. Philosophy East and West, 52(2), 173–189. Dembour, B. (2010). What are human rights? Four schools of thought. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(1), 1–20. Donnelly, J. (1982a). Human rights and human dignity: An analytic critique of non western conceptions of human rights. The American Political Science Review, 76(2), 303–316. Donnelly, J. (1982b). Human rights as natural rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 4(3), 391–405.

References

31

Donnelly, J. (1984). Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 6(4), 400–419. Donnelly, J. (1989). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. Donnelly, J. (1999). Human rights and Asian values: A defense of & “Western” universalism. In J. R. Bauer & D. A. Bell (Eds.), The East Asian challenge for human rights (pp. 60–87). Cambridge University Press. Donnelly, J. (2007). The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 281–306. Donnelly, J., & Howard Hassmann, R. E. (1987). International handbook of human rights. Greenwood Press. Douzinas, C. (2000). The end of human rights: Critical legal thought at the turn of the century. Hart Publishing. Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press. Eddy, K. (2007). On revaluing the currency of human rights. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(3), 307–328. Espiell, H. G. (1998). Universality of human rights and cultural diversity. International Social Science Journal, 50(158), 525–534. Fagan, A. (2012). Philosophical foundations of human rights. In T. Cushman (Ed.), Handbook of human rights (pp. 9–22). Routledge. Feser, E. (2012). The metaphysical foundations of natural rights. In T. Cushman (Ed.), Handbook of human rights (pp. 23–34). Routledge. Feuer, L. (2002). Natural rights. Journal of Human Rights, 1(3), 339–343. Finnis, J. (2011). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press. Flowers, N. (2000). The human rights education handbook: Effective practices for learning, action, and change. Human Rights Education Series, Topic Book. The Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Flowers, N. (2003). What is human rights education. In A survey of human rights education (pp. 107–118). Bertelsmann Verlag. Flowers, N. (2007). Compasito: Manual on human rights education for children. Directorate of Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.eycb.coe.int/compasito/ Fong, T. L. (2004). Research and construction on evaluations category and item for campus human rights Milieu. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human Rights Education. Soochow University, Taipei, Taiwan. Freeman, M. (1994). The philosophical foundations of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 16(3), 491–514. Freeman, M. (2000). Universal rights and particular cultures. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 43–57). Curzon Press. Freeman, M. (2011). Human rights: An interdisciplinary approach (2nd ed.). Polity Press. Fritzsche, K. P. (2007). What do human rights mean for citizenship education. Journal of Social Science Education, 6(2), 40–49. Gerber, P. (2008). From convention to classroom: The long road to human rights education. Doctoral Dissertation, Law School, The University of Melbourne. Gewirth, A. (1982). Human rights: Essays on justification and applications. University of Chicago Press. Gibb, B. (2003). The human rights are not necessarily universal. In L. K. Egendorf (Ed.), Human rights: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 26–31). Greenhaven Press. Gierycz, D. (1997). Education on the human rights of women as a vehicle for change. In G. J. Andreopoulos & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights education for the twenty first century (pp. 96–118). University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodale, M. (2009). Surrendering to Utopia: An anthropology of human rights. Stanford University Press. Gregg, B. (2011). Human rights as social construction. Cambridge University Press.

32

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

Hahn, C. (1998). Becoming political: Comparative perspectives on citizenship education. State University of New York Press. Halliday, F. (1995). Relativism and universalism in human rights: The case of the Islamic middle east. Political Studies, 43(1), 152–167. Hart, H. L. A. (1955). Are there any natural rights? The Philosophical Review, 64(2), 175–191. Howard, R. E. (1993). Cultural absolutism and the nostalgia for community. Human Rights Quarterly, 15, 315–338. Hunt, L. A. (2007). Inventing human rights: A history. W. W. Norton & Company. Ignatieff, M. (2001). Human rights as politics and idolatry. Princeton University Press. Ishay, M. R. (2008). The history of human rights: From ancient times to the globalization era. University of California Press. Kati, K., & Gjedia, R. (2003). Educating the next generation: Incorporation human rights education in the public school system. New Tactics in Human Rights Project. Katz, S. R., & Spero, A. M. (2015). The challenges and triumphs of teaching for human rights in US schools. In S. R. Katz (Ed.), Bringing human rights education to US classrooms (pp. 15–28). Palgrave Macmillan. Keet, A., & Carrim, N. (2006). Human rights education and curricular reform in South Africa. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(1), 87–105. Klug, F. (2000). Values for a godless age: The story of the UK’s new bill of rights. Penguin Books Ltd. Kostadinova, G., Lattime, M., & Labanya, H. (2010). Promoting the rights of minority children and women: A review of UNICEF’s policies and practices. Minority Rights Group International. Lapayese, Y. (2005). National initiatives in human rights education: The implementation of human rights education policy reform in schools. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalisation, education and policy research: Global pedagogies and policies (pp. 389–404). Springer. Lenhart, V., & Savolainen, K. (2002). Human rights education as a field of practice and of theoretical reflection. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 145–158. Leung, Y. W. (2008). An &“Action-poor” human rights education: A critical review of the development of human rights education in the context of civic education in Hong Kong. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 231–242. Lewis, H., & Gunning, I. R. (1998). Essay: Cleaning our own house: Exotic and familial human rights violations. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 4, 123–140. Lohrenscheit, C. (2002). International approaches in human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(3 4), 173–185. MacDonald, M. (1946). Natural rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 47, 225–250. Magendzo, A. (1997). Problems in planning human rights education for reemerging Latin American democracies. In G. J. Andreopoulos & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights education for the twenty first century (pp. 469–483). University of Pennsylvania Press. Mayerfeld, J., Ackerly, B., Shue, H., Donnelly, J., Tan, C., & Beitz, C. (2007). Exploring universal rights: A symposium. Human Rights and Human Welfare, 7, 67–111. Meintjes, G. (1997). Human rights education as empowerment: Reflections on pedagogy. In G. J. Andreopoulos & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights education for the twenty first century (pp. 64–79). University of Pennsylvania Press. Mickelson, K. (1998). Rhetoric and rage: Third world voices in international legal discourse. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 16(2), 353–419. Morsink, J. (1999). The universal declaration of human rights: Origins, drafting, and intent. University of Pennsylvania Press. Moyn, S. (2010). The last Utopia?: Human rights in history. Harvard University Press. Müller, L. (2009). Human rights education in German schools and post-secondary institutions: Results of a study. In F. Tibbitts (Ed.), Research in human rights education papers. Human Rights Education Associates. Mutua, M. W. (2001). Savages, victims, and saviors: The metaphor of human rights. Harvard International Law Journal, 42(1), 201–245.

References

33

Nair, R. S. (2011). Debating human rights: Discourse and discord. In P. S. Nair (Ed.), Human rights in a changing world (pp. 64–65). Kalpaz Publications. Nickel, J. W. (1987). Making sense of human rights: Philosophical reflections on the universal declaration of human rights. University of California Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of OSCE. (2009). Human rights education in the school systems of Europe. A Compendium of Good Practice, Central Asia and North America. OHCHR. (1993). Vienna declaration and programme of action. World Conference on Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/vienna.aspx OHCHR. (1996). International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. OHCHR. (1997). Guidelines for national plans of action for human rights education. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Compilation/Pages/ GuidelinesforNationalPlansofActionforHumanRightsEducation(1997).aspx OHCHR. (1999). Human rights education and human rights treaties (1995–2004). Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HRTreaties2en.pdf OHCHR. (2011). United Nations declaration on human rights education and training. Retrieved from http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/467/04/PDF/N1146704. pdf?OpenElement OHCHR, & UNESCO. (2005). World programme for human rights education, plan of action for the first phase (2005–2009). Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/ WPHRE/FirstPhase/Pages/Firstphaseindex.aspx Okafor, O. C., & Okoronkwo, P. L. (2003). Reconfiguring nonrefoulement? The Suresh decision, security relativism, and the international human rights imperative. International Journal of Refugee Law, 15(1), 30–67. On, S. (2005). The & “Relative Universality” of human rights: An assessment. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 4(3), 577–601. Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Duke University Press. Osler, A. (2002). Education for human rights and citizenship in a multicultural society: Making a difference. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 5(1), 5–16. Osler, A. (2016). Human rights and schooling: An ethical framework for teaching for social justice. Teacher College Press. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (1996). Teacher education and human rights. David Fulton Publishers. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: Theoretical debates and young people’s experiences. Educational Review, 55(3), 243–254. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2006). Education for democratic citizenship: A review of research, policy and practice 1995–2005. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 433–466. Osler, A., & Zhu, J. (2011). Narratives in teaching and research for justice and human rights. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 6(3), 223–235. Peetush, A. K. (2003). Cultural diversity, non western communities, and human rights. The Philosophical Forum, 34(1), 1–19. Perry, M. J. (1997). Are human rights universal? The relativist challenge and related matters. Human Rights Quarterly, 19(3), 461–509. Perry, M. J. (2000). The idea of human rights: Four inquiries. Oxford University Press. Rajagopal, B. (2000). Locating the Third World in Cultural Geography. Third World Legal Studies, 15, Article 2. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. Reardon, B. A. (2009). Human rights learning: Pedagogies and politics of peace. Paper presented at the Conferencia Magistral 2008–2009, Puerto Rico. Renteln, A. D. (1988). Relativism and the search for human rights. American Anthropologist, 90(1), 56–72.

34

2 Human Rights and HRE in Focus: A Thick Account?

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. Penguin Books. Shiman, D., & Rudelius Palmer, K. (1999). Taking the human rights temperature of your school. In D. Shiman & K. Rudelius Palmer (Eds.), Economic and social justice: A human rights perspective. University of Minnesota, Human Rights Resource Center. Smith, J., Pagnucco, R., & Lopez, G. A. (1998). Globalizing human rights: The work of transnational human rights NGOs in the 1990s. Human Rights Quarterly, 20(2), 379–412. Smith, R., & Bai, G. (2011). Creating a culture of human rights education in China. Retrieved from http://rwi.lu.se/app/uploads/2012/04/Human-Rights-Education-in-China-Smith-and-Bai.pdf Stammers, N. (2009). Human rights and social movements. Pluto Press. Talbott, W. J. (2005). Which rights should be universal? Oxford University Press. Talbott, W. J. (2007). The universality of human rights: A response. Human Rights & Human Welfare, 7, 113–141. Tarrow, N. B. (1987). Human rights and education. Pergamon Press. Tarrow, N. B. (1992). Human rights education: Alternative conceptions. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools: Human rights, education, and global responsibility (Vol. 4, pp. 21–50). Routledge Falmer. Teleki, K. (2007). Human rights training for adults: What twenty-six evaluation studies say about design, implementation, and follow-up. In Human Rights Education Associates (Ed.), The research in human rights education paper series 1 (Issue 1). Human Rights Education Associates. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ 74BF01F5CE2682EEC12574C600519C87-HRA-Aug2007.pdf Teson, F. R. (1984). International human rights and cultural relativism. Virginia Journal of International Law, 25(4), 869–898. Tibbitts, F. (1994). Human rights education in schools in the post communist context. European Journal of Education, 29(4), 363–376. Tibbitts, F. (2002). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 159–171. Tibbitts, F. (2017). Evolution of human rights education models. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Human rights education: Theory, research, praxis (pp. 69–95). University of Pennsylvania Press. Tibbitts, F., & Fritzsche, P. (2006). International perspectives of human rights education. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(1), 1–15. Tibbitts, F., & Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2010). Perspectives of research on human rights education. Journal of Human Rights Education, 2(1), 8–29. Tibbitts, F., Foong, D., Kasprzak, T., Keet, A., & Melouk, M. (2010). Impact assessment of the rights education action programme. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ pol32/011/2010/en/ Tiwald, J. (2012). Confucianism and human rights. In T. Cushman (Ed.), Handbook of human rights (pp. 244–254). Routledge. Turner, B. S. (1993). Outline of a theory of human rights. Sociology, 27(3), 489–512. Vasak, K. (1977). A 30 year struggle: The sustained efforts to give force of law to the universal declaration of human rights. In The UNESCO courier: A window open on the world (pp. 28–29, 32). Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000748/074816eo.pdf Walzer, M. (2018). Foreword. In S. D. Kaplan (Ed.), Human rights in thick and thin societies: Universality without uniformity (pp. xv–xvi). Cambridge University Press.

Chapter 3

Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

Much attention has been paid to whether and how China has responded to international criticisms of its human rights record to improve its domestic human rights; however, few studies have examined China’s discourse on human rights for clues of potential continuities and changes in attitudes toward and policy-making of human rights. China’s deeply embedded philosophical and cultural traditions shed light on its ideas of citizenship and human rights, and the reciprocal relation between the individual and community. This chapter elucidates four main ideological orientations— Confucianism, liberalism, nationalism, and cosmopolitanism—that clarify the shifting understandings of citizenship and human rights in Chinese history. The legacy of Chinese traditions have affected the development of human rights over the centuries, and the selection, interpretation, and promotion of human rights varied under different Chinese leaderships during different periods in history. This chapter firstly examines elements of human rights found in Confucian thought. It then illuminates the liberal orientations, mainly developed in the late Qing and early ROC periods, adopted by the reformists to introduce human rights into Chinese society for its nation-building. Next, it introduces how ideas of human rights have been shaped and evolved in the socialist China for the national ends. These cultural and historical traditions and notions suggest that deeply imbedded Chinese philosophical and cultural traditions have supported a meaningful framework for conceptualizing human rights in China.

Confucianism This section examines the inclusive elements of human rights, and related philosophical foundations and underlying assumptions specific to Confucian thought in ancient China. The traditional principles address concerns regarding the meaning of human rights as a philosophical idea, cultural understandings of human identity, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_3

35

36

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

and the relationship between individual and community for public good, where most disagreements over human rights arise between China and the West. To begin with, Confucian doctrine advocates natural equality based human nature, and portrays the pursuit of the common good as a preferred way of life. Human beings are alike by nature (Mencius, Gao-zi: 3), but can be separated by practice (The Analects of Confucius, Yang-huo: 2). The Confucian humanistic tradition of emphasizing virtues, together with its central concept of universal love (ai-ren), underpin the claim that being humane (ren) is the way to be a human being, and the position from which all social norms are developed (The Analects of Confucius, Yan-yuan: 1). Universal love manifests as the right of all to be treated equally by all. Conceptually, Confucianism maintains people should treat each other with respect and love as fellow human beings, and help one another to live a good, humane life. Confucian thought sees such rights as innate, equal, and universal. Confucian ideas base the philosophical foundation of human rights on innate natural equality for good life. Confucianism teaches that mutual respect and the amicable resolution of differences are universal norms. Mencius’ assumption that human nature is good, and his theory that one can find norms of behaviour in one’s own heart imply that human beings are morally equal; thus, Confucian thinking appreciates an innate natural equality (Munro, 1969). The emphasis on humanity in Confucian thought facilitates how Chinese receive the concept of human rights and informs the Confucian concept of public morality (gong-de), which refers to that which is held in common by society members to serve the public interest. In Confucian tradition, the individual must subordinate his or her selfish desires to the good of the community (gong), and contribute to the common good through adhering to the ethical principles of moral equality (ping-fen), justice (zheng), and fairness (gong-ping). In an ideal society, relationships at every level ensure the equivalency of rights, regardless of one’s social status and moral relations, which attaches to the essential notion of natural equality to acquire ren (benevolence), yi (righteousness), li (ritual/propriety), zhi (wisdom), and xin (faithfulness). Therefore, human are agents obliged to play certain societal roles (Liu & Ge, 1988) by their virtues. Another pertinent point is the min-ben thought, the theory that the people are the foundation of the nation. It explains the conditions for human rights, suggesting the relationship between individual and society for collective interests—another point of human rights disagreement between China and the West. Confucian theories of human nature and rights contribute to min-ben thought, reflecting the conceptually reciprocal relationship between the people and a benevolent government. Min-ben thought maintains that the people are of the greatest importance, with the state coming next and the ruler last (Mencius, Jin-xin: 60). Confucianism emphasizes the ruler’s responsibility for tending to “the welfare of the people as a means” of ensuring the polity’s “stability and prosperity” (Judge, 1994, 71). Chinese thinking contends that preventing harm to others is the greatest of all righteous acts. The goal of min-ben is the unification of ruler and people to achieve true social harmony and common good. Based on the primacy of the people, Confucianism posits the right to subsistence, a subject throughout Chinese history.

Confucianism

37

Min-ben thought maintained the state structure (guo-ti) while formalizing and rationalizing its operation (guo-zheng); it thus reoriented the Confucian concept of gong (public interest) by associating it with the nation rather than the dynasty, and with the expansion of popular rights. Gong presented the relationship between the nation and its people as limiting the ruler’s si (privateness and self-regard in Confucian tradition, with a dichotomous relationship to gong), while not restraining the common people’s self-interest. Popular rights were therefore expressed in the context of collective rights (gong-quan), rather than individual rights. Third, Confucianism emphasizes a reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the country’s intellectuals, in which jun-zi (intellectuals and/or those with high moral standards) enjoy free expression and political participation, and serve the common good for a humane way of life. Confucian traditions celebrate the notion of free expression, and are compatible with the acceptance of or tolerance for pluralistic values (Chan, 2008; Shils, 1996). Historically, Confucius and Mencius actively and publicly critiqued existing and emerging politics and schools of thought to prevent culture and politics from degenerating. Thus, Confucian traditions endorse freedom of political speech and freedom of expression in the culture as necessary and important to correct ethically wrong beliefs, to prevent rulers from indulging in wrongdoing, and to pursue social goods. Freedom of speech and expression facilitates participation in political issues. Intellectuals are seen as a resource for limiting the state’s power (De Bary, 1998; Shils, 1996; Yü, 1997); thus, intellectuals in public service should guide the ruler toward humane ways of serving the public interest (Chang, 1998), as they are capable of representing public opinion about and criticisms of the state (Wen & Akina, 2012). The voluntary associations of jun-zi are the most apt representatives of public opinion, as they are the source of the state’s supply of government officials (Huang, 1981), and the providers of educated persons capable of expressing informed opinions (in contrast to the mass of uneducated, inarticulate peasants) (Sim, 2013). Historically, it has been the jun-zi’s responsibility to be critical of the government’s use of power, and to participate positively in the exercise of government authority (De Bary, 1998; Shils, 1996), if they have been appointed as government officials; as Confucius stated, one should not plan the policies of an office one does not hold (The Analects of Confucius, Tai-bo: 14, Xian-wen: 26). The central pursuit for jun-zi is his/her moral duty to self-cultivate his/her virtues and manifest them to serve society and the country (Guo, 2002), underlying the culturally relative notion of tian-ming (natural law). Thus, rights, in Confucian thought, have characteristics of natural virtues and duties; “being a morality based on virtue, what Confucianism takes seriously is not rightful claims, but the virtues of caring and benevolence” (Lee, 1996, 367). Confucian thought pursues a relative meaning of human rights that serves the public good and harmony. Confucian thought has been criticized, in practice, for its moral hierarchy (Weatherley, 2002). Confucianism basically conceptualizes society as the family writ large, virtue-duties range from the parent-child relationship to the state-citizen relationship (The Analects of Confucius, Wei-zheng: 21), therefore, Confucius unites the ethics and politics. Notwithstanding, Confucian thoughts are helpful in understanding the

38

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

inclusive elements of human rights and their philosophical foundations and underlying assumptions, from a culturally-specific Confucian perspective. Confucian traditions help shape the discourse on human rights in China based on its philosophical values and norms, a cultural understanding of human identity, and the relationship between individual and community.

Liberalism Liberalism affirmed human rights as universal and endorsed by all civilized societies. Chinese liberal intellectuals, for instance in the late Qing period, absorbed selectively human rights ideas from Western learning, which was closely bound up with the rise of individual consciousness (Jin & Liu, 2010) and individual rights (Wang, 1980). The term rights was initially translated as quan-li, which refers to the autonomous legitimacy of the nation (community) to strengthen its power and protect its interests. The various conceptual meanings of human rights were transformed in accordance with national salvation movements and the introduction of Western liberal ideas into Chinese society by such late Qing intellectuals as Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, Liu Shipei, and Yan Fu, among others (C. Gu & Zheng, 1999) (It should be noted that the names of Chinese authors that are cited in this book start with their surnames and are followed by their first names, same as the Chinese pronunciation of names). Accordingly, the scope of the concept expanded to cover the notions of both the nation and the individual (Jin & Liu, 2010). Some liberals in the ROC used the media to publicize human rights knowledge and support movements and struggles for freedom and human rights. For instance, Cai Yuanpei, Lu Xun, and Hu Shi addressed protecting what they saw as the natural, universal human rights and freedoms of expression, press, and association, and the defence of political prisoners by setting up the China Leagues for Civil Rights. Cai adopted the term min-quan from human rights ideas in Confucian traditions and the late Qing period to define human rights as necessary to protect people’s lives and, in particular, the freedom of expression and publication that were most important to saving the country, as mentioned by Svensson (2002). Differently, Hu defined human rights from a Western political thought perspective, as was reflected in his article Human Rights and the Provisional Constitution, published in the magazine of Xin-yue (Crescent), in 1929. He expressed that human rights were held among people against the government, which had to protect people’s rights and liberties and address human rights violations. Hu complained that the 1929 Constitution in the ROC did not define clearly “what specific freedoms and properties were protected and against whom” thus, he advocated resetting the Constitution, to secure the foundation of human rights and the rule of law, as discussed in Huang (2000). Late Qing intellectuals held contending views on the human rights selected from Western learning, and debated whether human rights were innate or created. For instance, Zou Rong believed the main purpose of the revolution that led to the

Liberalism

39

founding of the ROC was to pursue the rights to freedom, equality, and political participation, that such human rights were inalienable, and that government should protect people’s rights without prejudice (Feng, 2011). Liu Shipei, in his article The anarchist’s view of equality published in Tian-yi newspaper in 1907, stressed that humans possess three natural rights (to equality, independence, and liberty) that were the foundation of a just society. The reform newspaper Shi-bao advocated the protection of three great freedoms (of expression, publication, and association), and argued that a constitution was the only way to ensure the government respected citizens’ essential freedoms and rights (Judge, 1998). In 1901, the anonymous paper Shuo Guo-min (On Citizens) “published in Guo-min magazine” stated nature (tian) endows citizens with the right to political participation, and citizens were justified in supervising the state’s power, as cited in Angle & Svensson (2001). Without rights, humans were not citizens; however, as citizens had responsibilities to the nation and vise verse, only citizens who held such responsibilities were citizens. The characteristic of natural human rights was translated from Western learning, and challenged the assumptions about human nature, human identity, and the relationships between rights and duties, individuals, and society underlying Confucian understandings of human rights. As Huang (2000) demonstrated, the liberal intellectual, Luo Longji, offered a systematic and clear discussion of the theory of human rights in the ROC in his article On Human Rights and Warning for those Who Oppress Freedom of Speech, published in Xin-yue in 1929. Luo introduced human rights that enabled the individual to be a person, and to live the full life of a human being. He proposed an human rights bill, which included 35 articles borrowed from Western political thought, to meet China’s conditions and the needs of its changing society, reflecting that human rights was not static, but dynamic. For instance, he advocated the rights to “basic needs, clothing, food, and shelter”, and later, “to work,” “physical security,” and those needed to “fully develop [a] human personality” (e.g., freedom of expression) as preconditions for people to live with dignity. However, he defined human rights from a utilitarian approach, and maintained individual rights should serve the public good and social welfare, as each person was only a member of the group. Liberal intellectuals paid particular attention to freedom of the press (and speech); some scholars noted that this served the needs of the new arenas they used to introduce Western liberal ideas (Feng, 2011; Gu & Zheng, 1999). A common belief was that empowering the masses with rights through education and media would instil in the Chinese people a sense of public morality and responsibility that would enable them to be involved in the political process (Sim, 2004). Liberalists intertwined free expression and political participation, and used the media to publicize liberal values and support movements for freedom and human rights. However, political rights, in practice, were limited and used as a means for national ends, as Du (2004) expressed; consequently, human rights assertions were bound up with collectivist content, and were seen as tools for national self-strengthening. To better respect and protect citizens and their rights, min-quan thought was adopted as a means of using gong-quan (popular rights) to develop constitutional rights in China that served the purposes of national salvation. This reflected their

40

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

political vision of a new political dualism involving a tensional synthesis of minben thought, inherited from Confucian social and political constructs, and foreigninspired ideas of constitutionalism. It particularly focused on the expansion of constitutional rights to facilitate a popular polity, including contentions for civil rights, free public expression of opinion, and freedoms of publication and association, as Judge (1998) has highlighted. As a corollary to the constitutionalist project of national strengthening, min-quan represented the power of the group, rather than of the individual. The people’s si, sanctioned in the concept of min-quan, was thus a collective si that would counter the self-interest of the dynasty. The development of popular rights would establish the rights and freedoms of all citizens, and would be granted to enable citizens to take responsibility for the survival of the nation. Thus, popular rights were mandated to serve collective ends. Consistent with the collectivist notion of popular rights, journalists interpreted morality as being derived from the state itself. Natural rights were not inherent in human society, but derived from some externally-determined standard of political competence, and then granted to the citizenry by the state, as explained by Judge (1998). The New Culture Movement in the early twentieth century, which resulted in a shift away from tradition and the coexistence of zhong-ti xi-yong, i.e., Chinese learning as the essence, Western learning for its usefulness, towards greater Westernization, to address China’s problems. Liberal intellectuals adapted the concept of citizenship from Western learning to foster xin-min (new citizens) able to cope with social changes. The concept of citizenship described the people’s evolution from subjects of the dynasty, to citizens of the Chinese nation-state, and related citizenship with popular sovereignty. Liang, in his book Xin-min Shuo (Renewing the People), coined the term xin-min to refer to both the renewal of the people, and to new citizens. He addressed the necessity of changing the rooted slave and subject character of the Chinese people, to cultivate new citizens with independent personalities and an awareness of freedom and equality. The formation and transformation of the concept of individuality during the late Qing period were closely bound up with the rise of citizenship and individual identity. Intellectuals at the time accepted the concepts of individuality and citizenship, which were based on national sovereignty and coincided with the emergence of individual’s dualism in Chinese and Western learning (Jin & Liu, 2010). Liang believed citizens are the substance of the state, and that an enlightened citizenship caused society to flourish and aided national struggles. Consequently, he sought to reconcile individual liberties and rights with a cohesive form of nationalism. Citizens were seen as morally autonomous possessors of certain rights, and as societal members who could exercise civic virtues to improve the common good. Citizens’ individual interests were seen as inseparable from the wider interests of the nation state (Chang, 1971), which relied on the former for its cohesiveness and strength. Consequently, citizens were expected to work collectively for the common good. However, in the late-Qing liberalists’ views, the coexistence of Western and Chinese traditions rendered human rights ideas complex and often contradictory. On one hand, human rights were translated as natural from Western learning; on the other,

Liberalism

41

human rights were not innate, but the creation of a societal process introduced for individual empowerment and national salvation in the late Qing era, as intellectuals sought to preserve existing authority structures and expand popular rights; they did not see a contradiction between the state structure (guo-ti) and its operation (guozheng). Consequently, the absorption and adaptation of human rights ideas suggests a level of historical and societal relativism in the late Qing period. In a similar vein, the early communists in the 1920s mainly characterized human rights as the social products for individual emancipation and collective interests. They defined human rights in terms of the right to freedom, right to subsistence, women’s rights, and individual rights, associated with collective interests, for protection and enforcement. Early Chinese communists were concerned about freedom of speech and of thought, which Chen Duxiu regarded as fundamental to civilization (Chen, 1919a); the primary aim of human rights, he contended, was to develop individuality and personality (Chen, 1915a; Du, 2004). Chen particularly asserted that freedom was essential in the political field, as it enabled people to voice their opinions about and criticisms of politics, laws, and regulations; the right to civil disobedience was likewise needed to realize real freedom (Chen, 1919a). Thus, emancipating people’s minds boosted their political correctness and strengthened democratic society. Unlike Chen, Li (1919) interpreted freedom of speech in terms of the relationship between dangerous ideas and free speech. He believed there were no dangerous thoughts and ideas; rather, danger lay in prohibiting ideas and thoughts. Protecting freedom of thoughts was, in his opinion, vital to civilization and liberation; thus, the government could not restrict free speech or a free press without violating human rights. In addition, early Chinese communists emphasized the right to subsistence as a fundamental human rights for ending poverty. It was only in the 1920s that economic and workers’ rights entered the human rights discourse in China. Chen argued workers had the right to dignity and self-mastery (Chen, 1920a, b), and that economic, political, and civil equality were key to achieving social democracy (Chen, 1919b). The state therefore should legislate working conditions and exercise its right and duty to guarantee people’s livelihood. Fundamental economic rights, as Gao (1921) noted, included the right to full compensation for one’s work, the right to subsistence, and the right to work. Moreover, early Chinese communist advocates strongly supported women’s rights. Calls for equality between the sexes, respect for women’s independent personalities, and women’s liberation, including being entitled to enjoy the same political rights and respect as men, supplemented the human rights discourse after the New Culture Movement in early 1920s (Zheng, 1999); it was not real democracy unless women enjoyed the same rights and freedoms as men, including the right to participate in the political process, economic rights, and the rights to gender equality, education, and equality within marriages (All-China Women’s Federation, 1978; Mao, 1939). To early Chinese communists, human rights were tools for individual empowerment and nation building. Individuals enjoyed human rights to fulfil their human dignity, and to free them from being enslaved by feudalism and patriarchy. All individuals are autonomous, have independent personalities, and enjoy an equal right

42

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

to human dignity (Chen, 1915a, b). On another hand, human rights were also bound up with a collective orientation in the early communists’ eyes. For instance, Chen (1904a, b) regarded sovereignty as a pre-condition for the realization of human rights, and positively advocated the right to civil resistance in times of nation peril, and the right to national self-determination, to establish a democratic polity. National interest was given priority over individual freedom; the Constitution of the Anhui Patriotic Society, for example, declared individual freedoms that “interfered with national welfare” were not to be permitted (Chen, 1903). Chen (1915c) worshipped the idea of a populist nation devoted to its collective well-being, and willing to sacrifice certain aspects of individual rights to protect those of the whole citizenry.

Nationalism Nationalism provided China a new prescription for its nation-building and citizenshipmaking. The primacy of collective interests over individual freedom and rights was seen as a means of facilitating the betterment of the Chinese nation in history. For instance, in the ROC, human rights were defined and codified in the Constitution, and individual rights were seen as a means to a specific end—national strengthening. In this sense, law was enacted to protect people’s rights, positioning the nation-state and Constitution as the source of human rights in the ROC. While, in the PRC, human rights have been recognized by collective interests, and have changed to reflect various leaderships and sociopolitical transitions.

Supremacy of Collective Interests for Nation-Building in the Nationalist China In the late ROC period, the nation-state enshrined individuals’ human rights, particularly citizens’ fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights, in laws and constitutions, and situated human rights into the Chinese contexts. For instance, the Provisional Constitution of the ROC, established in 1912, explicitly referenced citizens’ civil and political rights, including the fundamental freedoms of “person; residence; property and business; freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association; secrecy of correspondence; marriage; and religion” (Article 6), and stressed lawful protections, including the “rights to petition, appeal against, and sue to state organs and officials; and right to elect and be elected” (Articles 7–12). All the ROC citizens were regarded as equal before the law, and possessed equal rights (Article 5). However, the listed rights and freedoms could be limited by law, when it [was] held that this enhance[d] the public welfare, to “safeguard public order or when necessary under extraordinary circumstances” (Article 15).

Nationalism

43

Similarly, the later Constitution of the ROC, promulgated in 1923, enumerated explicitly citizens’ civil and political rights and fundamental freedoms; also, it added that all citizens had the responsibility to receive basic education. By comparison, though the 1931 Provisional Constitution of the ROC asserted citizens’ civil and political rights, equal rights to education, and the right to property, it also indicated people’s property could be “expropriated” according to law, “where public interest necessitates” (Article 18). In addition, beyond its statements regarding citizens’ rights and freedoms, the 1946 Constitution of the ROC guaranteed citizens’ economic rights, including “the right to live, right to work, and right to own property” (Article 15), and described the right and duty to receive basic education (Article 21). Yet it asserted the listed freedoms and rights “shall not be abridged by law except such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of others, to avert an imminent danger, to maintain social order, or to promote public welfare” (Article 23). Social and cultural rights were not stated in the various Constitutions in the ROC period. Historically, republican human rights theorists adopted the legal-positivist conviction that “individual rights derived solely from the laws and constitutions enacted by the state,” as Weatherley (1999) has highlighted. He refereed to what Tsao (1947) has explained that “it is beyond controversy that any enforceable right is the creation of law. Only when the law recognizes a certain right is that right legally protected. It naturally follows that the law may make the right and may also unmake it.” However, individuals and groups must “authentically oppose imperialism” to enjoy freedoms and rights (Nathan, 1986a), and it is the moral duty of social members to release his/her individual rights for the good of society/nation (Sun, 1975; Weatherley, 1999). Sa (1928) went further, stating that “only” the Three Principles of the People (san-min zhu-yi) can save China, so “only the supporters of the Three Principles of the People should have rights” (Eastman, 1974). In this sense, arguments about human rights in the ROC had two features. The first was that the nation-state and the Constitution were the source of all rights, and that the state thus had absolute power over what kinds of rights were to be given to people, and whom was entitled to enjoy those rights. Thus, the legislation and protection of human rights in the ROC were essentially tools for nation building. As the 1912 Provisional Constitution noted, citizens’ rights might “be limited by law if doing so is deemed to advance the public welfare.” The second feature was the realization that collective interests were a precondition for the enjoyment of citizen’s rights (Greiff, 1985; Liu, 1993). In this sense, citizens’ rights were attached to and dependent on their national duty to maintain the harmony of the Chinese social order. Furthermore, debates on human rights in the ROC period addressed the tension between individual and collective interests, reflecting the political philosophy set forth by Sun Yat-sen in his Three Principles of the People, which synthesized the min-ben and min-quan thought found in Confucian traditions and the late Qing period, with Western democratic thinking and institutions. Specifically, Sun established the principles of min-zu (nationalism), mian-quan (democracy), and min-sheng

44

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

(the livelihood of the people) as the cornerstones of ROC policy, as carried out by the Nationalist Party of China. Civil rights were seen as the people’s political rights to participate in the national political process (Feng, 2011).

National-Ends of Human Rights for China’s Nation-Rebuilding in the Socialist China As discussed, the early communists’ debates on human rights offer a lens through which to examine the character of human rights that are to some extent socially constructed for individual emancipation and collective interests. With the development of the Communist Party of China (CPC), rights issues became the purview of a bloc of four social classes – proletarian workers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie, and national bourgeoisie. The 1931 Constitution of the Chinese Soviet Republic identified certain basic rights (Articles 10–14), but extended them only to workers, peasants, and toilers, and not to the bourgeoisie, landlords, reactionaries, and other exploiters. In 1940, during the war of resistance against Japanese aggression, Mao Zedong expressed that only landlords and capitalists not opposed to the war of resistance would enjoy the same human, property, civil, and political rights as workers and peasants, including “the right to vote, freedom of speech, assembly, association, political conviction and religious belief” (Mao, 1940). Human rights were primarily seen as a means to various national ends, and as societal gains. The 1949 Common Program, for instance, specified that citizens of the PRC enjoyed a wide range of rights; however, the listed rights were determined by the state, which derived from an alliance of the four classes, and other patriotic democratic elements, led by the working class. This section examines the characteristic of human right socially constructed in accordance with the party-state’s view of national conditions, which reflect the scope and contents of China’s human rights discourse. It explores who was entitled to human rights, which rights they possessed, and the relationship between individual rights and collective interests for China’s nation (re)building.

Classed-Based Nature of Rights in Mao’s China In line with early communists’ views on human rights, in the Mao period, human rights were not seen as innate, but as socially created and specific to the context of Mao’s China, and thus in need of legal protection. Human rights were defined by the state, codified in laws, associated with social class, and considered secondary to collective interests. These concerns provide a lens through which to examine related issues concerning human rights, including constitutional rights, who possessed those rights, membership in the bloc of four classes, underlying social class nature, and

Nationalism

45

the relationship between individual rights and collective interests for controlling the citizenry and nation building. First, human rights in Maoist China were broadly stipulated in the Constitution and laws for protection and enforcement. Since the inception of the Communist regime, the Constitution of the PRC has seen both major revisions (in 1954, 1975, 1978, 1982, and 2004) and amendments (in 1988, 1993, 1999, 2004 and 2018), with each major amendment serving a specific political programme. The first Constitution, established in 1954, made explicit assurances regarding citizens’ civil and political rights, similar to human rights codified in the Constitution of the ROC, including “the rights of free speech, publication, assembly and association; the freedom of procession and demonstration; the right to appeal against state officials; the right to compensation for loss; secrecy of correspondence; and, the right to vote and run for office” (Articles 86–90). All the PRC citizens were deemed “equal before the law” (Article 85). Certain rights, however, were limited or excluded, such as the right to property. Unlike the ROC’s constitutions, the 1954 Constitution of the PRC added women’s rights (Article 96) and equal rights for minority nationalities (Article 58). Social, economic, and cultural rights were also included in the 1954 Constitution, including “the right to work, the right to rest, the right of working people to material assistance from the state and society in old age, illness or disability, and the right to education, as well as the right to engage in scientific research, literary and artistic creation and other similar measures” (Articles 91–95). However, few of these stipulated rights materialized in reality, criticized by Kent (1991), unless they helped to consolidate the CPC’s leadership and socialism in China, which was deemed (in Article 26 of the 1975 Constitution of the PRC) a citizen’s duty. The 1975 Constitution abolished the provision that “all citizens of the PRC are equal before the law,” but added such rights as “the freedom to strike.” Constitutional enforcement of the rule of law was “not an explicit priority,” as the central government deemed nation-building more important (Nathan, 1986b). Rights could not be used to support or participate in counter-revolutionary activities. For instance, as noted in Kent (1990), the 1951 Law Against Counter-revolutionaries declared the rights to association, assembly, and speech could not be used to oppose the regime. Clearly, human rights were not seen as innate in Mao’s China, but as defined and bestowed by law or the state. Moreover, the state’s power to define and restrict citizens’ rights was no longer subject to the limitation of having to serve the interests of the state. Thus, human rights were culturally dependent on class and collective in nature, and were not considered universal possessions. Second, in Mao’s China, constitutional rights were enjoyed by those who belonged to the People i.e., the bloc of four classes; class was the basis for the enjoyment of individual rights. For instance, the landlord class, the bureaucratic-bourgeoisie, and those who opposed the Party or the polity were deemed class enemies, and possessed no rights. The civil and political rights formally granted to citizens were based on class struggle, and belonged only to progressive revolutionary forces (Angle, 2002), a concept invoked in numerous political campaigns and guided by the PRC’s political leadership. The 1954 Constitution suggested that “the PRC safeguards the system of

46

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

people’s democracy, suppresses all treasonable and counter-revolutionary activities and punishes all traitors and counter-revolutionaries” (Article 19). Only one who had been transformed into a member of the proletariat would fully enjoyed his/her rights, which facilitated the elimination of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat. For example, the 1954 Constitution deprived the political rights of “feudal landlords and bureaucrat-capitalists” for a specific period of time and provided them with possible ways to earn a living, in order to enable them to “reform through work and become citizens who earn their livelihood by their own labour” (Article 19). Until the enemy classes were transformed into the labouring people, they would be entitled to human rights serving the national interest. Third, a prominent feature of human rights thinking during China’s Mao period was the primacy of collectivity interests over individual rights, as a means of facilitating the betterment of the state society. Restrains were imposed by the party-state to ensure citizens’ interests, provide individual rights, and facilitate a good society (Chen, 1992; Nathan, 1986c; Yang & Zhuang, 1991). As the 1975 Constitution marked,“citizens must support the leadership of the CPC, support the socialist system; it is the sacred duty of every citizen to defend the motherland and resist aggression” (Article 26). In addition, the Chinese party-state attempted to restrict individual rights further, by encouraging citizens to “voluntarily give up” any rights seen as detrimental to the welfare of society (Weatherley, 1999), to assure the primacy of collective rights (Cao, 1991), and to base entitlement to individual rights on the needs of the community and nation (Nathan, 1986c; Pang, 1992; Weatherley, 1999). However, human rights discourse in Maoist China was criticized for placing absolute authority in the hands of the CPC-led state, which defined both the rights and collective good, and withdrew any rights that might conflict with the Party’s continued rule. Human rights were seen as not innate, but defined and regulated by the state; not universal, but class-based; not abstract but concrete; and not absolute but limited by law and morality. Following Deng Xiaoping’s rise to power, human rights discourse in China underwent certain changes, often due to political and economic policies created to cope with social transitions.

Emphasis on Individual Rights and Traditional Culture in the Post-Mao China Human rights discourse explicitly changed in the Deng period—i.e., the initial period of China’s economic reform and policy of opening to the world—with increased recognition of individual rights, an emphasis on social welfare, and a deemphasizing of class struggle, the protection and enforcement of which were embodied in China’s laws, directives, and public records. The most significant change to human rights in the Deng period was that individual rights were now officially recognized for all Chinese citizens. Because of economic

Nationalism

47

reforms, human rights were no longer irrelevant to the bourgeoisie, especially since class struggle had been dismissed as a basis of Chinese political thought. The reforms encouraged people to get rich quickly, and resulted in the rapid and widespread emergence of individual entrepreneurs in the PRC. Since then, there has been a visible tendency towards individualism in Chinese society, resulting in individual interests being given a higher priority than ever before. Human rights were no longer based on class, but accrued to all individuals. The 1982 Constitution, for example, stipulated that every citizen was entitled to rights, all citizens were equal before the law (Article 33), and personal dignity was inviolable (Article 38). Meanwhile, human rights were emphasized more in terms of socioeconomic rights than civil and political rights in the CPC’s party line (Dong & Liu, 1993); the 1978 Constitution, for example, added several articles to support the economic reforms, such as “the rights of citizens to own lawfully earned income, savings, homes, and other means of livelihood” (Article 9), the right of scientific research, technological innovation and education (Articles 51-51), the four great freedoms of “speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big-character posters” (Articles 45), and the expansion of social welfare measures, healthcare, and education. In addition, the 1982 Constitution offered a wide array of socioeconomic rights, including “the right to work, to rest, to health care, to material assistance from the state and society in old age, illness or disability, to education, to social security, and to engage in scientific research, literary and artistic creation”. Welfare was seen as the state’s chief obligation, and the people’s material well-being was given priority over all other concerns (Nathan, 1986c; Weatherley, 1999); the Chinese government therefore paid closer attention to the right to subsistence (wen-bao) and the right to development. The right to subsistence was regarded as a foremost human rights, one the Chinese people had long fought for, and one without which all other rights were basically unobtainable. As the CPC’s then-General Secretary Zhao Ziyang (1987) stated, “the principal contradiction that we face during the present state is the contradiction between the growing material and cultural needs of the people and backward production, rather than class struggle.” Consequently, China began to pursue the basic socioeconomic conditions that would ensure the people’s full enjoyment of civilpolitical rights. As Lin (1992) argued, “for someone with lack of clothing, food, or who has no protection of life, any talk of democracy, freedom and political rights simply has no significance.” The change in emphasis notwithstanding, human rights discourse in China was still strongly connected with the party-state. Although human rights theories in Deng’s China recognized individual rights and emphasized socioeconomic rights and social welfare, a tension remained between individual rights and the supremacy of collective interests. For instance, while Article 37 of the 1982 Constitution stated citizens’ “freedom of person is inviolable,” Article 51 contradict that, by stipulating “citizens of the PRC, in exercising their freedoms and rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.” A harmony of interests between the individual and the state was sought, and individual rights were still seen as a means to the state’s ends.

48

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

The downgrading of class struggle embraced the advocacy of individual rights, and made civil and political rights formally accessible to large groups of people. With increased legislation of human rights in the 1990s, after the initial opening-up period, promises of legal support extended the ambit of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights (Kent, 1993), in accordance with the consolidation of human rights discourse in post-Deng China. In the 1990s and thereafter, human rights were stipulated in a series of government documents and state laws as part of the policy-making process in China. For instance, the white paper of Progress of Human Rights in China in 1991, the first official document on Chinese human rights conditions, described the scope and content of human rights, including the rights to subsistence; economic, social, and cultural rights; civil and political rights; and rights and interests of ethnic minorities, women, children, elderly people and the disabled (State Council, 1991). In 2004, China for the first time explicitly codified the term human rights into the Constitution, stating “the state respects and preserves human rights” (Article 33). Later, the Chinese government released a series of versions of its national action plans on human rights (in 2009, 2012, and 2016 respectively), highlighting the country’s efforts at safeguarding its citizens’ legitimate civil and political rights. According to the plan, “China endeavors to develop socialist democracy, improve the socialist rule of law, expand the orderly political participation of citizens and guaranteeing people’s civil and political rights in an all-round way” (State Council, 2009, 2012). Although the promotion and protection of human rights have been codified in official documents and state laws, human rights discourse in China continued to emphasize social and economic rights over civil and political rights. For instance, China signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1997, and ratified it in 2001; however, it has still not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, despite having signed it and committed itself to giving socioeconomic, civil, and political rights equal status in official documents and state law. Greater focus of China’s human rights discourse has been placed on socioeconomic rights and universal human rights understandings, while still leaving space for human rights that reflect Chinese social and cultural contexts. Instead of membership in the People and class struggle underlying the relationship between the individual and the nation-state in the Mao era, post-Mao China committed to establishing a Socialist Harmonious Road, though which individual and common interests would reinforce the pursuit of common societal goods. In particular, the right to subsistence was specified, in series white papers, as China’s top human rights priority, as without it, no other rights could be protected (State Council, 1991). The right refers to citizens’ economic and social rights to protect and uphold life, as Svensson (2002) has claimed, and includes not only the right to secure access to adequate food and clothing, but also the right to opportunities for individual development and well-being, including the right to life; the right to respect; the right to the means to sustain life; the right to work and economic support; the right to education; environmental rights; and the right to health and peace, among others. Law (2011) noted that China held as

Nationalism

49

its priority to meet the people’s basic needs to fend off demands of Western countries for improving its human rights records and political reform. In addition, China’s discourse on human rights has upheld the principle of “overeignty without reservation,” regarding it as a precondition to human rights. As the Chinese vice-premier Qian Qichen stated in the international symposium on World Human Rights Toward Twentieth Century in Beijing, “no country’s human rights situation is perfect, and all countries are confronted with a weighty task further promoting and protecting human rights,” explaining the emerging relevance of human rights issues and Chinese foreign policies. The 1991 white paper noted “the argument that the principle of non-interference in internal affairs does not apply to the issue of human rights is, in essence, a demand that sovereign states give up their state sovereignty in the field of human rights, a demand that is contrary to international law.” The sovereignty-human rights issue has continuously dominated China’s response to international criticisms of its human rights, which has essentially been that human rights issues should not infringe upon state sovereignty—reflecting the concept of “non-intervention in internal affairs” (General Assembly of United Nations, 1958). An increasing number of studies have explained the relation between human rights and sovereignty, examining the state’s obligations to its citizens, and the idea of international intervention to protect individuals if the state fails to uphold its international obligations (e.g., Chen, 2009; Xu, 1992; Yan, 2010). Others law scholars have examined the relationship between human rights and state sovereignty, arguing human rights are “moral issues” shaped by international society, and the state has the right to monitor those issues (e.g., Cheng, 2000; Liu, 2004). Many scholars support the principle that state sovereignty should be a precondition to human rights, as has been emphasized in official discourse on the relationship between sovereignty and human rights (e.g., Dong, 2000; Lu, 2001; Luo, 2005; The China Foundation for Human Rights Development, 2002; The China Society for Human Rights Studies 2001; Wen & Lin, 2001). Specifically several studies depict human rights issues with regards to Tibet (China Tibetology Research Center, 2004), migrant workers (Xie, 2009), and women (Zhang, 1998). Changes in China’s human rights discourse have been greatly influenced by the ways in which the CPC has interpreted its past policies, national conditions, and identity. The State Council (1991) contended that it is normal for countries to have “a different understanding and practice” owing to “varied historical, social, economic and cultural conditions” (Chap. 10, Para. 9), reflecting a relativism of those ideas. It means, China has accepted universal human rights covenants, while still leaving space for China-specific contexts, in accordance with its different social system and ideas about economic development.

50

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

Cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitanism is an important political and social thought in Chinese philosophy, addressing common good in human society. It examines the relation among the nation/community and individuals, and how they can be morally, culturally, economically and politically unified as a global community. As the the classic text Li-Ji noted, ...Thus men did not love their parents only, nor treat as children only their own sons. A competent provision was secured for the aged till their death, employment for the able bodied, and the means of growing up to the young. They showed kindness and compassion to widows, orphans, childless men, and those who were disabled by disease, so that they were all sufficiently maintained. Males had their proper work, and females had their homes. (They accumulated) articles (of value), disliking that they should be thrown away upon the ground, but not wishing to keep them for their own gratification. (They labored) with their strength, disliking that it should not be exerted, but not exerting it (only) with a view to their own advantage. In this way (selfish) schemings were repressed and found no development. Robbers, filchers, and rebellious traitors did not show themselves, and hence the outer doors remained open, and were not shut. This was (the period of) what we call the Da tong [Li-ji, Li-yun: 1].

Such meaning portrays two forms of society: da-tong (the world of great harmony) and xiao-kang (moderate prosperity), which makes people an-ju le-ye (living and working in peace and contentment) and tian-xia wei-gong (which literally means the world is shared by all alike or all under the Heaven belongs to the public). It paints an overview of a society organized on the basis of common good and social members’ enjoyment of the good life with dignity. Human nature is such that individuals’ happiness is closely related to and dependent on their sociality and solidarity within a community. Chinese cosmopolitanism refers to the universal ethics based on traditional values for the integration of Chinese people. Traditional thinkers has examined such idea through metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic and utopian imagination, and located the concept into the sphere of ethical-political for governing the relations and behaviours of Chinese people. The ideas, such as the Confucian ren (benevolence), Moist jianai (all-embracing love) and fei-gong (all people should love each other on an equal basis, and against any unjust wars and fighting between peoples and countries), concern the universalism and cosmopolitanism as two of the highest moral ideals, and advocate universal moral rules to govern human affairs and social behaviours. A common concern is to apply those universal values to transform the individual from an ordinary person into an ideal person or sage embodying the universal moral quality and searching justice as the code of conduct. To be specific, Confucian thoughts expect to balance the moral particularism and universalism, extending the idea of love from all personal relationships in a family to all social relations in a state, and then to all relations in the whole world. Justice is one of the basic categories and the highest ethical principle of human nature; it was the ultimate ideal of individuals, families, countries, and inter-State relations. For Mozi, all-embracing love underpins

Cosmopolitanism

51

social equality without difference and discrimination, aiming for developing a higher, harmonious social order all members. In the mid-to-late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, however, China had no recourse other than to use both nationalistic and cosmopolitan prescriptions to extricate itself from the extreme pressure from the West and various anti-aggression wars. For instance, Sun Yat-sen’s Three Principles of the People have been applied to transform the imperial China, and to develop democracy and welfare rights. The principles combined nationalism and cosmopolitanism as a unit of two opposites, and neither can be neglected in making the Chinese nation and in seeking the common good for all Chinese people. In socialist China, Mao supports the third world people for peace, national independence, liberation struggles. However, Mao’s “taking class struggle as the guiding principle” make the escalating political movements and caused the Chinese society a serious crisis. To disentangle from the predicament, in the 1980s, parallel to its market and economic reform, China advocated the principle of governing the nation with law (yi-fa zhi-guo) and the advocacy for governing the nation with virtues (yi-de zhi-guo). On one hand, China rehabilitated its legal system, as a social device to protect people from the abuse of state power and bring out justice in society (Law, 2011), though the party-state still uses law to maintain social control and public order. On another hand, with an emphasis on harmony, Chinese cosmopolitan ideas has been adopted as a means to resolve social conflicts and construct a harmonious socialist society in China. Particularly, since the 1980s, China emphasized xiao-kang (moderate prosperity) and da-tong (great harmony), to serve its modernization project from two aspects: the right to subsistence and development for ending poverty and for people’s livelihood; and the legal reform for governing people’s relations and behaviours. In broad terms, China embraced the right to development, through which individual and common interests would reinforce the pursuit of common good. Such right was recognized as an inalienable human right “symbolizing dignity and honour” (State Council, 2016), and was promoted to make it enter universal human rights discussions, as development is a comprehensive process of improving economic, social, cultural rights, well-being, and individual participation in development. It was then easier for China to support social and economic rights, as these were regarded as more consistent with its own emphasis on development. China’s human rights discourse has become increasingly concerned with the notion of universal human rights. As the People’s Daily stated, the UN Human Rights Council (in the 35th Session) passed a resolution (endorsed by the Chinese government) establishing the right to development as an human rights (Li, 2017). Chinese cosmopolitanism supports the whole world and all countries as one community, and universal harmony in the world; nevertheless, it emphasized the national self-identification of Chinese culture and traditions. As Duara (1993) argued, the universalistic claims of Chinese imperial culture constantly bumped up against, and adapted to, “alternative views of the world order, which it tended to cover with the rhetoric of universalism: this was its defensive strategy” (3). However, in Chinese tradition the individual was not central and individual rights were not existed in the sense known as the Western values. The concept of the collective good is generally

52

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

contrasted with individual rights to show that “it is morally inferior in privileging individual self-interest over the common good” (Tao, 1990). Nevertheless, Chinese thinking of rights emphasized the role of individuals, regarding individuals as roots with the communities coming next (Mencius: Jin-xin: 60). Advocating Western ideas of human rights did not mean we totally obliterating Chinese rights thinking, or vice versa; rather, both Western and Chinese thinking would be referred to find a point of confluence during their interactions, resulting in change that was mutually beneficial.

Summary The ideological orientations denote that ideas of citizenship and rights evolve and are endorsed to meet China’s conditions and the needs of its changing society. In general, human rights in China have been viewed as serving the common good; as central to a public morality and sense of responsibility; as emphasizing basic economic and social rights, such as subsistence and development; and they have served nation-building and national interests. Human rights ideas in China, to some extent, widely adopt a thick account. As Huang (2000) argued, though China advocated human rights from a liberal perspective, and affirmed human rights as universal and endorsed by all civilized societies, it also advocated relative interpretations when dealing with cultural and historical values and norms, and the development of economic levels and conditions. Particularly, China prioritized the right to subsistence and development to enable its citizens to develop a life of dignity. However, a thick account of human rights does not subscribe to a purely cultural approach that views culture as the only validating source that grounds and shapes rights. As discussed, any culturally relative argument must presuppose that people enjoy basic rights and freedoms, otherwise they cannot effectively engage in deliberative processes of political participation. China’s interpretations help to understand socially construct what human rights are, how to protect them, and so on. It is not to say there are full and sufficient human rights because China’s laws and policies say there are, but in the case that human rights ideas are evolving and conceived of as social constructions, and relative to local conditions and needs. The codification of human rights in China’s laws and policy documents does not necessarily mean that full rights are actually protected and exercised in reality. China promotes human rights but not all, and not in fullest extent as prescribed in the UDHR, particularly the civil and political rights. This reflects the tension between rhetoric and reality concerning Chinese people’s rights and freedoms. This book relates the concepts, history, and practices of human rights to the cultural relativization and social construction, as discussed in Chap. 2, and human rights could be examined as an evolving and complex concept. As specified in the UDHR and international human rights laws on one hand, human rights are universally protected and exercised, including provisions of rights of the person; rights associated with the rule of law; political rights; economic rights; and rights of communities. Though

Summary

53

most of these human rights values found in the UDHR fit comfortably within a wide range of cultural moral traditions, different theories do not all conceive of human rights in the same way, such as the intercultural disagreement about what is necessary to respect human dignity and human worth. On the other hand, many academic studies enumerated the underlying principles framing the human rights conceptual framework, such as justice and peace, dignity, freedoms, equality, and democracy including citizenship and participation. Human rights are about guaranteeing individual liberty against infringement by the state, and further creating social conditions conducive to dignified life of human beings. All these ideas help to define the human rights concept, taking account of universal conditions, deviations of culture, and other forms of relativity, in which human rights are regarded as rights to protect human dignity and global justice. Defining human rights as an evolving and complex concept is necessary. For one thing, human rights provisions in the UDHR are general and practical and need interpretation to be applied to particular circumstances; for another, under some conditions the practical requirements of various provisions might conflict and require a decision about relative priorities, as the two key theoretical debates have examined. Accordingly, HRE is a complex concept, one associated with evolving human rights concepts and the over-arching values, and that has been integrated into existing school subjects and/or modules. China’s human rights doctrine is evolving and relates to the common good for a life of dignity; it develops alternative visions of what constitutes a good life, such as the right to decent basic standard of living. The following chapters will focus especially on the pedagogization of human rights through China’s curriculum narratives, which reflect the macro educational emphases and changes in educational policy and curriculum over time. It aims to explore the pedagogical mechanisms through which the nation-state defines and prioritizes HRE to socialize students into ideas of citizenship and human rights in school education.

References All-China Women’s Federation. (1978). On women by Chairman Mao Zedong. Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Angle, S. C. (2002). Human rights in Chinese thought: A cross-cultural inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Angle, S. C., & Svensson, M. (2001). The Chinese human rights reader: Documents and commentary (1900–2000). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc. Cao, J. (1991). Geren Liyi he Jiti Liyi Guanxi Xintan [Recent ideas concerning the relationship between individual interests and collective interests]. Journal of Liaoning University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 3, 101–104. Chan, J. (2008). Confucian attitudes toward ethical pluralism. In D. A. Bell (Ed.), Confucian political ethics (pp. 113–138). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chang, H. (1971). Liang Chi Chao and intellectual transition in China: 1890–1907. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chang, W. (1998). Confucian theory of norms and human rights. In W. Theodore De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 117–141). New York: Columbia University Press.

54

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

Chen, D. (1903). Anhui Aiguohui Yanshuo [A Speech by Anhui Patriotic Association]. Selected Essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Zhuzuo Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp. 11–14). Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press. Chen, D. (1904a). Shuo Guojia [On the Nation] Selected Essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp. 39–41). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1904b). Wangguo Pian [The loss of the nation] Selected Essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp. 42–56). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1915a). Dongxi Minzu Genben Sixiang zhi Chayi [The fundamental difference in thinking between orientals and westerners] Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp 97–100). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1915b). Jinggao Qingnian [A call to youth] Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp. 73–78). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1915c). Jinri Jiaoyu zhi Fangzhen [The Direction of Contemporary Education] Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp 84–89). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1919a). Falv yu Yanlun Ziyou [Law and the Freedom of Thought] Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, p. 440). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1919b). Shixing Minzhi de Jichu [The Foundation of Practicing Democracy] Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp 429–438). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1920a). Laodongzhe de Juewu [The Labour’s Enlightenment] Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp. 520–521). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D (1920b) Wo de Yijian [My Opinion]. Xin Qingnian [New Youth], 7(6). Chen, X. (1992). Shehui Zhidu yu Renquan [The social system and human rights]. Qiushi [Seek Truth], 7, 19–23. Cheng, C. (1998). Transforming Confucian virtues into human rights: A study of human agency and potency in Confucian ethics. In W. Theodore De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 142–153). New York: Columbia University Press. Cheng, H. (2009). Lianheguo Weihe Xingdong zhong de Zhuquan Rangdu Wenti Fenxi [An analysis on UN peacekeeping operations and sovereignty]. Legal System and Society, 5, 353. Cheng, S. (2000). Guojia Zhuquan yu Guoji Renquan de Ruogan Wenti [Issues involving international human rights and state sovereignty]. Ouzhou [Europe], 1, 32–35. China Tibetology Research Center. (2004). Xizang Renquan Yanjiu Cankao Wenxian Xuanbian [Selected works of Tibetan human rights studies]. Beijing: China Tibetology Press. De Bary, W. Theodore. (1998). Asian values and human rights: A Confucian communitarian perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Dong, W. (2000). Lun Guoji Guanxi Zhong de Renquan yu Zhuquan Guanxi: Jian Bo “Renquan Gaoyu Zhuquan” Miulun [On the relationship between human rights and sovereignty in international relations: Refuting “human rights above sovereignty”]. Qiushi [For Truth], (6), 20–23. Dong, Y., & Liu, W. (1993). Shijie Renquan Yuefa Zonglan Xubian [A supplement to international documents on human rights]. Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House. Du, G. (2004). Thoughts on human rights in twentieth century China. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Duara, P. (1993). De-constructing the Chinese Nation. The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 30, 1–26. Eastman, L. (1974). The abortive revolution: China under nationalist rule 1927–1937. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

References

55

Feng, J. (2011). The commencement and evolution of the thought of human rights in modern China (1840–1912). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press. Gao, Y. (1921). Xianfa zhong de Minquan Wenti [The question of People’s rights in the provincial constitutions]. Xin Qingnian [New Youth], 1 September(5), 609–615. General Assembly of United Nations. (1958). India and People’s Republic of China: Agreement (with exchange of notes) on trade and intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India. United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 299. Retrieved from URL https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume 299/v299.pdf Greiff, T. E. (1985). The principle of human rights in Nationalist China: John C. H. Wu and the ideological origins of the 1946 constitution. China Quarterly, 103, 441–461. Gu, C., & Zheng, H. (1999). Renquan: Cong shijie dao zhongguo - Dangdai Zhongguo Renquan de Lilun yu Shijian [Human rights: From the world to China—The theory and practice of contemporary China’s human rights]. Beijing: Party Building Books Publishing House. Guo, X. (2002). The ideal Chinese political leader: A historical and cultural perspective. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Huang, M. (2000). Universal human rights and Chinese liberalism. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 229–251). London: Curzon Press. Huang, Z. (1981). Mingyi Daifang Lu [Waiting for the Dawn: A Plan for the Prince]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. Jin, G., & Liu, Q. (2010). Studies in the history of ideas: The formation of important modern Chinese political terms [Guannian de Yanjiu: Zhongguo Xiandai Zhongyao Zhengzhi Shuyu de Xingcheng]. Beijing: Law Press. Judge, J. (1994). Public opinion and the new politics of contestation in the late Qing, 1904–1911. Modern China, 20(1), 64–91. Judge, J. (1998). The concept of popular empowerment (Minquan) in the late Qing: Classical and contemporary sources of authority. In W. Theodore De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 193–208). New York: Columbia University Press. Kent, A. E. (1990). Human rights in the People’s Republic of China: National and international dimensions. Canberra, Australia: Peace Research Centre, Australian National University. Kent, A. E. (1991). Waiting for rights: China’s human rights and China’s constitutions, 1949–1989. Human Rights Quarterly, 13(2), 183–184. Kent, A. E. (1993). Between freedom and subsistence: China and human rights. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Kent, A. E. (1999). China, the United Nations and human rights: The limits of compliance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kent, A. E. (2001). States monitoring states: The United States, Australia, and China’s Human Rights, 1990–2001. Human Rights Quarterly, 23, 583–624. Law, W. W. (2011). Citizenship and citizenship education in a global age: politics, policies, and practices in China. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Lee, S. H. (1996). Liberal rights or/and Confucian virtues? Philosophy East and West, 46(3), 367– 379. Li, D. (1919). Weixian Sixiang yu Yanlun Ziyou [Dangerous Thoughts and Freedom of Speech] Collected writings of Li Dazhao (Vol. 18, pp. 7). Shenyang: Liaoning E-book Corporation Limited. Li, L. (1996). The theories and practice of human rights of our time. Changchun: Jilin University Press. Li, L. (2017). Wei Quanqiu Renquan Zhili Tigong Zhongguo Fangan [To provide China’s case for global human rights governance]. People’s Daily. Retrieved from URL http://paper. people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2017-06/24/nw.D110000renmrb_20170624_2-11.htm Lin, J. (1992). Renquan Baiti Wenda [One hundred questions and answers concerning human rights]. Beijing: Shijie Zhishi Publishing House. Liu, J. (2004). human rights and state sovereignty. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin Press.

56

3 Ideological Orientations of Chinese Human Rights Ideas

Liu, X. (1993). Liang Qichao Minzhu Zhuyi Sixiang Yanjiu [A study of the nationalist thinking of Liang Qichao]. Tianjin Shehui Kexue [Tianjin Social Science], 5, 70–77. Liu, Z., & Ge, Q. (1988). Lun Ruxue Wenhua de Ren [On the notion of the human being in Confucian culture]. Social Science Front [Shehui Kexue Zhanxian], 1, 83–91. Lu, Y. (2001). Lun “Renquan Gaoyu Zhuquan” de Benzhi [On the essence of “human rights above human rights”]. Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 31(2), 43–48. Luo, Y. (2005). Guoji Guanxi Zhong de Zhuquan yu Renquan: Dui Liangzhe Guanxi de Duowei Toushi [Sovereignty and human rights in international relations: A multidimensional perspective]. Beijing: Peking University Press. Mao, Z. (1939). Introducing The Communist. In Maoist Documentation Project (Ed.), Selected works of Mao Tse-tung (Vol. II). Beijing: Foreign Language Press. Mao, Z. (1940). On policy. In Maoist Documentation Project (Ed.), Selected works of Mao Tse-tung (Vol. II). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Munro, D. (1969). The Concept of Man in Early China. California: Stanford University Press. Nathan, A. J. (1986a). Chinese democracy: The individual and the state in twentieth century China. London: Tauris. Nathan, A. J. (1986b). Political rights in Chinese constitutions. In R. R. Edwards, A. J. Nathan, & L. Henkin (Eds.), Human Rights in Contemporary China (pp. 77–124). New York: Columbia University Press. Nathan, A. J. (1986c). Sources of Chinese rights thinking. In R. R. Edwards, A. J. Nathan, & L. Henkin (Eds.), Human Rights in Contemporary China (pp. 125–164). New York: Columbia University Press. Nathan, A. J. (1994). Human rights in Chinese Foreign policy. China Quarterly, 135, 622–643. Pang, S. (1992). The ABC of contemporary human rights [Dangdai Renquan ABC]. Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House. Qi, Y. (2003). Renquan yu Fazhi [Human rights and the rule of law]. Jinan: Shandong People’s Publishing House. Sa, M. (1928). Yidang Zhiguo [Governning the nation state by the party]. Xinshengming [New Life Monthly], 1(4), 40–47. Shils, E. (1996). Reflections on civil society and civility in the Chinese intellectual tradition. In W. Tu (Ed.), Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity: Moral education and economic culture in Japan and the Four Mini-dragons (pp. 38–71). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sim, M. (2004). A Confucian approach to human rights. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 21(4), 337–356. Sim, M. (2013). Confucian values and human rights. The Review of Metaphysics, 67(1), 3–27. State Council. (1991). The progress of human rights in China. Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2009). National human rights action plan of China (2009–2010). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2012). National human rights action plan of China (2012–2015). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2016). The right to development: China’s philosophy, practice and contribution. Beijing: State Council. Sun, P. (2014). Human rights protection system in China. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. Sun, Y. S. (1975). San-min Chu-i [The three principles of the people]. Taipei: China Publishing Company. Svensson, M. (2002). Debating human rights in China: A conceptual and political history. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Tao, J. (1990). The Chinese moral ethos and the concept of individual rights. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 7(2), 119–127. The China Foundation for Human Rights Development. (2002). Renquan yu Zhuquan [Human rights and sovereignty]. Beijing: New World.

References

57

The China Society for Human Rights Studies. (2001). Lun Renquan yu Zhuquan: Jian Bo “Renquan Gaoyu Zhuquan” Lun [On human rights and sovereignty: refuting “human rights above sovereignty”]. Beijing: Contemporary World. Tsao, W. (1947). The constitutional structure of modern China. Chinese Culture, 22(2), 29–39. Tu, W. (1998). Joining East and West: A Confucian perspective on human rights. Harvard International Review, 20(3), 44–49. Wachman, A. M. (2001). Does the diplomacy of shame promote human rights in China? Third World Quarterly, 22(2), 257–281. Wang, G. (1980). Power, rights and duties in Chinese history. Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 3, 1–26. Weatherley, R. (1999). The discourse of human rights in China: Historical and ideological perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Weatherley, R. (2002). Harmony, hierarchy and duty based morality: The Confucian antipathy towards rights. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 12(2), 245–267. Wen, B., & Lin, J. (2001). Lun Renquan Gaoyu Zhuquan [On the fallacy of “human rights above sovereignty”]. Journal of Foreign Affairs College, 4(3), 39–44. Wen, H., & Akina, W. K. (2012). Human rights ideology as endemic in Chinese philosophy: Classical Confucian and Mohist perspectives. Asian Philosophy, 22(4), 387–413. Xia, Y. (2001). Renquan Gainian Qiyuan: Quanli de Lishi Zhexue [The origin of the concept of human rights: The historical philosophy of rights]. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press. Xie, J. (2009). Zhongguo Nongmingong Quanli Baozhang [The protection of migrant workers’ rights in China]. Shanghai: Social Science Academic Press. Xu, G. (1992). Guojia Lvxing Guoji Renquan Yiwu de Xiandu [The limits on state performance of human rights obligations]. Chinese Legal Studies, 2, 13–21. Yan, H. (2010). Baohu de Zeren Jizhi [An analysis on the responsibility to protect]. Western Law Review, 1(1), 125–129. Yang, Z., & Zhuang, Y. (1991). Ping Yige Ren Zhuyi wei Hexin de Jiazhiguan [An appraisal of individualism as a core value concept]. Qiushi (Seek Truth), 15, 7–13. Yin, Yü, Y. S. (1997). The idea of democracy and the twilight of the elite culture in modern China. In M. Stepaniants & R. Bontekoe (Eds.), Justice and democracy: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 199–213). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Zhan, W. (2009). Renquan yu Jiaoyu [Human rights and education]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Zhang, X. (1998). Fuü yu Renquan [Women and human rights]. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House. Zhao Ziyang. (1987). Yanzhe you Zhongguo Tese de Shehui Zhuyi Daolu Qianjin [Advance along the road of socialist with Chinese characteristics]. Speech at the Di Shisanci Zhongguo Gongchandang Daibiao Dahui [The thirteenth national congress of the communist party of China], Beijing. Zheng, H., & Gu, C. (1997). The theory and practice of Marxist views on human rights. Beijing: China Procuratorate Press. Zheng, W. (1999). Women in the Chinese enlightenment: Oral and textual histories. Berkeley: California University of California Press.

Chapter 4

Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights in Modern China

This chapter traces how the nation-state acts as a principal actor defining and prioritizing human rights for China’s nation-building. As happening in other empires throughout the world between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a heterogeneous, ethno-cultural population of the Qing imperial state (1644–1911) was transformed from imperial subjects to citizens of modern China. The invention of a new national identity, the Chinese nation, Zhong-hua Min-zu, by local Han intellectuals during the early twentieth century, played a central role in the process of the identity reconfiguration (Leibold, 2012). This is constructed as “a pedagogical state structure” that relates to its citizens in awakening them to nationhood (Fitzgerald, 1996, 20). As argued by Watson (1993), the reason why the Chinese become Chinese is because this collective identity is “a construction, a social and ideological fabrication” (p. 99). This construction or invention functions to give the Chinese a sense of belonging to a nation, despite a marked diversity of the population in terms of ethnic backgrounds, languages, religion and so forth (Hon & Culp, 2007). Through the process of people learning to rationalize themselves, constrained subjectivity is produced (Pykett, 2010). Shih (2002) noted that an approach of citizenship project was used by the state to stipulate a national identity and to grant people equality in response to the meaning of being a Chinese citizen belonging the Chinese Nation. As many scholars (e.g. Culp, 2007; Harris, 2002) denoted, the nation-building, national identity, and the formation of citizenship in modern China are intimately interconnected with each other. Citizenship provides people “with a common national culture, common set of identities and a common value system” (Turner, 1997, 10). The acquisition of citizenship means a concession of “the right to be governed in exchange for privileges, rights, and social obligation” (Tienda, 2002, 588). Based in the Chinese context, Fitzgerald (1995) argued that different conceptions of nations are mediated by a common agreement between individuals and the communities indeed. Given this contractual relation between individuals and the state embedded in citizenship, the citizenship project may signify a social contract for individuals. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_4

59

60

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights …

To different extents, this chapter explores the mechanism with which the state launches citizenship projects to pedagogize the invented identity of Zhong-hua Minzu in modern China. It constitutes a scenario to examine how the state has shaped the development of the nation identity, citizen subjectivity, and human rights ideas, and looks for continuities and changes in the periods of late-Qing, nationalist, and socialist China.

Human Rights, Xin-min, and National Self-strengthening in the Late-Qing China Late Qing China selectively absorbed and emphasized human rights due to its historical and societal conditions and needs; during that period, China faced both domestic rebellions and external aggression by foreign powers. Various events and movements for national self-strengthening by initiating institutional and political reforms, such as the Self-Strengthening Movement (Yang-wu Yun-dong), comprise the history of human rights in this period. Late Qing officials initiated the Hundred Day Reform (Bai-ri Wei-xin) to reorient China’s political system towards a constitutional monarchy, and the New System of Politics (Xin-zheng) reform to save the Qing regime, with the underlying assumption of zhong-ti xi-yong, i.e., Chinese learning as the essence and Western learning for its usefulness. In 1864, The Elements of International Law was first translated into Chinese, introducing China to Western liberal ideas. Soon after, a variety of translated Western documents (e.g., the United States Declaration of Independence, The Social Contract, The Spirit of Laws, On Liberty, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) emerged in China and broadcast the concept of Western style human rights. The various meanings were transformed in accordance with national salvation movements and the introduction of Western liberal ideas into Chinese society by such late Qing intellectuals as Kang Youwei, Liang Qichao, Liu Shipei, and Yan Fu, among others. Guided by the concepts of zhong-ti xi-yong and min-quan, Chinese intellectuals selected and prioritized such human rights concepts as natural rights, the three great freedoms (of expression, publication, and association) and their implications for the citizens of a constitutional nation, and the inalienable rights to freedom, equality, and political participation. They argued that the constitution was the only way to ensure the government respected citizens’ essential freedoms and rights (Judge, 1998). Late Qing intellectuals paid specific attention to freedom of the press and freedom of speech, as discussed in Chap. 3, as these served the needs of the new arenas on which they relied to introduce liberal ideas. They advocated for freedom of expression and political participation; however, political rights were limited in practice, and served national ends (Du, 2004; Weatherley, 1999). Political involvement was believed to inspire strong feelings of community loyalty among individuals, thereby introducing the idea of collective goals into the national vision (Schwartz, 1964). Rights were thus seen as tools for national self-strengthening.

Human Rights, Xin-min, and National Self-strengthening in the Late-Qing China

61

In addition, since the 1860s, scholars, such as Wang Tao, Xue Fucheng, Ma Jianzhong, Zheng Guanying, Chen Chi, He Qi, and Hu Liyuan directly published books introducing liberal ideas, in response to foreign incursions. They selected min-quan (popular rights or civil rights) and constitutionalism to serve the purposes of national salvation, and particularly focused on the expansion of constitutional rights to facilitate a popular polity, including contentions for civil rights, free public expression of opinion, and freedoms of publication and association (Du, 2004; Feng, 2011; Judge, 1998). The consensus was that constitutionalism could protect civil rights against one man government and individual rights violations. This meant that, for the first time, citizens were ideally not subjects of the nation, and had partial rights to participate the government process. However, early reformers valued the notion of min-quan than democracy, in which citizens elected governors to rule the state instead of monarchy, saw the monarchy as hereditary, as Gu and Zheng (1999) have explained. They also asserted that early reformers, such as Chen Chi, rejected the concept of democracy, saying it would damage China’s traditional social order. Moreover, late Qing China addressed the cultivation of xin-min (new citizens) to cope with social changes. The concept of citizenship refers to independent personalities with an awareness of freedom and equality, compared with the rooted slave and subject character of Chinese people in imperial China; therefore, the late Qing period saw the evolution of the people from subjects of the dynasty to citizens of the Chinese nation-state, and related citizenship to popular sovereignty. The popularization of citizenship served to enlighten the people (kai min-zhi), and to promote popular rights (xing min-quan) and democratic politics (xing min-zhu), and was therefore in accordance with demands for citizens’ rights (Zarrow, 1998). However, citizenship was based on national sovereignty, as Liang explained in his book, Xin-min Shuo; citizens were morally autonomous societal members who possessed certain rights, and who could exercise civic virtues and improve the common good, while the nation was a collective entity composed of its citizenry; because the people possessed rights, so too did the nation. In this sense, citizens’ individual rights were seen as a means to a specific end—national strengthening for the common good.

Legislation, Gong-min, and Human Rights for Nation-Building in the ROC During the ROC the nation-state legalized the status of citizens’ rights. The Nationalist Party of China government instituted a series of laws, at both the national and local levels, intended to introduce and protect human rights. The meaning and boundaries of the Chinese nation were intensively debated, and notions of human rights and popular sovereignty were stipulated and further explained in the republican period.

62

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights …

First, discussion of human rights in the ROC emphasized using legislation and human rights to cope with social transitions. For instance, the Nanjing Provisional Government established the Provisional Constitution of the ROC in 1912, which explicitly referenced citizens’ civil and political rights and lawful protections. However, the listed rights and freedoms could be legally limited to “[enhance] the public welfare, to safeguard public order or when necessary under extraordinary circumstances” (Article 15). In addition, the 1923 Constitution promulgated by the Bei-yang Government explicitly enumerated citizens’ civil and political rights and fundamental freedoms, and added citizens’ responsibility to obtain a basic education (Article 21). By comparison, the 1931 Provisional Constitution of the ROC, promulgated by the National Government, stated citizens’ civil and political rights, equal rights to education, and right to property, but declared people’s property may be “expropriated” according to law “where public interest necessitates” (Article 18). In addition to citizens’ rights and freedoms, the 1946 Constitution of the ROC guaranteed citizens’ economic rights, including “the right to live, right to work, and right to own property” (Article 15); however, the listed freedoms and rights could be “abridged by law” if the government deemed it “necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of others, to avert an imminent danger, to maintain social order, or to promote public welfare” (Article 23). Social and cultural rights were not addressed in the various versions of ROC’s Constitution. Second, human rights ideas in the ROC were closely connected with Sun’s Three Principles of the People—nationalism, democracy, and the livelihood of the people. Sun’s principles suggested individual rights, particularly civil rights, and the relationship between the individual and the nation were a means of ending imperialist dominance, and of establishing a government of the people, by the people, for the people. He argued that while the ruling elites who constituted the government had the power to govern the state, citizens were the master of the state, and therefore enjoyed certain basic rights, as denoted in Sharman (1968). Human rights underlying the Three Principles of the People concerned individual rights associated with a consciousness of the nation, and corresponded to key categories in the ROC Constitution—independence, democracy, and prosperity and might. Zhang et al. (2016) explained that independence emphasized the right of self determination and confirmed people’s rights to self determination; democracy concerned the civil rights and freedoms underlying the five power systems principle (i.e., government with executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and institutions to oversee civil service examinations and to censure governmental wrongdoing). Prosperity and might related to state governance and people’s right to an adequate living standard, and aimed at ending poverty in China, an idea that still affects Chinese discourse on human rights. Third, during and after the New Culture Movement, human rights ideas were developed by both liberal scholars and early communists. Some liberals in the ROC advocated free expression and political participation to publicize human rights knowledge, and to support movements and struggles for freedom and human rights. For instance, Angle and Svensson (2001) noticed that the foreword to Ren-quan (Human

Legislation, Gong-min, and Human Rights for Nation-Building in the ROC

63

Rights) magazine, published in 1925, explained that such diverse terms as divine rights (Shen-quan), rights of the ruler (Jun-quan), people’s rights (Min-quan), and human rights reflected different stages of social evolution in China. It enumerated the economic, political, and educational rights that enabled human beings to develop human personality and intellects, make people aware of human rights, and advocate for a society with an underlying respect for human rights. Liberal scholars, such as Cai Yuanpei, Lu Xun, and Hu Shi, addressed protecting natural, universal human rights (of expression, the press, and association), and the defence of political prisoners, as discussed in Chap. 3. Luo Longji proposed an human rights bill (borrowed from Western political thought) to meet China’s changing social conditions and needs, all of which were preconditions for people to live with dignity. However, individual rights were a means to an end public goods and social welfare. While, early communists, such as Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao, introduced Marxism as a foundation for human rights based struggles to save the country. In the 1920s, economic rights and workers’ rights comprised the discourse on human rights in China, as part of an effort to advance social and economic democracy, and to call for the liberation of workers from capitalist oppression. Chen argued that workers’ economic status could only improve after a world revolution secured workers’ right to manage the nation’s political, economic, and military affairs (Chen, 1920), and all interests were harmonized in a communist state (Chen, 1921). Thus, economic rights played an important role in individual empowerment, national independence, and social justice, in early Chinese communists’ eyes. They also addressed women’s rights, contending that women could earn their rights through struggle (Li, 1922), by participating in revolutionary activities, and by cultivating their independent personality and autonomy; thus, women’s rights needed legal and constitutional protection.

The Party-State as Definer and Shaper of Human Rights and Citizenship in the PRC The third (and current) period is that of the PRC, during which China has upheld Chinese socialism as its state orthodoxy for building a new socialist China, and experienced three major stages of nation-building, owing to changing domestic social and political contexts, since the CPC assumed power, in 1949. The citizenship project continues under the Communist state after 1949, which continues the manufacturing of incorporating various non-Han groups into the Chinese nation and constructs a coherent and comprehensive version of multi-ethnic China. While the relationship between citizens and the nation-state has been refashioned under the communist rule. The state directly intervenes in individuals’ identification of their nationalities and ethnicity becomes the state-assigned identities chosen among 56 politically legitimized nationalities (Shih, 2002).

64

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights …

Class-Based Enjoyment of Human Rights in Mao’s Era (1949–1977) The first stage extended from 1949 to the late 1970s, under Mao’s leadership. In 1954, the first Constitution of the PRC clearly described China’s political system as a “people’s democratic state led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants” (Article 1), asserted state governance was a form of “democratic centralism” (Article 2) (National People’s Congress, 1954), and defined the relationship between citizens and the state. It delineated the sociopolitical structure, planned economy, and citizens’ fundamental rights and duties, within the PRC’s socialist framework. Human rights in the Mao era were defined by the CPC-led state, codified in laws for protection and enforcement, and limited by laws to suit specific contexts and conditions. For instance, the state defined individual’s membership and national identity, owing to its political and economic structure during the Mao period. Despite that, the 1954 Constitution clearly stated that all Chinese citizens were equal before the law (Article 85); some state laws moderated this, however, such as the 1951 Law Against Counter revolutionaries, which declared citizens’ rights were limited or suspended if they were involved in or supported “counter revolutionary” activities. The 1975 Constitution went even further, and abolished the provision that “all citizens of the PRC were equal before the law”; as Gong (1997) has claimed, this was a product of the Cultural Revolution and regarded as a regression in the area of citizens’ rights. In addition, the PRC’s Mao-era Constitutions stipulated that only those who served the national interest were entitled to human rights, meaning constitutional rights were formally granted to citizens who belonged to the People, i.e., the bloc of four social classes. The 1954 Constitution withdrew political rights from “enemy” classes, but returned to them once they were transformed into members of the proletariat. The 1975 Constitution also noted “citizens must support the leadership of the CPC, support the socialist system,” it is citizens’ duties to defend the motherland and resist aggression (Article 26). Therefore, the primacy of collective interests over individual rights was a prominent feature of human rights protection during the Mao period, with the CPC-led state encouraging citizens to sacrifice their rights for the good of society. The CPC-led state also framed citizens’ fundamental rights and duties. As discussed in Chap. 3, the 1954 Constitution explicitly delineated citizens’ civil and political rights (Articles 86–90); social, economic, and cultural rights (Articles 91– 95); and women’s rights (Article 96). By comparison, the 1975 Constitution added an article granting “the freedom to strike,” but deleted the article that all citizens were equal before the law, in accordance with the political situation at that time. It stated that citizens had to fulfil their duty to consolidate Chinese socialism and the CPC’s leadership, to possess those stipulated rights (Article 26). The Mao-period Constitutions answer the questions of who was entitled to human rights, which rights they possessed, and the relationship between individual rights and collective interests; however, human rights in that era were more rhetoric than

The Party-State as Definer and Shaper of Human Rights and Citizenship in the PRC

65

reality, as the CPC-led state suppressed many political movements and social events calling for Chinese people’s rights and freedoms. Mao’s China emphasized class struggle, placed absolute authority in the hands of the party-state, and focused on nation-building, rather than human rights promotion.

Development of Individual Rights in Deng’s Epoch (1978–1990) During the Deng epoch, between late 1978 and 1990, individual social and economic rights were prioritized, in accordance with China’s social transitions. The CPC shifted its focus from class struggle to economic development and improving China’s legal system. The policy shift had a profound impact on China’s politics, society, and economy, and required the government to take more seriously people’s living standards, and to allow a greater role for individualism and citizens’ basic economic needs and rights. To promote political reform, as Deng (1978) addressed, “the state must strengthen legal system to ensure people’s democracy, and democracy must be institutionalized and codified in law.” The PRC explicitly ensured the principle of “governing the nation according to law” in an amendment to the Constitution (Article 5) (National People’s Congress, 1999). Meanwhile, the state still consolidated socialism and the CPC’s leadership by maintaining the “four cardinal principles,” i.e., “upholding Socialist road, people’s democratic dictatorship, the CPC’s leadership, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” (Deng, 1979). In addition, the state emphasized the stability that overrides everything (Deng, 1989), to ensure stable social contexts for political and economic reform, particularly after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Incident. However, in responding to both domestic development conditions and international criticisms, the state asserted that China was “in the primary stage of socialism,” and upheld “multi-party cooperation and political consultation” in the amendment to the Constitution (National People’s Congress, 1993), with the laws serving as responses to and foundations for its policies of political and economic reform. Since 1978, the CPC-led state has initiated a series domestic reforms embracing the socialist market economy, to fulfil its promise of improving people’s living standards and making China a powerful socialist country by the end of twentieth century. The Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of the CPC marked the beginning of China’s four modernizations (of agriculture, industry, national defence, and science and technology) and its reform and opening era. Since then, the state has gradually switched its centrally planned economy to a socialist market economy, to facilitate China’s modernization. Specifically, in the 1980s, the state selected four special economic zones (Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou, and Xiamen) to pilot the policy of economic reform and opening to the world. Abandoning the concept of the “market as a major distinction between socialist and capital economies,” the state made economic construction its

66

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights …

priority and central task, and legally recognized the role of the market economy, private ownership of the means of production, and the use of global capital for domestic development. Accordingly, the reforms encouraged people to get rich quickly, and resulted in the emergence of individual and private sectors of China’s economy, which became important components of the socialist market economy, working within the limits proposed by law (National People’s Congress, 1988, 1999). Since then, there has been a visible tendency towards individualism in Chinese society, resulting in individual interests being given a higher priority than ever before, and demands for good standards of living and social participation among Chinese people. In the Deng period human rights ideas were explicitly promoted to cope with those political and economic developments. The most significant change was that individual rights were now officially recognized, rather than just rhetoric, and the statement that “all citizens are equal before the law” was codified again in the 1982 Constitution. Citizens’ fundamental rights were to be resolutely defended and not infringed upon (National People’s Congress, 1982). The Constitution and state laws extended the ambit of constitutionally guaranteed civil rights; for example, the 1978 Constitution added articles regarding economic rights, in particular the right to property (Articles 9), the “four great freedoms” of “speaking out freely, airing views fully, holding great debates, and writing big character posters” (Articles 45), and social rights (National People’s Congress, 1978). Dong and Liu (1993) stated that human rights were emphasized as socioeconomic rights, rather than civil and political rights, in the Deng epoch. Constitutional rights, such as a wide range of welfare rights (Articles 42–49) (National People’s Congress, 1982), were not only rhetoric, but were officially recognized for citizens. People’s material well being was given priority over all other concerns, and the PRC paid closer attention to the right to subsistence and development, regarded as the foremost human rights the Chinese people had, and one for which they had fought long and hard, and one without which all other rights were not possessed (State Council, 1991). However, there still existed tensions between individual rights and the supremacy of collective interests; although the 1982 Constitution addressed every citizen’s freedom of person is inviolable (Article 37), Article 51 thereof challenge that, by stating the Chinese citizens in exercising their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens. Individual rights were still seen as a means to the state’s ends, and the central authority sought a harmony of interests between individuals and the state.

Emphasis on Socioeconomic Rights in the Post-1990s China The third stage is the post-Deng period, which has existed since the 1990s, and can be separated into two sub periods: the Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao period (between 1991 and 2012), and the Xi Jinping period (2012 to present). Human rights in post-Deng

The Party-State as Definer and Shaper of Human Rights and Citizenship in the PRC

67

China were promoted more, and socioeconomic rights strengthened, to respond to Western critiques of China’s human rights record. During the Jiang and Hu period, the CPC-led state continued to develop political and economic reforms and opened China further to the world. In this period, individual and private sectors of the economy and market became increasingly important to China’s socialist economy, laws (particularly China’s Property Law) were enacted to protect citizens’ private property (National People’s Congress, 2007), and a sense of individualism and individual interests began to be promoted among Chinese citizens. However, the market development generated conflicts between individual and collective interests, and enlarged the economic gap between different groups of people. Therefore, the state adopted a policy of building a harmonious society to deal with widening economic disparities, and promote a moderately prosperous society within which individual and common interests reinforced the pursuit of public goods. In addition, the state institutionalized the principle of “governing the nation in accordance with the law (yi-fa zhi-guo)” and “governing the nation with virtues (yide zhi-guo)” (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2014; National People’s Congress, 1999). It reinstated the role of law as a key means to protect people’s rights and interests, and used law and traditional Chinese culture to regulate people’s morality and behaviours; as Law (2011) stated, the society in post-Deng China has become more “pluralistic”. As in the Deng period, notions of human rights in post-Deng China further strengthened socioeconomic rights. In 1991, the state published its first white paper on The Progress of Human Rights in China, which provided a general description of human rights in China, including “the rights to subsistence; civil and political rights; judicial protection for human rights; economic, social and cultural rights; protecting the rights and interests of women, children and ethnic minorities” (State Council, 1991). Since then, the Chinese government has released a series of white papers describing China’s position and policies on human rights, covering such issues as Tibet, women, children, food, prisoners’ conditions, etc., and its promotions and enforcements thereof. The papers identified that guaranteeing the right to subsistence and development was China’s top human rights priority, and addressed that, without such a right, no other rights could be obtained and protected. The papers also specified publicizing human rights in public training and school education, as a pathway to promote HRE in general and school settings. A series of laws further identified China’s human rights protection system; for instance, the 15th National Congress of the CPC, held in 1997, for the first time explicitly addressed “respecting and safeguarding human rights” in its report, and placed human rights at the centre of China’s development policies. Jiang (1997) committed the CPC to “ensuring that people enjoy extensive rights and freedom endowed by law, and respecting and safeguarding human rights.” Similar expressions also existed in the Party’s reports at the 16th (2002) and 17th National Congress (2007). The 2004 Amendment to the Constitution asserted “the state respects and preserves human rights” (National People’s Congress, 2004) for protection and enforcement, marking the first time China had explicitly codified the term “human rights” in its Constitution. In 2006, The Fourth Session of the 10th National People’s Congress

68

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights …

reviewed and approved the five year plan for national economic and social development, which for the first time included “respecting and ensuring human rights and promoting the cause of comprehensive human rights development” in national development planning (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2006). To sum up, human rights discourse in the Jiang and Hu period continued to emphasize social and economic rights over civil and political rights. Despite that, China committed itself to giving social, economic, and cultural rights equal status with civil and political rights in official documents and state laws. China signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1997, and ratified it in 2001, but has still not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, despite having signed it in 1998. The second period in post-Deng China is the Xi period. Unlike other top leaders, who placed far more emphasis on economic development in post-Mao China, Xi, since assuming the leadership in 2012, has attached equal importance to economic construction and the pursuits of politically correct ideology and thought, as Lam (2015) reflected. In addition, Xi has launched the mass-line education and practice in Party and ad hoc activities to carry out intra-Party reform and reshape the CPC into a competent governing party, according to his speech at the Party’s Work Conference on the Campaign on Mass-line Education and Practice in 2013. Xi put forward the idea of the Chinese dream as a means to achieve the rejuvenation of China and sociopolitical stability, and has called for an human rights culture that links the dignity of the state to the dignity of every citizen. The CPC-led state has changed its national image from that of a defensive power, to that of a rising power aspiring to do more in the international community, which has led to changes in its responses to both domestic and international human rights issues. China under Xi has attached increasing importance to the protection and promotion of human rights, as the country has “room for improvement” in its human rights and has found a path “suited to its conditions”, as admitted during his visit to the UK in 2015; however, China’s human rights record has still been criticized, particularly the tight control of the public sphere, such as arresting activists, removing crosses from churches in Zhejiang province, and demanding the mass media support the CPC’s party line and positions (Law & Xu, 2017). Under Xi, the close sovereignty-human rights relationship continues to be a dominant principle in China’s human rights discourse in response to international questions about China’s human rights record. External criticisms of China’s human rights undertakings have been labelled “interference in China’s internal affairs under the excuse of ‘human rights’.” The Chinese government has generally used the principle of “sovereignty or non-intervention and national security” to defend its domestic human rights record, and when commenting on human rights events in other countries. As the Foreign Ministry of the PRC stated, China “consistently believe[s] that human rights are essentially under a state’s own sovereignty. States should protect and promote human rights undertakings according to their own national conditions and people’s needs” (Geng, 2016). State sovereignty took precedence over human rights in responses to international criticisms of China’s domestic human rights record,

The Party-State as Definer and Shaper of Human Rights and Citizenship in the PRC

69

according to the spokesperson: “We are firmly opposed to [such] behaviours as interfering in the internal affairs of other countries under the excuse of human rights and politicizing human rights issues.”

Summary The promotion of human rights in China is evolving. Human rights were socially constructed, and their selection, understanding and emphases varied with China’s nation-building and citizenship-making in different periods of Chinese history. However, codification of human rights in China’s laws and policy documents does not necessarily mean that they are fully protected and realized in reality. There exists a tension between rhetoric and reality concerning Chinese people’s rights and human rights situation. Since 1949, there have been many political movements and social events in which the CPC-led state suppressed Chinese people’s rights and freedoms. The internal conflicts between democracy and one party rule, and between promoting human rights and suppression of free expression and association challenge the development of HRE in education systems (e.g., a possible tension between teaching human rights and maintaining political bottom line), which will be examined in the following chapters. Human rights articles codified in China’s laws and the UDHR have different sequences, suggesting different concerns and priorities of human rights promotion in Chinese doctrine and international acceptance. Though China totally agreed with the UDHR, the CPC-led state placed the right to subsistence and development as the top human rights priority; thus, civil and political rights have been secondary to economic and social rights, and human rights are closely related to sovereignty in China’s human rights discourse; in contrast, the UDHR values civil and political rights above economic and social rights. The examination of the trajectory of human rights developments in China reveals Chinese leaders’ efforts and limitations in improving human rights conditions and realizing human rights in a political system marked by one party rule and the supremacy of CPC leadership.

References Angle, S. C., & Svensson, M. (2001). The Chinese human rights reader: Documents and commentary (1900–2000). M.E. Sharpe Inc. Baranovitch, N. (2010). Others no more: The changing representation of non-Han peoples in Chinese history textbooks, 1951–2003. The Journal of Asian Studies, 69(1), 85–122. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. (2006). Guomin Jingji he Shehui Fazhan Di Shi’yi ge Wunian Jihua Guihua Gangyao [The eleventh five-year plan for national economic and social development of the People’s Republic China]. Retrieved from http://www.gov.cn/2011lh/ content_1825838_14.htm

70

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights …

Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. (2014). Zhonggong Zhongyang Guanyu Quanmian Tuijin Yifa Zhiguo Ruogan Zhongda Wenti de Jueding [Decision concerning several major issues in comprehensively advancing governance according to law]. Paper presented at the Fourth Plenary Session of the Eighteenth Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Chen, D. (1920). Laodongzhe de Juewu [The labour’s enlightenment]. In Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp. 520–521). Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, D. (1921). Taolun Wuzhengfu zhuyi [Discussing Anarchism]. In Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp. 138–155). Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Culp, R. (2007). Articulating citizenship: Civic education and student politics in Southeastern China, 1912–1940. Harvard University Asia Center. Deng, X. (1978). Emancipate the mind, seek truth from facts and unite as one in looking to the future. In Central Committee of Communist Party of China Document Editorial Commission (Ed.), Selected works of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. II, pp. 105–116). Foreign Languages Press. Deng, X. (1979). Upholding the four cardinal principles [Jianchi Sixiang Jiben Yuanze]. In Central Committee of Communist Party of China Document Editorial Commission (Ed.), Selected work of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. II, pp. 118–139). Foreign Language Press. Deng, X. (1989). The overriding need is for stability. In Central Committee of Communist Party of China Document Editorial (Ed.), Selected works of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. III, pp. 183–184). Foreign Languages Press. Dong, Y., & Liu, W. (1993). Shijie Renquan Yuefa Zonglan Xubian [A supplement to international documents on human rights]. Sichuan People’s Publishing House. Du, G. (2004). Thoughts on human rights in twentieth century China. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Feng, J. (2011). The commencement and evolution of the thought of human rights in modern China (1840–1912). Social Sciences Academic Press. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). The nationless state: The search for a nation in modern Chinese nationalism. The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs, 33, 75–104. Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Awakening China: Politics, culture, and class in the nationalist revolution. Stanford University Press. Geng, S. (2016). Waijiaobu Fayanren jiu di 68 ge Shijie Renquan Ri da Jizhe Wen [Spokesperson for the foreign ministry answers journalists’ questions regarding the 68th world human rights day. Retrieved from http://www.chinamission.be/chn/zclc/t1424252.htm Gong, R. (1997). International human rights, comparative, constitutionalism and features of China’s constitution. In A.-M. Traeholt & E. Mendes (Eds.), Human rights: Chinese and canadian perspectives (p. 90). Human Rights Research and Education Centre, University of Ottawa. Gu, C., & Zheng, H. (1999). Renquan: Cong shijie dao zhongguo - Dangdai Zhongguo Renquan de Lilun yu Shijian [Human rights: From the world to China - The theory and practice of contemporary China’s human rights]. Party Building Books Publishing House. Harris, P. (2002). The origins of modern citizenship in China. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 43(2), 181– 203. Hon, T. K., & Culp, R. J. (2007). The politics of historical production in late Qing and Republican China. Brill. Jiang, Z. (1997). Gaoju Deng Xiaoping Lilun Weida Qizhi, ba Jianshe you Zhongguo Tese Shehui Zhuyi Shiye Quanmian Tuixiang 21 Shiji [Hold high the great banner of Deng Xiaoping theory, advance all-around the cause of building socialism with Chinese characteristics into the 21st cCentury]. Report delivered at the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Beijing. Judge, J. (1998). The concept of popular empowerment (Minquan) in the Late Qing: Classical and contemporary sources of authority. In W. Theodore De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 193–208). Columbia University Press.

References

71

Lam, W. W. L. (2015). Chinese politics in the era of Xi Jinping, renaissance, reform, or retrogression? Routledge. Law, W. W. (2011). Citizenship and citizenship education in a global age: Politics, policies, and practices in China. Peter Lang Publishing. Law, W. W., & Xu, S. (2017). Social change and teaching and learning citizenship education: An empirical study of three schools in Guangzhou, China. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 7–41. Leibold, J. (2012). Searching for Han: Early twentieth-century narratives of Chinese origins and development. In T. S. Mullaney, J. Leibold, S. Gros, & E. V. Bussche (Eds.), Critical Han studies: The history, representation and identity of China’s majority (pp. 346–387). University of California Press. Li, D. (1922). Xiandai de Nvquan Yundong [The feminist movement in modern society]. In Collected writings of Li Dazhao (Vol. 26, pp. 27–28). Liaoning E-book Corporation Limited. Nathan, A. J. (1986). Sources of Chinese rights thinking. In R. R. Edwards, A. J. Nathan, & L. Henkin (Eds.), Human rights in contemporary China (pp. 125–164). Columbia University Press. National People’s Congress. (1954). The constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the first session of the First National People’s Congress on September 20, 1954. National People’s Congress. (1975). The constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the First Session of the Fourth National People’s Congress on January 17, 1975. National People’s Congress. (1978). The constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the First Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress on March 5, 1978. National People’s Congress. (1982). The constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress on December 4, 1982. National People’s Congress. (1988). Amendment to the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the First Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress on April 12, 1988. National People’s Congress. (1993). Amendment to the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the First Session of the Eighth National People’s Congress on March 29, 1993. National People’s Congress. (1999). Amendment to the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the Second Session of the Ninth National People’s Congress on March 15, 1999. National People’s Congress. (2004). Amendment to the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the Second Session of the Tenth National People’s Congress on March 14, 2004. National People’s Congress. (2007). Property law of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Tenth National People’s Congress on March 16, 2007. Pykett, J. (2010). Citizenship education and narratives of pedagogy. Citizenship Studies, 14(6), 621–635. Schwartz, B. (1964). In search of wealth and power: Yen Fu and the West. Harvard University Press. Sharman, L. (1968). Sun Yat-sen, his life and its meaning: A critical biography. Stanford University Press. Shih, C. Y. (2002). Negotiating ethnicity in China citizenship as a response to the state. Routledge. State Council. (1991). The progress of human rights in China. State Council. State Council. (2016). National human rights action plan of China (2016–2020). State Council. Tienda, M. (2002). Demography and the social contract. Demography, 39(4), 587–616. Turner, B. S. (1997). Citizenship studies: A general theory. Citizenship Studies, 1(1), 5–18. Watson, J. L. (1993). Rites or beliefs? The construction of a unified culture in late imperial China. In L. Dittmer & S. S. Kim (Eds.), China’s quest for national identity (pp. 80–103). Cornell University Press. Weatherley, R. (1999). The discourse of human rights in China: Historical and ideological perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.

72

4 Citizenship Project, National Identity, and Human Rights …

Zarrow, P. (1998). Citizenship and human rights in early twentieth century Chinese thought: Liu Shipei and Liang Qichao. In W. T. De Bary & W. Tu (Eds.), Confucianism and human rights (pp. 209–233). Columbia University Press. Zhang, W., Li, R., & Yan, Z. (2016). Human rights and good governance. Brill Nijhoff.

Chapter 5

Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

Literally, thin and thick accounts of human rights delineate key distinctions that are conceived as appropriate to different societal contexts (Chan, 2000; Walzer, 2018; Freeman, 2000). As a result, HRE has spurred much discussion in theory and practice, as there are different views about its appropriate content, goals, and methodologies. Several debates note that China’s human rights discourse has shifted over time in history and been somewhat “ambivalent” in character (Svensson, 2002). Its efforts to balance the socio-political and economic tasks of education in China’s modern nation-building provide a meaningful framework for understanding how these ideas are pedagogized in national education. There have been recent developments in HRE in China that are quite complex; the nation-state has been seen as the principal actor in defining and prioritizing human rights and HRE. Since the 2000s, China has explicitly promoted HRE, particularly with its series of national action plans on human rights (released in 2009, 2012, 2016, respectively), which is a beneficial step that addresses what and how questions regarding HRE in its education system. The discussion towards HRE and curriculum development in Chinese education situates this study in an evolving framework of HRE, in which rights and multilevel citizenship are gradually being more accepted in the education system. To investigate how the nation-state pedagogizes or tries to operationalize and instrumentalize human rights and citizenship-making in its curriculum narratives, this chapter examined public texts as official policy documents and related commentaries, and the curriculum standards of civics subjects. Analysing curriculum standards helped uncover the goals, content, and focus of HRE, and consider to what extent citizenship and human rights have been addressed in civics subjects, as well as how they have been addressed. It answers how education has developed for indoctrination and for transmitting ideological discourses to foster Chinese citizenry.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_5

73

74

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

Pedagogization for Awakening the Nationhood Extant research (e.g. Law, 2013) has examined China’s century of efforts to create, through education, a modern state and modern Chinese citizenry. Intellectuals and political powers pursued promoting the unity and sovereignty of the nation-state; they invented a pedagogical state structure (Fitzgerald, 1996) to awaken citizens’ nationhood. In this respect, pedagogization was conceived of as an umbrella concept to indicate the “steady expansion and increased depth” of educational action and pedagogical focus (Depaepe et al., 2008, 14). Throughout China’s modern times, it has struggled for independence and liberation for its citizens, and mobilized the loyalty of its citizens to the nation-state. In the process, the pedagogization process has emerged from the narratives of China’s nation-(re)building and citizenship-making in its educational framework. It reflects the historical struggles between economic development and cultural preservation, and roles of the nation-state in the struggles to find new directions for China’s modernization and education. The pedagogization of citizenship and rights has been central to the search for solutions to broader societal issues and economic problems in China’s educational practice for its nation-building. Several themes related to the pedagogization efforts can be derived from an analysis of curriculum documents, see Table 5.1. The early 1900s witnessed how China sought to pedagogize the people into a new national cultural identity. Confucianism was prioritized in its education narratives and curriculum. Intellectuals coined the term xin-min (new citizens) to develop the renewal of Chinese people, which portrayed the people’s evolution from subjects of the dynasty to citizens of the nation-state, and related citizenship with culture and popular sovereignty. Chapter 4 denoted that citizens are the substance of the state and enlightened citizenship caused society to flourish and aided national struggles, as Liang Qichao argued in his book Xin-min Shuo (Renewing the People). Education could equip citizens with knowledge about the nation and their rights, political ability and skills, personal and social ethics, and basic life-skills, which is seen as a tool for enlightening the people, and promoting popular rights and democratic politics. Major school subjects of Politics and Moral Cultivation addressed fostering national cultural identity and cultivating students’ citizenship qualities by learning about self-discipline, personal morality and social ethnics. All emphasized preparing students to become citizens of the Chinese nation, and to equip them with knowledge about China’s culture and the world. Consequently, individual liberties and cultural rights with national ends were emphasized in this period: citizens were seen as morally autonomous social members who enjoyed certain rights, and who could exercise civic virtues and improve the common good. Citizens’ individual interests were seen as inseparable from the wider interests of the nation-state, which relied on the former for its cohesiveness and strength. During the time of external threats and civil wars between the 1910s and 1940s, the pedagogization process could be seen as a sub-process of China’s nation-building aligned with the different dominant political parties of this period. The Chinese

Pedagogization for Awakening the Nationhood

75

Table 5.1 Curriculum documents of civics subjects in modern China Period Curriculum Documents and Standards of Civics Subjects 1902–1911 1911–1928 1929–1948

1949–1976

1977–1991

1992–2011

2011-

The Authorized School Regulation (1902) (since then the modern school system appeared in China) The Rules on Implementation of National Education Decree (1916) The New Education System Curriculum Standards (1923) The Interim Curriculum Standards for Primary and Secondary Schools (1929) (since then the revival school textbooks were published in the ROC) Draft Temporary Secondary School Teaching Plan of the PRC (1950) Circular Concerning the Establishment of Political Subject in Secondary Schools and Normal (Teacher Training) Colleges (1957) Draft Temporary Teaching Plan for Primary and Secondary Education (1978) Notice of the Ministry of Education on Improving and Strengthening Political Courses in Secondary Schools (1980) Syllabus of Thought and Politics for Secondary Schools (for Trial Implementation) (1992) Curriculum Guidelines for Thought and Moral Character in Primary Schools and Thought and Politics in Secondary Schools (1997) Curriculum Guideline for Ideology and Morality in Compulsory Education (2003; 2011) Notice of the General Office of the Ministry of Education on Matters Concerning the Application of Textbooks of Morality and the Rule of Law, Chinese Language, History, and Science in Basic Education (2017)

Nationalist Party and the CPC used different ways, but emphasized nationallyoriented pathways, to foster Chinese citizenry in education and reconstruct their national identity along party lines. In the 1920s, Moral Cultivation was replaced with Civics, which covered the dimensions of personal, social, local, national and global citizenship, and textbooks were diversified to meet local education’s conditions and requirements with some flexibility. In citizenship curricula, Law (2011) mentioned that different pedagogies, such as lecture, role-play, visits, surveys, and discussion, were suggested to strengthen students’ learning and experiences. In many secondary schools, students attempted to form and participate in student self-government organizations and practice to be good citizens in a modern republic, noticed by Culp (2007). However, the Chinese Nationalist Party narrowed the purpose and scope of citizenship curriculum in the late 1920s: Civics was replaced by Political Doctrines (dang-yi) and paid far more attention to the personal-social and national dimensions of citizenship, and schools were required to include political ideology into all courses. It particularly emphasized citizens’ responsibilities for collectivity and belonging to

76

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

the community/nation. Later, citizenship education in the 1940s emphasized nationalist ideology and a non-toleration of political pluralism in Civics curriculum. At the same time, the CPC considered education as a vital instrument for political mobilization to build socialist China. For instance, in 1938, the CPC formed the Children’s League of Resisting Japanese Invasion (China Young Pioneers after the founding of the PRC) as part of education for national defence to cultivate students to be new masters of socialist China. Zhao (2014) explained how the pedagogical state mobilized the collective identity of students through textbook narratives: narratives of origin suggested that individuals “need” to join a community and collectivity is “a gene endowed naturally for human beings” to regulate human relations and mediate conflicts of interests; narratives of promise helped socialize students into the ideas that the community can be “liberated from imperialism” and “granted equality and freedom,” while individuals would gain competency to pursue individual progress. To facilitate China’s nation-building by appealing to different groups of people, economic rights and women’s rights have been part of China’s discourse on citizenship and human rights since the 1920s. The respect for women’s independent personalities and liberation supplemented China’s human rights doctrine. In addition, Chen (1919) argued that economic, political, and civil equality were key to achieving social democracy; the state should legislate working conditions and exercise its right and duty to guarantee people’s livelihood. The right to subsistence was therefore addressed as a fundamental human right for ending poverty in China’s context. Since 1949, a series of systematic and formal political subjects and relevant curriculum guidelines were established, which provided a broader ambit of themes and content to fulfil the political and economic tasks of citizenship education, which will be delineated in the following sections. It could be seen that education narratives endorsed a form of pedagogization to deal with the struggles between economic development and the socio-political tasks of education to serve China’s nation(re)building and cultivation of modern citizenry.

Political Education: Making Chinese Citizenry This section unpacks how politics affected education and the cultivation of Chinese citizenry in different periods in the PRC’s history. Despite there being no independent, specific HRE subject, human rights contents were subsumed by and embedded within school curricula, specifically in political education, equipping student with sociopolitical values and norms, and fostering citizens for China’s socialist modernization and nation-(re)building. Particularly, HRE was explicitly promoted in the post-Deng period (since 1990s) in response to domestic developments and international criticisms of China’s human rights record. To explain the changes and continuities of political education in post-1949 China, this section first depicts the multilevel educational management system in the PRC,

Political Education: Making Chinese Citizenry

77

and then traces education for cultivating Chinese citizenry, and how the CPC-led state, as a principal actor, selected and prioritized political education goals and contents in line with CPC’s party line and positions, over time.

China’s Multilevel Educational System Since assuming power in 1949, China’s education system has been shaped by different levels of stakeholders, including the state and local governments at various levels. Since 1980s, the state has gradually decentralized administrative and financial responsibilities from the central government to local governments, which “assume responsibility for compulsory education, and be administrated at different levels” (National People’s Congress, 1986). As a result, China set up a multilevel system of educational administration and management, with various modes of operations and implementations of educational works directed by local governments, in accordance with the degree of economic and cultural development in different localities (Fig. 5.1). In general, China has introduced a multilevel system of education administration and management attached to different levels of stakeholders—government, People’s Congress, and education institutions—under the guidance of the Ministry of Education (MoE) (called the State Education Committee between 1985–1998, and the MoE thereafter). Education in China is under the leadership of educational administrative institutions at various levels—national, provincial or autonomous region, municipal, prefectural, and county—each led by a People’s Government, and supervised

Ministry of Education

National People’s Congress and Central Government

Provincial/Autonomous Region Department of Education

People’s Congress and Government of province and autonomous region

Municipal/Prefectural Education Bureau

People’s Congress and Government of municipalities

County/District Education Bureau

People’s Congress and Government at the county level

Town Education Office

People’s Congress and Government of townships

Fig. 5.1 The Structure of Educational Administration System of China. Adapted from the Education Law of the People’s Republic of China (1995)

78

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

by a People’s Congress at the next higher level (National People’s Congress, 1995). All levels of educational authorities are directed by the central government and the CPC. The MoE of China is the highest administrative organ in charge of education, and has been considered as the key department to for translating the state’s policies and requirements to education administration institutions at different levels. It has to coordinates with education authorities at different levels and to lead educational reforms. In addition, China’s education operates under a dual leadership system, with both political and administrative responsibilities. In Chinese schools at all levels, one school leader, usually the principal, is responsible for administrative affairs; another, usually the school party secretary, is in charge of ideological and political works. Since 1985, China has explicitly ensured the “principal responsibility system” in primary and secondary schools (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 1985), and the division between administrative and political lines of education in school. Principals are the key decision-makers and bear full responsibility for all administration works in the school, under the guidance of higher levels of educational bureaucracy and government. For instance, principals have decision-making power over school affairs, including “instruction, personnel and financial management”; thus, Chinese schools are both hierarchical and autonomous, as Zhao et al. (2008) have commented. Meanwhile, school political leaders are responsibilities for strengthening the ideological and political works on campus, in and outside the formal curriculum, by making good use of the Communist Young Pioneers, CYL, and school Party committees and branches, to transmit the CPC’s political ideology and sociopolitical values to students. The school party secretary, together with the school’s Congress of Teachers and Staff, supervise how the principal enacts educational policies, and provide suggestions and feedbacks on decision-making, to ensure managerial accountability. The dual leadership system reflects the close relationship between politics and education. Since 1949, the PRC has assigned both political and economic tasks to education, to cultivate literate, skilled, and politically reliable citizens to serve and China’s socialist modernization, in three major periods.

Education for Fostering Socialist Person in Mao’s China Education in Mao’s China focused more on nation-building, and less on promoting human rights related content and themes in school systems. The central authority focused mainly on the political task of education, which is saw as fostering socialist persons who were red and expert. Specifically, red means that education at all levels was required to socialize students by equipping them with the ideals of socialism and the CPC’s leadership, while expert meant promoting students’ necessary knowledge and skills for contributing to China’s socialist cause, as cited in Law (2011).

Political Education: Making Chinese Citizenry

79

Education in Mao’s China aimed to cultivate political reliable citizens with knowledge, skills, and competencies for socialist construction and economic development. With the implementation of a centrally planned economy across China, in 1953, the CPC-led state adopted various radical measures to quicken the transition to state economic control. Accordingly, the economic tasks of education focused on developing students’ academic learning in intellectual, moral, and physical domains and skills (Deng, 1978), and training citizens for economic development and socialist construction, to restore an economy damaged by political movements. Whereas the economic tasks of education were proposed to equip citizens with academic knowledge and technical skills to contribute to China’s economic development, the political task of education was to further socialism, to nurture socialist persons and cultivate their collective political identity, and to improve the level of ideological understandings to defend proletarian politics. In Mao-era China, education placed more emphasis on fostering socialist persons for nation-building, and almost none on HRE subjects or modules in school systems. School curricula thus aimed to tutor students in political values and socialist ideology. For instance, in 1950, the MoE set up political courses to train secondary students to become new socialist citizens, by tutoring them in socialist and communist values, legal-related studies, dialectical materialism, and academic knowledge for socialist construction (Ministry of Education, 1950). However, these political courses were not systematic, changed in different periods, and had no fixed syllabi. Instead, students mainly studied Marxism and Maoism from documents prescribed by the state and the CPC, and selected editorials and articles in state newspapers, as Law (2011) denoted. During 1959–1966 period, the MoE set up broad secondary school political education subject (Politics) that included relevant courses (Ministry of Education, 1957). It mandated secondary schools to conduct such subjects as Cultivation of Youth (for Grade 7 and 8 students), Political Knowledge (for Grade 9 students), Knowledge of Social Sciences (for Grade 10 and 11 students), and the Constitution of the PRC and Socialist Construction (for Grade 12 students), all of which emphasized fostering socialist persons who were obedient to socialist ideology and the CPC’s leadership. Such subjects enforced political socialization among students, and equipped them in ideas of loving the motherland, the people, the collective, and the CPC; and developing an ideal to serve the people and construct a socialist new China. The courses of Political Knowledge and the Constitution of the PRC taught to 9th and 12th grade students, for example, focused on institutions and constitution, legal-related studies, and the state’s power belonging to the people, to frame students’ citizenship identity. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), schools were closed, and what teaching occurred did not include the teaching and learning of human rights related topics.

80

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

Education for Fostering Citizens for Socialist Modernization in Deng’s China During Deng’s tenure, the state focused on fostering qualified citizens for China’s socialist modernization and construction, advocated the right to education for all, particularly the free and compulsory education, and included some elements of HRE for inclusion in public and school settings. To begin with, as the CPC shifted its party line from class struggle to economic development, the state placed more emphasis on the economic goals of education (Deng, 1982), to cultivate qualified manpower for revitalizing economic development by equipping students with the academic knowledge and skills needed at different levels of China’s labour market. As the state’s policy addressed, education was primarily aimed at producing “welleducated, technically skilled and professionally competent” workers (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 1985) to facilitate economic and social progress in China. Educational law explicitly stipulated fostering constructors and successors with all-round development in “morals, intelligence, physical fitness, and aesthetics” domains to serve the construction of China’s socialist modernization (National People’s Congress, 1995). In addition, the CPC-led state promoted the right to education among all citizens through, for instance, the two basics project—i.e., the elimination of illiteracy in adults, and universalization of a nine-year basic education for school-aged children. The state promoted nine-year compulsory education for all school-aged students, relying on such educational laws as the Compulsory Education Law of the RPC (1986), the Law of the PRC on the Protection of Minors (1991), and others. These educational laws adopted a rights-based approach to achieve universal basic education, provide all students equal access to free, compulsory schooling, and improve the quality of Chinese citizens. Furthermore, despite an emphasis on economic goals of education in Deng’s period, the PRC still emphasized the political tasks of education for cultivating Chinese citizenry. Education was consistently concerned with cultivating students who would be red and devote themselves to China’s socialist modernization. Beginning in 1978, the MoE established systematic and formal political subjects in education in all sectors, and developed relevant curriculum guidelines for political subjects. Specifically, secondary schools were mandated to conduct four political courses (Ministry of Education, 1978), as shown in Table 5.2; in 1980, the MoE systematically developed five political courses for secondary education (Ministry of Education, 1980). In 1988, it asked secondary schools to include six political courses—Civics; A Brief History of Social Development; China’s Socialist Construction; Scientific Perspective on Life; Economic Knowledge; and Political Knowledge (Ministry of Education, 1988). The political courses provided a broader ambit of themes and contents to fulfil the political and economic tasks of education; for example, the state intended to transmit national policies and CPC’s party-line to students through A Brief History of Social Development and Chinese Socialist Construction, including the CPC’s

Political Education: Making Chinese Citizenry

81

Table 5.2 Political courses in China between 1978 and 1992 Time

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade11

Grade 12

1978–1979

Brief History of Social Development

Scientific Socialism

Scientific Socialism

Politics and Dialectical Economy Materialism

1980–1985

Cultivation of Youth

Brief History of Social Development

Political Knowledge

Politics and Dialectical Economy Materialism

1986–1992

Civics

Brief History of Social Development

China’s Scientific Economic Political Socialist Perspective Knowledge Knowledge Construction on Life

ideological worldview; socialist ideology; collectivism; socialist market; law; the relationships among people, society, and the state; and specific sociopolitical values. Some human rights related themes and issues were selected for inclusion into political education, such as Political Knowledge, which aimed to teach knowledge of the law and law-related studies among students; similarly, the Civics syllabus included citizenship education and legal-related studies to develop students’ knowledge of law and citizenship, and enhance their full personality development.

Education for Fostering Citizens for Socioeconomic Development In the post-Deng period, the central authority has consistently addressed political and economic tasks of education for fostering citizens for China’s social and economic development. With the development of economic reforms and China’s further opening to the world, the state has emphasized the economic goals of education, by advocating the policy of “reviving the nation with science, technology and education” (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council, 1995), meaning education is regarded as an important vehicle for improving the quality of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation, and for fulfilling the needs of domestic development and international competition in the knowledge economy (Ministry of Education, 1998; State Council, 1993). Meanwhile, given political reforms calling for the development of China’s legal system and of a socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics (State Council, 2011), the political tasks of education mainly centre on fostering citizens living in a multilevelled polity. The first political task of education involves teaching students the sociopolitical values prescribed by state policies and CPC documents, to facilitate students’ national cultural identity. The CPC-led state requires schools at all levels to integrate its policies and the CPC’s spirit into education. For instance, as Law (2011) depicted, primary and secondary schools launched the “I want to be a qualified little

82

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

citizen” movement in 2003 to equip students with ethics, in light of the promotion of the Implementation Outline on Ethics Building for Citizens (2001). Other state policies and CPC documents learned in school include the “three represents” (san-ge dai-biao) theory; the scientific theory of development; socialist concepts of “honours and disgraces” (ba-rong ba-chi); and core socialist values to guide citizens’ moralities and behaviours, and to facilitate the development of a harmonious socialist society. Despite sociopolitical changes in public discourse over time, the political purpose of education still involves initiating students into a set of sociopolitical ideas, values, skills, and behaviours the CPC deems acceptable, to cultivate the successors of Chinese socialism. An example of this is promoting education in “high ideals, ethics, general knowledge, discipline, and the legal system,” and students’ being educated about the five-loves (i.e., love of home country, people, labour, science, and socialism) (National People’s Congress, 1999, Article 24). The second political task of education focuses on patriotic education in accordance with domestic sociopolitical situations. Particularly after the Tiananmen Square Incident in 1989, the state began to reform Chinese education by mandating patriotic education (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 1994; Ministry of Education, 1991b) to enhance students’ understandings about Chinese history, national conditions, and international environments, and to strengthen their sense of patriotism (Deng, 1989; Ministry of Education, 1991a, b). The third political task of education involved emphasizing broad moral education to facilitate students’ political socialization. In 1992, the MoE introduced the mandatory subject, thought and politics to secondary schools, to cover a set of political courses and facilitate the teaching of “politics, ideology, morality and psychological quality” among students (Ministry of Education, 1992). In 2000, China reformed its moral education, using different but related subjects purposefully to describe the broader subject of moral education (de-yu), such as thought and politics, thought and character, legal education, citizenship education, and discipline (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council, 2000). Moral education was aimed at cultivating citizens by equipping them with civic virtues, legal awareness, and ethical quality and behaviours, making them law-abiding, and facilitating students’ political socialization. In 2003, the MoE developed new curriculum guidelines for moral education in primary and secondary schools, intended to foster responsible and participatory citizens in China by tutoring them in the rule of law, citizens’ rights and duties, morality (from personal, social, national, and global domains), full personality development, and, citizenship and a sense of belonging (Ministry of Education, 2003). In 2017, the MoE asked all schools to use the unified textbook Morality and the Rule of Law (dao-de yu fa-zhi) in their 7th and 8th grades (Ministry of Education, 2017), rather than other textbook versions adopted by local education departments and/or schools.

Global Citizenship Education and HRE in a Global Age

83

Global Citizenship Education and HRE in a Global Age Globalization has affected the narratives of citizenship and rights in curriculum, and pedagogization has emphasized the cultivation of multilevel citizenship through education. The state allowed its aspiring global cities to have some autonomy to address concerns for local development and identity, and to host international events as marking the beginning of its national rejuvenation and the fostering of modern Chinese citizenry (Law, 2011). In this process, citizenship and human rights principles came to be seen as standard components of the imagined national and/or world society, which were integrated into curricula as common shared elements substantively and also employed as models for the proper pedagogical development of the student. The endorsement of human rights could be viewed as the political conceptualization of justice in society, to better protect individual human dignity from pressing systemic threats. In the process, the range of rights involved has expanded from citizenship rights, to cultural self-expression, social participation, solidarity rights, etc. It reflects a shift in focus of legitimated social membership from national (citizenship) to international (human rights) levels, and to some extent challenges the notion of the nation-state’s ultimate sovereignty to become a broader legitimated cultural model of human society (Meyer et al, 2010). With the process of globalization, the rights of persons as individuals are increasingly anchored in international standards, and have become more apparent in the discourses of educational systems. Thus, concepts such as multiple citizenship (Heater, 2004) or multi-layered citizenship (Bottery, 2003) that locate individuals’ membership in a multilevelled polity and accommodate their participation in various domains of human activities have gained traction in recent educational literature. Accordingly, scholars have proposed a multidimensional model of citizenship education (e.g. Kubow et al., 2000; Law & Ng, 2009) to show the incorporation of the multilevel citizenship and citizenship education into educational policies and relevant curricula (Lee et al, 2004). Global citizenship education, in this sense, helps students to live together in “increasingly diverse local communities and an interdependent world” (Osler & Starkey, 2003, 243). Developments in the discourse broaden in emphasis from citizenship and rights as legal matters to global citizenship education and HRE (e.g. Meyer et al., 2010), which aim to activate a wider world society of common humanity within which all members could enjoy and act on their rights. In China, different but related subjects have been used to describe a broader subject of moral education (de-yu), including politics, moral thought and character, legal education, and citizenship education. It aimed at cultivating responsible and participatory citizens by equipping them with ideas of “democracy, the rule of law, freedom, equality, equity and justice,” and facilitating students’ political socialization and full personality development (Ministry of Education, 2010). Since the 2000s, China has explicitly dealt with HRE in public training and school education, such as the state-stipulated series of white papers on human rights which address the development of HRE publicity and training activities. A significant

84

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

improvement to China’s HRE was passing a series of national human rights action plans, requiring schools to integrate HRE into relevant courses/modules and activities, as the key carrier subjects. The plans define explicitly the promotion of HRE, regarding its goals, contents, and approaches in both school and non-school settings. The national strategies aimed to equip students with human rights knowledge and skills, which delineates an overview of the multilevel citizenship the state expected students to become to live in the globalizing world. Four main facets illustrate the picture of HRE development by the central authorities. The first point is that the state prioritized developing public training for HRE. For instance, a series of white papers, entitled The Progress of Human Rights, described the promotion of HRE through public training and universities, to publicize human rights and to improve citizens’ ability to enjoy and exercise human rights. The state also encouraged research institutions, NGOs, and media outlets to promote HRE training among the public, including the China Society for Human Rights Studies, the Chinese Foundation for Human Rights Development, and university research centres for human rights studies and HRE. Based on research institutions’ and NGOs’ efforts, varying types of research platforms have emerged in China, such as China Human Rights Net; Human Rights Magazine which regularly publishes China’s Human Rights in Action, and irregularly publishes the Yearbook of Human Rights in China; and columns such as 100 Q&As on Human Rights Knowledge in the People’s Daily, to name but three. In terms of public legal education, the government commissioned white papers to design and implement five-year plans for publicity and education on law for all citizens. China made efforts to develop public training and education activities to improve citizens’ capacity for safeguarding their rights and interests according to the law, and to raise public awareness of the rule of law and rights, such as the nationwide “publicity and education on law” since 1986, and the white paper on China’s Efforts and Achievements in Promoting the Rule of Law in 2008. In addition, the state has emphasized HRE for civil servants and governmental employees in post-1990s China. For instance, the 1996–2000 National Plan for Cadre Education and Training required CPC’s cadre education to include a module on HRE. Since 2000, an human rights major has been part of the curriculum of the Central Party School, and of Party educational units at all levels, and HRE has been conducted for officials at all levels of the Party, government, and judicial system. The Ministry of Public Security has provided training programmes to police officers for safeguarding human rights and promoting law enforcement. In addition, the AllChina Lawyers Association has conducted specialized training to strengthen the role of lawyers in safeguarding human rights in China, as mentioned in Fang and Zhang (2012). Law enforcement departments have also pursued publicity and education on regulations and laws for the protection of human rights, and have provided HRE training on a regular basis, as Xia (2013) expressed. Next, the national action plans have identified training bases and institutions for carrying out HRE and HRE training at the college level. Some law schools and higher learning departments in China have offered human rights courses and seminars, and have advanced human rights modules as a part of their legal education, such as

Global Citizenship Education and HRE in a Global Age

85

Human Rights Law, Human Rights Principles, An Introduction to Human Rights Law etc. Until after 2000, human rights courses were generally introduced at the tertiary level in China, the principal exception being the Shandong University, which began involving the teaching of human rights in 1995. Indeed, it was only in 2001 that the MoE listed human rights course as an elective law subject, placing it first after the compulsory law courses. Some human rights related general education courses are also offered at universities for non-law major students; for example, Beijing Normal University offers HRE for postgraduate students majoring in moral and citizenship education. Since 2001, some universities have established an human rights law major; the Law School of Shandong University, for example, set up a doctoral programme in theoretical law, with a research focus on human rights and the rule of law. Later, other universities, including Peking University, Hunan University, and Shenzhen University, also established human rights majors and programmes. The state has established human rights research centres in some universities, with nearly 50 such entities now existing at such universities as Peking University, Tsinghua University, Wuhan University, and Shandong University. In 2011, the MoE authorized the establishment of eight national HRE training bases (at Nankai University, China University of Political Science and Law, and Guangzhou University, Renmin University of China, Fudan University, Shandong University, Wuhan University and Southwest University of Political Science and Law), which play a leading role in HRE research and implementation, and provide training in human rights law for teachers. With the promotion of HRE research and practices in college-level education, more national human rights law textbooks have been published and used in universities to teach human rights law and HRE (Zhu, 2012), such as Human Rights Law, Human Rights Principles, and International Human Rights Law, etc. Meanwhile, Hunan University Press has published HRE handbooks to facilitate human rights training for the public, including judges, police officers, civil servants, such as Human Rights Readers on citizens’ rights, women’s rights, and children’s rights. However, handbooks for general education were insufficient, and there are no national human rights textbooks for primary and secondary school students. Last, as the national human rights action plans noted, the state has required primary and secondary school to integrate HRE into relevant subjects to equip students with human rights ideas, and to foster a culture that respects human rights, despite there being no independent, specific HRE subject in the national basic education curriculum. Specifically, HRE has been subsumed by and embedded in school systems through four major approaches (State Council, 2009, 2012, 2016): • integrating the law and human rights into relevant courses, including moral and citizenship education, legal-related studies, and national education; • carrying out “human rights promotional activities” that suit students’ developments; • promoting school management by law; and • creating an education environment that honours and respects human rights.

86

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

The national plans also mandated training for school teachers to aid their promoting HRE in school settings (State Council, 2016). However, China’s rapid economic changes created new problems that the society must address, the government hence attempted to promote the internal legal reforms, and reuse traditional Chinese thought to govern and regulate people’s relations and behaviours, which affect the changes of political education over time.

A Chinese Lens on HRE: Approaches and Contents To explain the dynamics and complexity of HRE in China, this section begins by reviewing HRE policies, in the context of the PRC. Next, it examines theoretical studies of HRE and issues concerning HRE implementation in the post-Mao period, during which China explicitly deals with HRE. Last, it presents the enforcement of HRE in both non-school settings and school systems, which reveals the feasibility of and approaches to implementing HRE in China’s contexts.

Progression of HRE in Chinese Policies Similar to the international HRE programmes, HRE in China is closely related to policy-making to publicize human rights knowledge and awareness among citizens, and to foster a culture of human rights in the Chinese society. However, China’s policies offer a different framework for the promotion of HRE, defining its aims, contents, and approaches through education, public training, and the media. Many educational initiatives in China included human rights as content but were known by names other than HRE. The first type of HRE defined in Chinese policies is formal HRE, which refers to education given to students at primary and secondary schools, high schools, institutes, and universities. The national human rights action plans deal explicitly with HRE in China’s education system at all levels, specifying objectives, measures, and its allround implementation (State Council, 2009, 2012, 2016). The national strategies play an essential role in defining and controlling HRE in China, and mark the first time Chinese policies with significant practical and theoretical value have explicitly addressed HRE. The second type is informal HRE that generally refers to HRE training activities. The national plans set the process for creating a culture of HRE, providing a number of education projects, and prompting HRE-related academic developments, and HRE initiatives for government employees and civil servants. For instance, the education of Party committees included HRE by making human rights “a major part of curricula” for Party schools, cadre colleges, and administration institutes at all levels, to enhance the performance of state functionaries (Organization Department of the CPC et al, 2016).

A Chinese Lens on HRE: Approaches and Contents

87

In addition, HRE has been subsumed into publicity and training activities offered to the public. For instance, a series of white papers on human rights progress described how HRE developed in universities and public activities to facilitate human rights promotion and improve citizens’ abilities, qualities, and levels of enjoying and exercising human rights. Since 1986, the nationwide publicity and education on law (pu-fa jiao-yu) has improved citizens’ capacity to safeguard their rights and interests according to law, and to promote human rights and HRE in China. The white paper, China’s Efforts and Achievements in Promoting the Rule of Law (2008), suggested carrying out public training and education activities through schools, institutions, media, and other means to raise public awareness of democracy, freedom, equality, the rule of law, and human rights. As mentioned, the national action plans also address that NGOs, research institutions, and media are main pathways for promoting HRE training among the public. HRE in Chinese policies indicates China’s principled stance of encouraging HRE in various forms in a planned way, of popularizing and spreading knowledge of the rule of law and human rights, and of enhancing awareness of human rights among Chinese citizens. Despite aiding understanding of HRE promotion in Chinese policies, there is a gap between policy provisions and theoretical explanations for the dynamics of HRE in Chinese society. Nest section reviews HRE research specified in the context of the PRC to depict how Chinese scholars understand HRE, and locate it into China’s context and conditions.

HRE Research from the Chinese Perspective HRE in China is a newly-emerged research topic in educational theory and practice. A Chinese lens on HRE research clarifies certain goals, approaches, and contents of HRE, and falls into three major categories by Chinese scholars. Firstly, much research on HRE concerns introducing the general theory of HRE into China, with some studies directly introducing HRE research conducted in Western countries; for instance, Li (2005b) translated the book Understanding Human Rights: Manual on Human Rights Education into Chinese to introduce HRE training modules. Some Chinese scholars (e.g. Li, 2005a; Shen, 2006; Zhan, 2009) have introduced general theories of HRE, in the sense known in international corpus, to understand the concept, approach, and content of HRE, and the development of human rights culture among the public. For instance, several studies argued HRE programmes focus on cultivating human rights ideas, values, and norms among citizens, and building a universal human rights culture (Liu, 2004; Qi, 2003; 2007; Xu & Qi, 2008). Wang (2006) analysed that mass media plays an important role in promoting human rights and HRE, and in protecting the fundamental right of free expression. Other research (e.g. Yan, 2009; Zhan, 2009) have also elaborated on the importance of integrating HRE into secondary schools to develop the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviours students need to promote and uphold human rights.

88

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

Secondly, scholars have reviewed and examined the history, current situations, and future directions of HRE research in mainland China. HRE developed rapidly between 2001 and 2011 in China (Fang & Zhang, 2012), particularly at the university level (Liu, 2013). Some studies have referenced national obligations to promote HRE (e.g. Qu, 2010) and review HRE in Chinese policies, particularly the national human rights action plans, to describe the goal, content, and process regarding HRE (Chen, 2010; Xia, 2013; Yang, 2016). Much research has elaborated on the importance of promoting HRE in all sectors in China, and of conceptualizing HRE as the major pathway for promoting the rule of law and democracy, all of which effectively facilitate the development of human rights in China (Li, 2009; Wang, 2008; Zhao & Wang, 2007). Current HRE research has examined the concept, value, and function of HRE (Qi, 2007; Wen & Liu, 2009; Zhao, 2009), and argued that its progression has shaped the environment for human rights development (Liu, 2013) and building a universal human rights culture in Chinese society (Ban, 2009). Additionally, few studies have offered suggestions for future HRE in China, such as combining HRE with citizenship education, strengthening HRE training, developing human rights environments, or increasing supports for HRE in terms of policies and financial issues (Liu, 2013; Shen, 2015; Xia, 2013). Thirdly, few researchers have examined HRE in formal primary, secondary, or tertiary education systems, or in informal public training (Bai, 2010; Chen, 2010; Ding & Wen, 2009; Qiu, 2009). Theoretically, Qi (2003) suggested HRE in China should explicitly integrate human rights and related themes and issues in all levels of schooling, establish an HRE subject in higher learning, and promote public HRE training for civil servants and governmental officials. Several studies (e.g. Shen, 2015) have argued universities take active part in HRE in China. Liu (2013) examined and explained Jilin University’s HRE-related curriculum framework and programmes, while Peng (2012) examined HRE in universities in minority areas, and found they tend to show different HRE dynamics in different contexts. However, present studies do not explain where to locate HRE in education systems, nor how schools do or should conduct HRE. Fourthly, several studies have discussed HRE problems and challenges in the Chinese context. For instance, Yang (2016) discussed China’s ideological influence on and Western criticism of human rights in academic circles, and showed difficulties in developing HRE in China, including “ambiguity of policies,” unclear obligations of duty-bearer, “fragmentation of HRE” in education systems at all levels, and a lack of resources. In Sun’s book, 21 papers discuss the problems of teaching human rights in higher education in mainland China, such as the contents and methods of teaching human rights law (Sun, 2009). In addition, Xia (2013) specified three problems with HRE, including a “lack of operational laws and integrated plans” for HRE, the “unbalanced development” of HRE, and “deficiencies” in HRE training for civil servants. Other scholars (e.g. Shen, 2015) have discussed issues related to HRE practices in China, such as deficiencies in integrating HRE into school education, particularly in primary and secondary schools; finite resources for HRE promotion; limited human rights awareness among educators and in teacher training; and deficiencies of HRE materials.

A Chinese Lens on HRE: Approaches and Contents

89

HRE has comparatively short history in the Chinese context, compared to many other countries, and thus presents many problems and challenges, chief among them being a huge gap between policy provisions, responses to political statements, and education practices. The status quo and implementations of HRE in China are shown in the following section.

HRE Implementation in China’s Case HRE implementation in China is closely related to HRE policies and the national endorsements. In China, the state has attempted to introduce HRE through public HRE training, international HRE exchanges, and by developing HRE in education systems at the primary, secondary, and tertiary education levels. The first issue concerning HRE implementation is public HRE training. Research institutions, NGOs, and media are main pathways for promoting HRE training among the public. For instance, the China Society for Human Rights Studies, the Chinese Foundation for Human Rights Development, various university research centres for human rights and HRE, and other similar bodies can be regarded as windows onto HRE in China. In terms of public legal education, the government commissioned white papers to design and implement five-year plans for publicizing and teaching law to all citizens. These actions contribute to HRE in China, and have played an irreplaceable role in popularizing human rights knowledge, raising human rights awareness throughout society, and promoting indirect HRE in China. China has emphasized HRE training for civil servants and governmental employees, as mentioned earlier. HRE has been an important module in the CPC’s cadre education and training, as specified in the 1996-2000 National Plan for Cadre Education and Training. Since 2000, the Central Party School and Party Educational Units at all levels have integrated human rights within curricula, and conducted HRE for Party, government, and judicial officials at all levels. Other HRE training programmes include education for police officers, specialized training among lawyers, etc. The second issue concerns China’s commitment to international human rights conventions, and its cooperation with and exchanges in international HRE programmes. For instance, China has compiled human rights textbooks based on international HRE policies and documents, and has participated in human rights activities through the UN, international organizations, and institutions in the Asia-Pacific region, leading to varied HRE programmes having been undertaken (Xie, 2004). Third, higher education plays an active role in implementing HRE in China. HRE appeared at the university level in the 1990s, and developed quickly throughout the 2000s in mainland China (Shen, 2015). Some college-level law schools and departments in China have offered human rights courses and modules as a part of legal education. Some human rights-related general education courses are also offered at universities for non-law major students; for example, Beijing Normal University offers HRE for postgraduate students majoring in moral education. Since

90

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

2001, some universities (e.g., Shandong University) have set up human rights law majors and programmes. In 2011, China’s MoE authorized the establishment of eight national HRE training bases, as named, which now play leading roles in HRE research and implementation. The state has also promoted training for human rights teachers to facilitate the teaching of human rights in education systems (State Council, 2016). With the promotion of HRE research and practices in higher education, more national human rights law textbooks have been published and are being used in universities to teach human rights law and HRE as subjects, and handbooks have been developed to facilitate HRE training for the public; however, textbooks for public training were insufficient. Zhu (2012) also criticized the lack of a national human rights textbook for basic education. The fourth issue concerning HRE implementation is HRE practices in basic education. As the national action plans expressed, HRE should be interpreted into such subjects as moral education, citizenship education, legal-related studies, and national education in basic education, and in extra-curricular programmes, to equip students with human rights ideas and to foster a culture that respects human rights in schools. Despite HRE not being an independent subject, official textbooks of the HRE carrier subjects directly refer to human rights and related themes. Thus, HRE has been carried out in basic education, in an indirect and embedded manner. However, research on Chinese HRE paid insufficient attention to empirical case studies of school initiatives, such as how different actors perceive and practice HRE in response to the policies and expectations placed on them. HRE has not become an enforceable reality in China, either in school settings or public education; this is particularly true in secondary school education, although HRE is supposed to be carried out in all forms and at all levels. Questions such as school HRE policy-making in response to national statements; ways, strategies, and challenges of promoting HRE; the interplay between the nation-state and bottom-up educators in shaping students’ understandings and actions of human rights; and schools’ human rights environments need to be considered.

Summary Flowers (2004) denoted that HRE, from a governmental body’s perspective, emphasized a harmonizing function that facilitated peace, continuity, and social order. It could be seen that China’s education narratives endorsed a form of pedagogization to deal with the struggles between economic development and the socio-political tasks of education to serve China’s nation-(re)building and cultivation of modern citizenry. This chapter echoes what Tibbitts (2002, 2017) has proposed of the values and awareness model of HRE, suggesting an inclusion of human rights content in existing school subjects and public awareness campaigns. It addresses increasing people’s human rights knowledge, critical thinking, and the ability to analyse policy issues from a human rights perspective. Bajaj (2011) also suggests the HRE for global citizenship, which seeks to provide learners with membership to the inter-

Summary

91

national community through “fostering knowledge and skills related to universal values and standards,” and a commitment to countering injustice. It is rooted in a cosmopolitan ethic that is often related to universal notions of human rights, but also discusses the interplay between global and local forces. Though a vision of the world as a global human community becomes vital to education for global citizenship, national and local traditions continue to be important, and are communicated through citizenship education, to foster modern citizenry in China. Law (2013) proposed a multidimensional and multilevelled framework of citizenship education in China that is “politically and ideologically open and accommodative” (p. 596). It would help adolescents develop multilevel identities and function as active, responsible citizens of a multicultural world. Such citizenship education is in part also nationally-oriented to help the education system cope with the economic and socio-political tasks of education in China’s modern nationbuilding efforts, suggesting that citizenship education is closely related to the needs of a multilevelled polity (Law, 2006). A critical examination of the school efforts to promote HRE and how teachers implement HRE in classrooms could provide a holistic picture of Chinese HRE, which will be explained in the following chapters.

References Bai, G. (2010). Qiantan Zhongguo Gaoxiao de Renquan Jiaoyu [Human rights education in Chinese universities]. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), 9(5), 17–19. Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508. Ban, W. (2009). Pubian Renquan Wenhua de Jianli yu Zhongguo Renquan Jiaoyu de Kaizhan [Development of universal human rights culture and the promotion of human rights education in China]. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), 8(1), 3–9. Bottery, M. (2003). The end of citizenship? The nation state, threats to its legitimacy, and citizenship education in the twenty-first century. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(1), 101–122. Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. (1985). Zhonggong Zhongyang Guanyu Jiaoyu Tizhi Gaige de Jueding [Decisions of the central committee of the communist party of China on reform of China’s educational structure]. Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/ business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_177/200407/2482.html Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. (1994). Zhonggong Zhongyang Guanyu Yinfa Aiguo Zhuyi Jiaoyu Shishi Gangyao de Tongzhi [Notice of the central committee of the communist party of China on issuing the implementation outline on patriotic education]. Retrieved from http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64184/64186/66685/4494186.html Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, & State Council. (1995). Zhonggong Zhongyang Guowuyuan Guanyu Jiasu Kexue Jishu Jinbu de Jueding [Decision of the central committee of the communist party of China and the state council on speeding up the development of science and technology]. Retrieved from http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64184/64186/66686/ 4494297.html Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, & State Council. (2000). Guanyu Shiying Xin Xingshi Jinyibu Jiaqiang he Gaijin Zhongxiaoxue Deyu Gongzuo de Yijian [Several opinions of the general office of the state council on further strengthening and improving moral education in primary and secondary schools under new conditions]. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/ s78/A06/jcys_left/moe_710/s3325/201001/t20100128_81962.html

92

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

Chan, J. (2000). Thick and thin accounts of human rights: Lessons from the Asian values debate. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 58–73). London: Curzon Press. Chen, D. (1919). Shixing Minzhu de Jichu [The foundation of practicing democracy] Selected essays of Chen Duxiu [Chen Duxiu Wenzhang Xuanbian] (Vol. 1, pp 429–438). Beijing: Shenghuo Dushu Xinzhi Joint Publishing Company. Chen, Y. (2010). Gaoxiao Renquan Jiaoyu Zhong Cunzai de Wenti Jiqi Wanshan [Problems in human rights education in China’s universities and the solution]. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), 1, 25–28. Culp, R. (2007). Articulating citizenship: Civic education and student politics in Southeastern China, 1912–1940. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. Deng, X. (1978b). Speech at the National Conference on Education. In Central Committee of Communist Party of China Document Editorial Commission (Ed.), Selected works of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. II, pp. 78–84). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Deng, X. (1982). Opening speech at the twelfth national congress of the communist party of China. National congress of the communist party of China, Beijing. Retrieved from http://cpc.people. com.cn/GB/64162/64168/64565/65448/4429495.html Deng, X. (1989). the overriding need is for stability. In Central Committee of Communist Party of China Document Editorial (Ed.), Selected works of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. III, pp. 183–184). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. Depaepe, M., Herman, F., Surmont, M., Van Gorp, A., & Simon, F. (2008). About pedagogization: From the perspective of the history of education. In P. Smeyers & M. Depaepe (Eds.), Educational Research: the Educationalization of Social Problems (pp. 13–30). Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands. Ding, L., & Wen, W. (2009). Zhongguo Dalu Renquan Jiaoyu Gailan [An overview of human rights education in Mainland China]. Zhongwai Qiyejia [Chinese and Foreign Entrepreneurs], 18, 132–133. Fang, G., & Zhang, L. (2012). Zhongguo Renquan Jiaoyu Riyi Puji de Shinian: 2001–2011 nian [The extensively popularization of human rights education in China within 10 Years: 2001–2011]. Human Rights, 6, 40–44. Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Awakening China: politics, culture, and class in the nationalist revolution. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Flowers, N. (2004). How to define human rights education? A complex answer to a simple question. In V. B. Georgi & M. Seberich (Eds.), International Perspectives in Human Rights Education (Vol. 112, pp. 105–127). Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Foundation Publication. Freeman, M. (2000). Universal Rights and Particular Cultures. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 43–57). London: Curzon Press. Heater, D. B. (2004). A history of education for citizenship. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Kubow, P., Grossman, D., & Ninomiya, A. (2000). Multidimensional citizenship: Educational policy for the 21st Century. In John J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds.), Citizenship for the twenty-first century: An international perspective on education (pp. 115–134). London: Kogan-Page. Law, W. W. (2006). Citizenship, citizenship education, and the state in China in a global age. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 597–628. Law, W. W. (2011). Citizenship and citizenship education in a global age: Politics, policies, and practices in China. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Law, W. W. (2013). Globalization, national identity, and citizenship education: China’s search for modernization and a modern Chinese citizenry. Frontiers of Education in China, 8(4), 596–627. Law, W. W., & Ng, H. M. (2009). Globalization and multileveled citizenship education: A tale of two Chinese cities, Hong Kong and Shanghai. Teachers College Record, 111(3), 851–892. Lee, W. O., Grossman, D. L., Kennedy, K. J., & Fairbrother, G. P. (2004). Citizenship education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and issues. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Comparative Education Research Centre.

Summary

93

Li, B. (2005a). Renquan Faxue [Human rights law]. Beijing: Beijing Higher Education Press. Li, B. (2005b). Renquan Jiaoyu Shouce [Manual on human rights education]. Beijing: Joint Publishing Company Limited. Li, P. (2009). Woguo Faguan de Renquan Jiaoyu Chuyi [Human rights education for judges in China]. Law Science, 1, 109–111. Liu, H. (2004). Human Rights Education as Major Basis for Realizing Human Rights. Paper presented at the Renquan Ruxian yu Renquan Fazhi Baozhang Lilun Yantaohui [Theoretical seminar of human right written in the constitution and legal protection of human rights], Beijing. Liu, S. (2013). Zhongguo Gaoxiao Renquan Jiaoyu de Huimou yu Zhanwang: Jianlun Renquan Jiaoyu dui Renquan Fazhan Huanjing de Jichuxing Zuoyong [A retrospective and prospective look at human rights education in Chinese universities and colleges: A simultaneous discussion of the basic effects of human rights education on the human rights development environment]. Human Rights, 5, 30–32. Liu, X. (2013). Gaoxiao Renquan Jiaoyu he Peixun Moshi de Xinchangshi [New Endeavors of University human rights education and its training mode]. Zhongguo Renquan Pinglun [China Human Rights Review], 2(1), 21–24. Meyer, J. W., Bromley, P., & Ramirez, F. O. (2010). Human rights in social science textbooks: Cross-national analyses, 1970–2008. Sociology of Education, 83(2), 111–134. Ministry of Education. (1950). Zhongxue Zanxing Jiaoxue Jihua (Cao’an) [Draft temporary secondary school teaching plan]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1957). Guanyu Zhongxue Shifan Xuexiao Shezhi Zhengzhi Ke de Tongzhi [Circular concerning the establishment of political subject in secondary schools and normal (teacher training) colleges]. In Curriculum and Teaching Materials Research Institute (Ed.), 20 Shiji Zhongguo Zhongxue Kecheng Biaozhun Jiaoxue Dagang Huibian: Sixiang Zhengzhi Juan [Collections of curriculum standards and teaching guidelines of primary and secondary schools in the twentieth century: Ideological and political education] (pp. 198–202). Beijing: People’s Education Press. Ministry of Education. (1978). Quanrizhi Shinianzhi Zhongxiaoxue Zanxing Jiaoxue Jihua (Cao’an) [Draft temporary teaching plan for primary and secondary education]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1980). Guanyu Yinfa Gaijin he Zengqiang Zhongxue Zhengzhi Ke de Yijian de Tongzhi [Notice of the ministry of education on improving and strengthening political courses in secondary schools]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1988). Zhongxue Sixiang Zhengzhi Ke Geke Shiyan Jiaoxue Dagang [Syllabus for curriculum reform of thought and politics in secondary schools]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1991a). Guanyu Zai Zhong Xiao Xue Jinyibu Kaizhan Aiguo Zhuyi Jiaoyu Huodong De Tongzhi [Circular concerning further implementation of patriotic education activities in primary and secondary schools]. People’s Education. Ministry of Education. (1991b). Zhongxiaoxue Jiaqiang Zhongguo Jindai Xiandai Shi ji Guoqing Jiaoyu de Zongti Gangyao [Overall outline on the strengthening in primary and secondary schools near modern Chinese history, modern Chinese history, and education in China’s national conditions and development]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1992). Zhongxue Sixiang Zhengzhi Jiaoxue Dagang (Shixing) [Syllabus of thought and politics for secondary schools (for trial implementation)]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (1998). Mianxiang 21 Shiji Jiaoyu Zhenxing Xingdong Jihua [Action scheme for invigorating education towards the 21st century]. Retrieved from http://ie.chinaembassy.org/ eng/whjy/t112959.htm Ministry of Education. (2003). Quanrizhi Jiunian Zhi Yiwu Jiaoyu Pinde Yu Shehui Kecheng Biaozhun [Curriculum standard for character and society in compulsory education]. Beijing: Ministry of Education.

94

5 Curriculum and HRE in China: Evolving Themes and Trends

Ministry of Education. (2010). Guojia Zhongchangqi Jiaoyu Gaige he Fazhan Guihua Gangyao (2010–2020) [Outline of state medium and long term program on education reform and development through 2010–2020]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2017). Jiaoyubu Bangongting Guanyu 2017 nian Yiwu Jiaoyu Daode yu Fazhi, Yuwen, Lishi he Xiaoxue Kexue Jiaoxue Yongshu Youguan Shixiang de Tongzhi [Notice of the general office of the ministry of education on matters concerning the application of textbooks of morality and the rule of law, Chinese language, history, and science in basic education]. Beijing: Ministry of Education. National People’s Congress. (1986). Compulsory education law of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the fourth session of the sixth National People’s Congress on April 12, 1986. National People’s Congress. (1995). Education law of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the third meeting of the standing committee of the eighth National People’s Congress on March 18, 1995. National People’s Congress. (1999). Amendment to the constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the second session of the ninth National People’s Congress on March 15, 1999. Organization Department of the CPC, Publicity Department of the CPC, Ministry of Justice of the PRC, & Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. (2016). Guanyu Wanshan Guojia Gongzuo Renyuan Xuefa Yongfa Zhidu de Yijian [The opinions on improving the system of study and use of the law of state functionaries]. Beijing. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: Theoretical debates and young people’s experiences. Educational Review, 55(3), 243–254. Peng, Z. Y. (2012). Shaoshu Minzhu Diqu Gaoxiao Renquan Jiaoyu Yanjiu [A study of human rights education in the universities of the minority areas]. Journal of Inner Mongolia Finance and Economics College (Comprehensive Edition), 10(5), 19–24. Qi, Y. (2003). Renquan yu Fazhi [Human rights and the rule of law]. Jinan: Shandong People’s Publishing House. Qi, Y. (2007). Lun Renquan Jiaoyu de Gongneng [On the function of human rights education]. Renquan [Human Rights], 1, 51–53. Qiu, C. (2009). Renquan Jiaoyu Naru Zhongxiaoxue Yiwu Jiaoyu Tixi Tanlun [Discussion on the integration of human rights education into compulsory education in China]. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), 8(5), 3–7. Qu, X. (2010). Renquan Xuyao Xinyang: Dui Renquan Jiaoyu de Yidian Sikao [Belief in human rights: Some thinkings about human rights education]. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), 9(1), 19–24. Shen, T. (2015). The development of human rights education in China: Characteristics, problems and sustainability. Asian Education and Development Studies, 4(3), 343–356. Shen, Y. (2006). Shentou Renquan Jiaoyu Linian Yindao Xuesheng Xuehui Zuoren: Tan Jichu Jiaoyu zhong de Renquan Jiaoyu [Human rights education into basic education: Integrating human rights education into school and guiding students to learn to be humans]. Journal of Sichuan Institution of Education, 22(8), 8–9. State Council. (1993). The outline of education reform and development in China. Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2009). National human rights action plan of China (2009–2010). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2011). The socialist system of laws with Chinese characteristics [Zhongguo Tese Shehui Zhuyi Falv Tixi]. Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2012). National human rights action plan of China (2012–2015). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2016). National human rights action plan of China (2016–2020). Beijing: State Council. Sun, S. (2009). Zhongguo Daxue de Renquanfa Jiaoxue: Xianzhuang yu Zhanwang [Human rights teaching at Chinese university: Problems and prospects]. Beijing: Science Press.

Summary

95

Svensson, M. (2002). Debating human rights in China: A conceptual and political history. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Tibbitts, F. (2002). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 159–171. Tibbitts, F. (2017). Evolution of Human Rights Education Models. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Human rights education: Theory, research, Praxis (pp. 69–95). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Walzer, M. (2018). Foreword. In Seth D. Kaplan (Ed.), Human rights in thick and thin societies: Universality without uniformity (pp. xv–xvi). Cambridge University Press. Wang, K. (2008). Shilun Renquan Jiaoyu de Zhongyaoxing ji Zuoyong [On the importance and role of human rights education]. Human Rights, 6, 20–23. Wang, S. (2006). Dazhong Chuanmei yu Renquan Jiaoyu [Mass media and human rights education]. Xuehai, 2006(5), 52–59. Wen, W., & Liu, X. (2009). Renquan Jiaoyu de Jiazhi Fenxi [Value analysis of human rights education]. Legal System and Society, 31, 304. Xia, Y. (2013). Analysis and suggestions for improvement of human rights education in China. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Science and Social Research, Beijing. Xie, B. (2004). Statement by Counsellor Bohua Xie on human rights education (agenda item 105 b) at GA 59th session. Retrieved from http://www.china-un.org/eng/chinaandun/socialhr/rqwt/ t174247.htm Xu, X., & Qi, Y. (2008). Renquan Fa Yuanli [The principle of human rights law]. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press. Yan, N. (2009). Jiang Renquan Jiaoyu Rongru Zhongxue Deyu Kecheng Zhizhong [Integrating HRE into secondary school moral education]. Educational Science Research, 9, 73–75. Yang, S. (2016). Human rights education in China: motivations and difficulties. In Asia Pacific Human Rights Information. Center (Ed.), Human rights education in Asia Pacific. (Vol. 7). Osaka: Asia Pacific Human Rights Information Center. Zhan, W. (2009). Renquan yu Jiaoyu [Human rights and education]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Zhao, M., & Wang, H. (2007). Lun Renquan Jiaoyu zai Nongcun Jiaoyu Gaige zhong de Jiazhi yu Celue [On the importance and strategy of human rights education in rural education reform]. Journal of Jiangxi Educational Research, 1, 79–81. Zhao, Y. (2009). Renquan Jiaoyu yu Renquan Yishi [Human rights education and human rights awareness]. Journal of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 3, 71–73. Zhao, Y., Qiu, W., Ni, R., Yang, W., & Chen, Q. (2008). Why not the best schools? The China report. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press. Zhao, Z. (2014). Pedagogisation of nation identity through textbook narratives in China: 1902–1948. Citizenship Studies, 18(1), 99–112. Zhu, L. (2012). Questions on developing college level education on human rights: Concerning the implementation of the national human rights action plan of China. Human Rights, 5, 36–39.

Chapter 6

School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

Having introduced the debating views and discourse on human rights and HRE in both general and Chinese perspectives, this chapter turns to the school context to describe the HRE practices for this book’s findings. This chapter shows how the case school was involved in the discourse on HRE, helping supplementing the general picture of Chinese HRE. It explains the expectations from the central authorities on schools to carry out HRE, to enhance students’ understanding and awareness of human rights, and to foster an human rights friendly school culture. This chapter suggests that the school has integrated human rights principles within three major, related components of schooling—school governance and management, curricula and activities, as well as the building of a friendly and welcoming school culture— all of which shape the embedded HRE. It provides a policy context to show how the school uses varied strategies to promote the embedded HRE, and takes active roles in enacting and tailoring those responsibilities to its conditions and needs. To that end, this chapter first introduces the policy provisions on HRE in China, to unpack the expectations on schools to implement HRE. It describes a general framework of school’s responsibilities, and identifies the main scope and content of HRE. Next, it presents the ways and strategies of using the school context to promote HRE that exercise responsibilities placed on it while reflecting local characteristics; it also highlights how the school acts as an HRE provider to interpret and tailor those expectations to its conditions. This chapter illuminates the approaches of embedded HRE, to link the findings in Chaps. 7 and 8, to show how the school members have been included in the promotion of HRE in China’s school settings.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_6

97

98

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

Expectations of Promoting HRE in Chinese Schools Despite there being no independent, specific HRE subject in school curricula in China, the state explicitly deals with HRE by setting a general framework requiring schools at all levels to promote HRE, according to its national action plans. In general, two major concerns account for the national expectations of promoting human rights and HRE in schools. Whereas, it did not provide operational regulations or integrated plans for implementing HRE in school settings. The first concern is connected with the strengthening of respects for and protection of Children’s rights in the day-to-day school life. The state mandates primary and secondary schools to direct education to protecting students’ equal rights, including the rights to “life, survival and development, protection, and participation” in school (State Council, 2009, 2011, 2012), rights of the “person and property,” and other lawful rights and interests that are not infringed (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 1991; State Council, 1995). The state specifically asks schools to protect girls’ rights, and to eliminate discrimination against girls in schooling (National People’s Congress, 1995; State Council, 2009, 2012). Ensuring the right to education, particularly the free and compulsory education, for all students, has been given high priority in China’s laws, much as does the UDHR. It stresses that “all citizens enjoy an equal right to education according to law, regardless of ethnic status, race, sex, and religious belief” (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 2015). Therefore, the state expects schools to provide students equal opportunities to receive compulsory education, in line with the purpose of “guaranteeing the right to education of all school age students” and “promoting the quality of the people and the whole nation” (Ministry of Education, 1996, 2004, 2010; Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 2006). Equal educational opportunities to students with special needs, including disabled, impoverished, and migrant children, have been also emphasized in the national policies (Ministry of Education, 2010). Schools are thus required to build barrier free campus; implement financial aid policies for needy students; and ensure children of migrant workers having equal access to compulsory education and senior middle school entrance examinations in the cities in which they live (State Council, 2011). All the expectations help promote the quality oriented education in an all round way (Ministry of Education, 1996) that facilitates students’ full development of personality. In particular, schools are required to strengthen students’ whole person development by protecting their “health, education, legal protection, and environment,” (State Council, 2001, 2011). This includes promoting medical and health service, strengthening campus safety, protecting students’ right to leisure and entertainment, and creating a welcoming environment and providing equal opportunities for students to participate in school affairs, in line with their characteristics and needs, etc. To strengthen the safety and security of children, the central authority asks schools to ensure fair assessment for all students, and allow complaints of harassment or discrimination, or if students’ rights to safety or property are infringed upon by their peers, the school, or its teachers (National People’s Congress, 1995).

Expectations of Promoting HRE in Chinese Schools

99

Furthermore, the national policies reiterate the improvement of grassroots democracy in the school contexts. For instance, schools should ensure school members’ right to participate in the democratic management of school through Congresses of Teachers, Staff, and Workers and the right to “criticize, complain of, and accuse public institutions in democratic supervising” (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 1993). Schools are thus expected to provide opportunities for teachers to “put forward opinions and suggestions regarding education, teaching, school management and the work of education administration institutions” (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 1993). Especially, the state requires schools to provide opportunities for its members to participate in school management, to enhance their awareness of democracy, rule of law, and human rights in experiencing an “equal and democratic” relationship (State Council, 2009). A second concern relates to carrying out HRE within school education. The national action plans outline how schools are to carry out HRE to publicize knowledge of the law and human rights and enhance human rights awareness among students (State Council, 2009, 2012, 2016). Despite the fact that there has been no specific HRE subject, HRE has been developed in an embedded and integrated way to incorporate HRE into exiting subjects and/or cross-cutting themes in schooling. Specially, schools are required to integrate human rights content into existing subjects, mainly including moral education and citizenship education, legal related studies, national education, as key carrier subjects of HRE. Through the embedded HRE, students are socialized into such human rights ideas as democracy, the rule of law, freedom, equality, fairness and justice, citizens’ rights, as well as a sense of collectivism and the nation/society, closely followed the national action plans (State Council, 2009), Chap. 4, para 2). The state specifies that the promotion of human rights in all aspects should consider China’s conditions and needs, giving priority to the right to subsistence and development, as essential to ensuring individuals live with dignity (State Council, 2009, 2012, 2016). The balanced development of individual and collective rights has also been included in HRE, according to the state’s action plans, underpinning China’s discourse on human rights, as shown in Chaps. 3–5. Thus, schools should equip students with the awareness that the “individual should not infringe upon collective interest and others’ rights and freedoms in exercising rights,” as codified in the Constitution (National People’s Congress, 2004). To meet the political aim of education, the state also expects schools to conduct ad hoc political education activities, such as the study of national code of ethic building, the harmonious society and the scientific outlook on development, and education in ethnic solidarity etc., to strengthen students’ sense of the nation-state and recall the deeply-held community values. Meanwhile, the state policies hold that schools should carry out “human rights promotional activities” as a key means of promoting HRE (State Council, 2012); however, they do not detail what such human rights promotional activities should be conducted, nor how. In addition, the state expects schools to promote “school management by law and democratic administration” as a major pathway for HRE (State Council, 2009, 2012). A democratic, equal, and interactive relationship between teachers and

100

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

students has been reiterated in the school governance, and school members are encouraged to participate in the democratic management in school contexts (Ministry of Education, 2004; State Council, 2009). Schools need to develop a sound relationship between teachers and students wherein students respect teachers and teachers cherish students, to foster a fine environment for “independent thinking, exploration, and innovation” (Ministry of Education, 2010). In particular, the state asks schools to protect students’ safety and security in fullest extent (State Council, 2011), and to conduct safety education to raise students’ sense of security and abilities for selfprotection from violations, which has been recognized as children’s right to survival and development in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In the school context, a friendly education environment that honours and protect human rights is considered as favourable for students’ healthy growth. Such an environment should feature “democracy, civility, harmony, equality, and safety” to facilitate students’ full personality development (State Council, 2011), similar to the international programme of building human rights friendly schools (Amnesty International, 2012). Though the national and local government play a leading role in defining the promotion of HRE (the intended HRE) in school settings, decision-making power for implementing HRE has been decentralized, level by level, in terms of goal-making and content-selection, as reflected in school initiatives to promote HRE in its conditions. In this respect, the school is considered as an important agent in interpreting HRE expectations in the school’s context, and acts as HRE provider to enforce policy provisions, by embedded HRE within four major, related components of schooling: (a) school management; (b) school curricula; (c) activities; and, (d) a school culture that is favourable for the respect and protection of children’s rights. Each component complements the others, and reveals the contents of HRE and through what strategies HRE has been interpreted and implemented in the school, in response to external expectations. This study examines how different actors—school, teachers, and students—has been involved in the promotion of HRE in China’s school settings in this chapter, Chaps. 7 and 8. To investigate the role of school in implementing HRE, this chapter intends to answer the questions of what are the contents of HRE in Chinese schools, and in what ways and through what strategies do schools promote HRE?

Making the Governance Structures Democratic and Participatory Although the national action plans require “school management by law and democratic administration” as a key pathway for HRE, schools in China are managed and controlled by education authorities and government at different levels in given areas. In extending schools’ decision-making power in certain areas, the central authorities have given them autonomy to insulate themselves from external control. In general,

Making the Governance Structures Democratic and Participatory

101

the school used three major strategies to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency in the school’s planning, process and policy, including safeguarding the right to education; developing power distribution in school management; and granting teachers autonomy in conducting teaching and educational activities. It reflect how school members could have a role in the way the school is managed, including school values, process, policies, leadership, and mechanisms for accountability.

Safeguarding the Right to Education The case school sees the right to education as a basic human right needed to protect students’ rights and needs comprehensively. As explained by one mid-level school leader (L01), the school set up “a new attached secondary school campus” to ensure the growing number of children of new migrants had the same opportunities as every other school-aged child living in the school district to access nine-year free and compulsory education. According to the interviewees (e.g., L03, L04; T01, T03, T04), the school endorses the right to education as a basic principle for management and school culture to protect students’ fundamental rights. In 2011, the school stressed, its Twelfth Five-Year Plan for School Development, comprehensively promoting quality-oriented education to cultivate well-educated, self-disciplined citizens and the development of students’ full human and academic development, which is an important aim of the school’s policy on safeguarding the equal right to education for all students. In accordance with its development plan, the case school has developed a modern school management system to safeguard students’ rights to education, in three ways. The first way involves providing “equal access to, process, and outcomes” to education to cultivate both students’ whole person development and individualized development, and to facilitate their life-long learning, according to the interviewed respondents (L01 and T01). Thus the school developed school regulations to protect students’ rights and interests, including ensuring their “safety, right to happiness, autonomy and participation,” according to its development plan. As explained of the interviewed student affairs office staff members (L02 and L05), the school builds specific organizations to ensure policy implementation, such as the student development support centre, which provides school support for “resources for students’ learning and activities; supervision of educating talent students; opportunities for students to participate in community activities, etc.,” all of which serves students’ full human and academic development. The second way involves granting teachers freedom and autonomy in conducting teaching and educational activities. According to L04, the school leaves “enough space” for teachers to deliver HRE carrier subjects, and encouraged them to “exchange” with teachers from other representative schools to discuss contents and pedagogies for teaching these HRE carrier subjects, and to communicate skills to manage the class and students, based on teaching conditions and students’ needs.

102

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

The third concern involves developing an inclusive and friendly school environment with a transparent culture. The school’s plan intends to protect its members’ social security and welfare, and promotes their pursuit of happiness in education. For instance, some interviewed teachers (e.g., T01, T02, T07) noted members of the school community enjoyed good social welfare, and had an adequate living standard to ensure their health, well-being, and social security. In addition, the school ensures transparent education resource management, including “physical, cultural, and financial resources and personnel management,” assisting in developing a transparent and fair culture in its management, as stated in its twelfth five-year plan of development.

Developing Power Distribution in School Governance The school’s management features strong coordination and well-defined rights and responsibilities for external and internal actors. It installed School Council and governance apparatuses as mechanisms for cooperation between the local government, educational authorities, enterprises, NGOs, and the school, and to join in school governance and operations, thus promoting shared and distributed leadership. In details, the school council and governance apparatuses involve sharing decisionmaking power with external and internal actors, mainly in areas of “school operation, cultivation of students, resource allocation, and personnel management,” according to the school document. The board of directors include the school principal and party secretary; teacher, staff, and parent representatives; local government servants (i.e., staff from local Education Bureau, Finance Bureau, Development and Reform Bureau directors, and representatives of the People’s Congresses of Shenzhen); representatives of industry organizations (of Guangdong New Way Co., Ltd and Huang-gang Industry Co., Ltd) and social institutions (e.g., the Shenzhen Charity organization). While cooperative planning is done by all members of the management team, each member has his or her own responsibility to supervise how school management works. L01 explained that power in school management is dispersed to different actors in certain areas, which is helpful for developing school management by law that features cooperation, consultation, and participation in proposal-making, decision-making, and implementation. The school council and board of directors help promote the school’s independence from the state and the delegation of power to lower units, which facilitates sharing school management power with more actors, rather than the traditional leadership of school principal and school secretary. For instance, unlike other government-funded public schools in Shenzhen, the case school receives both financial support from the government and donations from private enterprises—Guangdong New Way Co., Ltd invested one hundred million RMB in the school to involve external actors to participate in school management, expressed by L07, staff of the district educational institution. The shared and distributed leadership and responsibility assist in reforming its school management and improving education quality.

Making the Governance Structures Democratic and Participatory

103

Second, the school used its Congress of Teachers, Staff, and Workers to exercise autonomy in its planning and process. According to school leaders (P01 and L04), the institution holds regular meeting each semester, “framing school policies and procedures” to manage school works, “discussing problems,” and “accepting suggestions.” The school has provided space for staff to raise issues and complaints regarding school policies in a constructive way; as L05 expressed, The congress meeting offers staff the opportunity to exchange views with and give feedback on school policies and management regarding all aspects of school life. School leaders and staff negotiate and reach consensus on issues that are brought up with school members.

In addition, the school management system involves the School Trade Union and Parental Involvement Committee to distribute power to staff and parents, and involve diverse actors in managing such school affairs as “selecting teaching materials,” “planning for extra-curricular activities” in and outside school, and “evaluating teaching performance” for improving the quality of education, according to observed school posters. L03 expressed that the school encourages parents to “participate in,” “evaluate” and “make new plans” for their participation in school affairs, school decision-making, and management and educational activities. Some (P01, L04) noted that they were proud of the autonomy and independence found in certain areas in their school, although the state still controlled such areas as “the dissemination of sociopolitical values of the state and CPC” and political aim of education. As the respondent P01 noted, The school has transformed its management by developing autonomy and independence in management and operation. Yet it has to maintain the political bottom line in education.

Granting Staff Autonomy in Managing School Activities Though the educational laws stated that teachers are managed and supervised by local educational authorities in terms of “personnel management, teacher training, and performance evaluation” (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 1993), the school grants teachers autonomy in managing teaching and educational activities, allowing them to make their own decisions considering “teaching, research, and class management,” and respects individual differences in teaching process, as the school development plan noted. According to the plan, teachers has decisionmaking power in such areas as “selecting contents, materials, and pedagogies” for differentiated educational activities in teaching HRE carrier subjects; “deciding ways of and strategies for” how to conduct teaching and activities; and “teachers’ selfimprovement”. As the interviewed teachers (e.g., T01, T03, T04, T09) explained, they have lateral autonomy in managing teaching and educational practices, without interventions from the school and external actors. In addition, the school could act upon its own initiatives in areas directed by educational authorities. For instance, despite the local government requiring schools to conduct a censoring project (i.e., censoring disseminated messages, publications,

104

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

and video products, particularly those passed through new media, as well as students’ manners and behaviours) to supervise voices and perspectives presented in those publications, and a cleaning project (i.e., cleaning the on campus network and school surroundings) to ensure the safe and sound environment on campus and in its surroundings (Education Bureau of Futian District of Shenzhen Municipality, 2011); the school encouraged teachers to “weaken” centralized concerns about ideology and political education, and concentrate on students’ “academic achievements,” according to L03. Teachers therefore depoliticized political issues by addressing more concerns about social issues and daily life, to develop students’ potential (T03 and T04). In particular, the school afforded its CYL staff, flexibility in doing their work on campus. Though the major role of CYL in secondary schools is to deliver ideological and political education to students, its staff have the flexibility to decide the form and content of that education. According to L02 and L05, the work organized by the CYL at school was not explicitly politics-related; the school empowered them to provide services for students’ individual development, activity guidance and support, and free career information and encouragement. For instance, they encouraged student to participate in the community service, i.e., volunteering activities and social services, in and outside the school, to promote student engagement in communities and enable students to identify their rights and responsibilities as citizens.

Teaching Human Rights Through Key Carrier Subjects Three major ways have been used to teach human rights through school subjects and activities. To begin with, the school framed and reorganized human rights themes and topics in national, local, and school curricula, within which human rights contents were explicitly taught to students. As the interviewed teachers (e.g., T01, T04, T07) expressed, despite there being no specific HRE subject in secondary schools, human rights are explicitly presented in related courses—moral education, citizenship education, history, legal-related studies, and elective courses in school-based curricula, as stated in the proposed aims and contents of official textbooks and curriculum guidelines. These curricula are major carrier subjects for teaching human rights to students, as T01 expressed: Human rights themes and contents are explicitly embedded in official moral education textbooks, including human dignity, rule of law, personal rights, economic and cultural rights, social justice and responsibility, and so on. Laws for protecting human rights are also referred into the teaching and educational activities.

Human rights and the underlying principles integrated in those HRE carrier subjects, as shown in Table 6.1, are similar to contents included in international HRE programmes. The local citizenship education curriculum also involves human rights related themes, aiming at enhancing students’ “equal rights to participation,” and their sense of “social justice and responsibility,” T03 and T04 explained.

Teaching Human Rights Through Key Carrier Subjects

105

Table 6.1 Examples of the teaching of human rights within school subjects Teaching content of human rights Carrier subjects Human rights milestones in Chinese and world history (such as the UDHR) Human rights evolved from historical struggles and movements in Chinese history (such as the May fourth movement; the founding of the PRC) The convention on the rights of the child Right to subsistence and development Rights of the person Rights associated with the rule of law Civil and political rights Economic, social, and cultural rights (particularly the right to education and its aim for full development of personality) Children’s rights including the survival and development rights; protection rights; and participation rights Rights of the special groups (women, children, the elderly, and the disabled) Rights of the communities Dignity Equality Non discrimination and inclusion Respect and mutual respect Democracy (citizenship and participation) Freedoms Justice and peace

History History

History; ME ME; CE ME; CE ME; CE; Legal related studies ME; CE ME; CE

ME; CE; LE; Safety education ME; CE ME; CE ME; CE; LE ME; CE; LE ME; CE; LE ME; CE ME; CE ME; CE ME, CE

Note 1. In this book, human rights could be seen as an evolving and complex concept, including values as specified in the UDHR and international human rights laws, and underlying principles and interpretations thereof. Human rights history and struggles for justice and freedoms, and human rights documents are also reflected in curriculum contents 2. Adapted from textbooks, curriculum standards, syllabus, and teaching and learning materials 3. In this table, ME = moral education; CE = citizenship education; LE = life education

The school also encourages teachers to include human rights related topics in other HRE carrier subjects, such as legal-related studies to enhance students’ awareness of the rule of law and democracy (T04), the balanced development of individual rights and interests (T02), and the full development of human personality aiming for promoting the right to education that has codified in both international and Chinese policies (T03), and so on. Although these diverse forms of education were not referred to as HRE, teachers (T01, T03, T04, T07, and T09) understood them as embedded HRE in which human rights are involved in the teaching and activities in classrooms. However, the school had no mechanism for checking and monitoring this teaching, because national and local policies do not provide operational regulations for implementing HRE in school settings.

106

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

In addition, the school engages professional teachers to deliver HRE carrier subjects, particularly citizenship education, which has clearly affected the quality of content selection and teaching methods. As explained by T03, Our school has fixed teachers to deliver citizenship education. In comparison, in some schools, discipline teachers of history, Chinese, mathematics, and/or head teacher are assigned to teach citizenship education; which overburden their task quota.

Therefore, teachers who teach human rights contents in courses and activities constitute a teaching team to deliver the embedded HRE through main carrier subjects. As they all belong to the same Moral Education Teaching and Research Group, they have lateral autonomy to decide teaching contents, pedagogies, and evaluations. As the school does not stipulate a systematic curriculum guide, handbook, or implementation plan for the embedded HRE, teachers can implement it in line with their interpretations of HRE policies, and perceptions of human rights and what to include in HRE, as will be analysed in Chap. 7. Secondly, though tight political control is a persistent feature of education in China, the school has granted teachers freedom and autonomy to teach human rights related themes in key carrier subjects and extra-curricular activities. T01 pointed out that the required moral education subject for 8th grade students explicitly includes teaching units on human rights, including citizenship and citizens’ rights, personal rights and dignity, economic and cultural rights (particularly the right to education), and social justice and responsibility. In history lesson teachers also introduced the teaching unit on the history of human rights development, including the birth of the UDHR, human rights developments in world history, and movements and struggles for independence and freedom in Chinese history, as some of the “various events, actions, and movements” that comprise China’s human rights history (T06). Teachers also guide students to discuss societal and global issues from an human rights perspective in existing courses and activities. For example, in one observed citizenship education lesson for 7th grade students (Course 01), the issue of a Halfway House for young pupils was debated to encourage students to think critically about that societal issue and the roles of different actors responsible for the rights of the child. Citizenship education aims at, as the observed teacher (T05) expressed, “supporting students to think critically and take actions to addressing these issues.” This approach helped students become adept at and critical when considering other situations and subjects from an human rights perspective. However, T04 explained, this approach was somewhat disadvantaged, because Human rights might be given little attention if teachers are not invested in the process, and the exposure may not be deep or sustained for the students.

In teaching HRE carrier subjects, teachers encourage critical thinking and support interaction with students. As T03 expressed, the primary goal of citizenship education is fostering students’ critical thinking, and teachers should encourage students to look for different even contrary views on the same issue in class discussions, rather than “only listen to what teachers talk about.” In an observed citizenship education

Teaching Human Rights Through Key Carrier Subjects

107

lesson (Course 01), for example, students were divided into different groups to discuss the same issue and question from other individuals’ and groups’ viewpoints. In an interview, S20 said, teachers would discuss with students how to conduct activities commemorating specific national days related to democratic movements, like the May Fourth Movement, and students would “have the autonomy to develop the activity in their discussed ways.” Consequently, there have been “changes in power relations,” according to T04, between teachers and students, ensuring respect and responsibility in teaching and learning. Though teachers are still respected authority figures responsible for facilitating learning, they must also respect the learners’ experience and the potential their contributions may benefit the class. Thirdly, the school recognizes an integration of embedded HRE with the aims of citizenship-making through schooling. As T01 argued, the type of citizens expected from HRE, which is concerning on enhancing students’ sense of and abilities for learning and exercising human rights and related issues, is similar to those expected from other HRE programmes. This is reflected in the observed evaluation standard, Rules and Processes for Students’ Comprehensive Quality Evaluation (2015), stipulated by the school, which states the aims of citizenship-making, in terms of students’ comprehensive qualities and performances in receiving secondary education. According to the standard, the school’s evaluation concerns five major aspects of citizenship-making, including morality and civic virtues; learning attitudes and skills; physical education and health; aesthetics; and creativity and participation. In particular, students’ qualities and performance in the aspect of morality and civic virtues mainly focus on morality, civic virtues and values (including dignity, respect, justice, rule of law, and others), participation, sense of law-abiding, self-discipline and faith, critical thinking, etc. However, the evaluation standards also pay great attention to students’ ideological and political awareness and a sense of collectivism, which reflect education’s political task of fostering citizens capable of living in and contributing to a socialist Chinese society.

Conducting Human Rights Promotional Activities The state policy asks schools to carry out “human rights promotional activities” (State Council, 2012), however, it does not provide operational regulations nor integrated plans for practices. Whereas the school conducts varied extra-curricular activities into which HRE has been integrated. Though the term human rights is not named explicitly in the activities, human rights contents are certainly included, helping enhancing students’ knowing about and awareness of human rights. In general, three types of extra-curricular activities favourable for the promotion of HRE have been developed in the school. The first such extra-curricular activity is regular class activity, aiming at enhancing students’ full human and academic development. As T02 explained, the school requires teachers to hold weekly class meeting to deliver school information to students, and to ensure every student equally receives information and encouragement

108

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

on all aspects of their school life. For example, the school asked teachers to use the first class meeting each semester to conduct the liang-hui yi-you (two-learn and onehave) activity, through which students internalize school information and values, as noted in the school’s development plans and the annual work plan of the student affairs office. In details, the liang-hui yi-you activity means: Hui zhen-xi – learning to cherish (the life and the education opportunity), hui gan-en – learning to caring (the family members, peers, others, and society), and you ze-ren – having the responsibility (we owed to the community, society, and state).

The second such extra-curricular activity is guiding student work on campus ally through the CYL and student union, to develop students’ belonging to groups and associations. The CYL, as the reserve force of the CPC, plays a major role in transmitting the state’s and CPC’s messages to students; however, the school granted CYL staff flexibility to conduct extra-curricular activities and student work that included themes related to human rights. For instance, CYL staffs held regular meetings that addressed human rights developments in world history, and struggles and movements for independence and freedom in China. As L02 explained, All these ‘events, movements and struggles’ comprise the history of human rights, through which tutor students into the ideas of independence, self-determination, democracy, freedom, and social justice, etc.

In addition, CYL staffs made good use of key memorial days related to China’s democratic movements, including the May Fourth Youth Day, the National Day, and memorial days for the Mukden Incident and the December 9th Movement, to deliver contents on the right to life, independence, and national self-determination, and to struggle for freedom, among others. L05 expressed that head teachers would discuss with students “what and how” to conduct activities commemorating memorial days, and students had a degree of flexibility to conduct the activities “in the discussed ways.” CYL staffs also made use of student work on campus to encourage students to join in groups and associations, and to learn both values endorsed by the state and CPC, and traditional virtues, which echo some universal human rights ideas. For instance, the school launched education projects entitled legal education month and civilization education month in March, encouraging students to learn about political values, such as the rule of law, democracy, as well as core socialist values and responsibilities. The third such extra-curricular activity involves diverse student interest groups facilitating students’ personal development and participation. The student interest groups are managed by students, feature student-designed rules and regulations, and are directed by the student affairs office and student development support centre. The interviewed staff members (e.g., L02, L04, L05) stated their school supported students organizing student interest groups through which they could organize extracurricular programmes to help each student’s individual development, and to learn about and take actions to address social issues, through in-school and communitybased participation. As L05 explained, the school encouraged students to take the initiative to organize and participate a charity bazaar (yi-mai) in support of needy

Conducting Human Rights Promotional Activities

109

people, through which the school intended to educate students about “the disadvantaged” and to develop their “economic literacy.” The interviewed student S09 also expressed that he came to understand better the “meaning of and responsibility for” being a citizen, such as participation in social service activity of taking care of the elderly in community. However, L05 also expressed that this way is deficient, because Human rights contents in these activities might be given little attention if staffs are not purposive to integrate human rights into these activities and the integration may be irrelevant to students’ learning.

All types of activities were developed to meet the school’s mission statement of “seeking truth and facts to develop full personality; and pursuing good virtues and aesthetic philosophy to live a noble life.” L05 added that varied activities are the most important supplementation to formal curricula to facilitate the quality-oriented education in school, and that every student could access them to enhance his/her “full personality and academic development”. Though these activities are not call HRE, L04 explained that they clearly included human rights related themes and issues, which has been a possible pathway for embedding HRE in Chinese secondary schools. Through HRE carrier subjects and various activities, school educators intended to foster students’ skills, including “respecting differences, problem-solving, and resolving conflicts” (L03, T01); “critiquing and analysing learning materials” (T02); as well as “skills for engagement” in their school and community (L02, L05), while these skills mirror the HRE found in international programmes (Flowers, 2000); however, skills for political engagement were not included (L04).

Creating a School Culture Favourable for HRE The case school is committed to providing a safe, engaging, and supportive education environment, according to its development plan. In general, the physical surroundings, the relationship among school members, and the shared values, patterns of expression, and codes of behaviours held by school members, shape a school culture that facilitates the development of HRE. An important indicator of a friendly and welcoming school culture is closely connected to the physical (including buildings, facilities, decorations, bulletins, and posters that are favourable for the protection of children’s rights) and non-physical (the latent ideas and values underpinning the physical environment) school environment. In particular, the school takes initiatives to create a safe environment. The bulletin board near the school gate displays the school Program of Safety Education Year, showing how the school used students’ day-to-day school life to facilitate a safe school environment, and presents safety and security as a shared responsibility, with the overall aims of ensuring students’ safety and protecting them from any violations. As L03 and L06 noted, safety is of national and local concern, and the school, as a national pilot zone of safety education, has developed a safety management

110

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

and reporting system, and conducted various activities to promote safety education and a safe school environment, such as activities related to national safety education day—the last Monday of March each year, since 1996. The school also develops barrier-free facilitates, enabling disabled students to access all buildings and main communal areas, thus expressing a message of safety and welcome. The school’s development plan also reflect the aim for building a green school, providing students a public place to relax and live better. All building projects addressed environmental characteristics, such as lighting, temperature, humidity, soundproofing, and so on. Posters on campus described school regulations for and efforts at creating a friendly school, such as “ecology and sustainable development,” “pursuing harmonious co-existence between human beings and the nature,” “full human and academic development,” as well as “pursuit of happiness,” etc. According to L03, the school, as an advanced unit of the national green school project, initiated environmental education and life education to facilitate a welcoming and harmonious school environment, and improve students’ understanding the relationship among humans, society, and nature. Such project also intends to develop students’ civic engagements in environmental protection activities, and learning to be responsible and participatory citizens. Another indicator of a friendly school culture concerns the visible (i.e., the overtly shared values and associated behaviours of school members) and invisible school environment (i.e., the school’s rationale for promoting the environment as it did). In general, the school emphasized building a school culture tailor-made to strengthen school members’ cultural identity. Firstly, the school developed a shared values framework to shape its culture. As reflected in its development plan, the school designed its Outline of Culture Development, and set up its mission statement to strengthen students’ full personality development. Specifically, the school built a set of values—Zheng, Ai, Jing, and Gao—to promote a cultural identity shared by its members. As the school document (posted on school walls and corridors) said, Zheng means equality and justice, and attitudes of righteousness and uprightness; Ai means benevolence, caring and cooperation, and a concern on livelihood and social responsibilities; Jing refers to sincere to seeking truth, improving capability and efficiency in school management, and promoting accountability in school community; while Gao refers to taking efforts to ensure the quality of education, to guaranteeing the school’s integrity, and to keeping an exalted ideal as education actors.

The set of values facilitate a school culture where equality and justice, dignity and respect, caring and benevolence, efficiency and quality of education underpin all aspects of school life. As L01 expressed, zheng ensures all staff were involved and participated in school affairs “equally,” regardless of their “education, religion, gender, ethnicity and other conditions.” The interpretation of zheng code explains teachers’ responsibility to ensure students’ rights to access education without discrimination on grounds of individual background and difference, and to create a “fair” school culture, according to L03. The school also used the school network; school magazines such as ming-shi, peng-xiang, and ling-xiu; posters; bulletin boards; and buildings to transmit its mission and value set to students. The values framework facilitates a school culture

Creating a School Culture Favourable for HRE

111

aiming to help students “seeking the truth and facts to develop full personality,” and “pursuing good virtues and aesthetic philosophy to live a noble life,” noted by the observed school posters. In addition, the school conducted ad hoc activities to promote visible school culture. For example, each March, the school would develop civilization education activities, with which every class designing its own blackboard newspaper, imparting knowledge of and moulding attitudes towards civility and harmony for the pursuit of a common good for a life with dignity. The school also developed legal education in every March to urge students to learn legal and political values to enhance students’ understanding of rights, the rule of law, and related concepts, and to strengthen their citizenship identity and sense of responsibility to the school, society, and state. Secondly, different classes developed different class rules and mottos, and codes of conduct to shape the class culture; this echoed throughout the wider school environment. The observations showed that, for example, class five of the 7th grade designed the class motto of “respecting human dignity, keeping self-discipline, and maintaining autonomous learning,” and the class regulation of “education as a responsibility; discipline; civility and environment friendly,” to develop its class culture. The class motto of class five of the 8th grade is “enlightening and developing potential for each student is the basic right to education”; other classes’ mottos include “keeping a thirst of knowledge and seeking for truth” (class four, grade 7), and “pursuit of happiness in education” (class three, grade 7). Related posters and slogans, such as “tolerance,” “equality,” “civility,” “harmonious” and “life,” and traditional values of “caring,” “self-discipline and social commitment,” and “wisdom and virtue” are presented in classrooms, corridors, and other public spaces. According to the head teachers (T01 and T04), there were induction workshops for students to participate in the development and/or revision of class rules and mottos. As T01 expressed, the mottos outlined “democratically agreed upon” statements of values, and detailed students’ “collective responsibilities” for promoting the class culture by working to the best of his/her ability to uphold the class mottos and rules. He noted that, The process of developing class mottos and rules encourages an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation among students and teachers. It outlines how the students could participate in class affairs.

Thirdly, the school encouraged a friendly relationship among school members. As T04 pointed, relationships are based on a sense of mutual respect and understanding; therefore, students and teachers worked together to develop discipline policies, classroom rules, and codes of conduct for students in classrooms. L03 explained that the school had regular meetings, like the Congress of Teachers and Staff, through which staff could raise opinions, suggestions, and complaints, and discuss how to address those issues. Also, the school regularly administered a staff well-being questionnaire to all members and acted on the raised issues, thus helping facilitating a democratic school culture. According to L05, HRE is more “effective” if conducted in an education environment “friendly to human rights related principles on a daily basis.”

112

6 School as HRE Provider: The Agent for Socialization

In addition, the student-student relationship is key to shaping the invisible school environment. Each class developed support groups within which students shared mutual respect and support to deal with issues they may be facing. According to T01, each class had five to six support groups to address the all-round abilities of each student, including their academic achievements, personal skills, and personality, and to support students in developing their learning and skills. All students were encouraged to treat each other with respect, and to value diversity and inclusion. The school developed peer mediation via its student-run, democratically-elected student organizations (i.e., student union and various student interest groups), to encourage respect for differences and deal with conflicts through peer-to-peer disciplinary discussions and cooperation, which played an essential role in shaping the school climate. For example, the student union encouraged students’ voice to be heard at the school board level about involving peers in student disciplinary proceedings.

Summary This chapter has shown that, the school has been acted as an HRE provider, introducing human rights into four key components of schooling, including school management, curriculum, extra-curricular programmes, and school environment, through a dynamic and complex process. From the curriculum and activities conducted at the school, to the way the school was managed, to the environment in which students studied and lived, the case school has taken initiatives to promote HRE in an indirect or embedded way. However, the school has been controlled in certain areas, such as the conduct of censoring project, which challenges teachers’ implementations of HRE, as will be examined in the following chapter focusing on the role played by teachers and their strategies to meet different contexts and needs.

References Amnesty International. (2012). Becoming a human rights friendly school: A guide for schools around the world. Amnesty International Ltd. Education Bureau of Futian District of Shenzhen Municipality. (2011). Futianqu Jiaoyu Gaige he Fazhan Shi’er Wu Guihua [The twelfth five year plan for education reform and development of Futian district]. Education Bureau of Futian District of Shenzhen Municipality. Flowers, N. (2000). The human rights education handbook: Effective practices for learning, action, and change. Human Rights Education Series, Topic Book. The Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Ministry of Education. (1996). Zhonggong Zhongyang Guowuyuan Guanyu Shenhua Jiaoyu Gaige Quanmian Tuijin Suzhi Jiaoyu de Jueding [Central committee of the communist party of China and state council on deepening educational reform and decisions to promote quality education]. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2004). 2003–2007 nian Jiaoyu Zhenxing Xingdong Jihua [Education promotion plan of action (2003–2007)]. Ministry of Education.

References

113

Ministry of Education. (2010). Guojia Zhongchangqi Jiaoyu Gaige he Fazhan Guihua Gangyao (2010–2020) [Outline of state medium and long term program on education reform and development through 2010–2020]. Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2014). Yiwu Jiaoyu Xuexiao Guanli Biaozhun (Shixing) [Standards for school management in compulsory education (for trial implementation)]. Ministry of Education. National People’s Congress. (1995). Education law of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the Third Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People’s Congress on March 18, 1995. Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (1991). Law of the People’s Republic of China on the protection of minors. Adopted at the Twenty-First Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People’s Congress on September 4, 1991. Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (1993). Teachers law of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the Fourth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People’s Congress on October 31, 1993. Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (2006). Compulsory education law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised). Adopted at the Twenty-second Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People’s Congress on June 29, 2006. Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (2015). Education law of the People’s Republic of China (2015 Amendment). Adopted at the Eighteenth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Twelve National People’s Congress on December 27, 2015. State Council. (1995). The progress of human rights in China. Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2001). National program for child development in China (2001–2010). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2009). National human rights action plan of China (2009–2010). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2011). National program for child development in China (2011–2020). http://www. womenofchina.cn/womenofchina/html1/source/1502/997-1.htm State Council. (2012). National human rights action plan of China (2012–2015). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2016). National human rights action plan of China (2016–2020). Beijing: State Council.

Chapter 7

Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School

The construction of HRE in literature could be manifest in the categories of HRE policies, how to locate HRE in schooling, and the role of teachers in integrating HRE into formal curricula, etc. Discussions among bottom-up administrators and educators help to demonstrate the active debates on HRE content and clarify how they integrate HRE policies into the education process. Specifically, the interactions among teachers—translating policies into classroom practices, while helping build and refine HRE content and practices—highlight the intermediate step between macro policies and local adaptations and responses. HRE is elusive, as there are different views about appropriate goals and content, though teaching human rights has been globally recognized in various international documents. This chapter builds on previous research by analysing HRE practices in the secondary school context. It examines the policy discussions, school curricula, and educators’ initiatives in implementing HRE. Specifically, it probes teachers’ responses to HRE policies, in terms of teaching various human rights topics through relevant courses and activities in a Chinese secondary school. Teachers’ practices rely on a working definition of HRE underpinning China’s discourse on HRE, which involves universal and relative interpretations. This chapter argues that teachers play a pivotal role in bridging the intended and implemented HRE in different teaching activities. Though the central government decided HRE goal-making, content-selection, and methodologies, teachers prioritized and emphasized varied interpretations and implementations of HRE in the case school. Teachers’ responses to HRE policies coming from central authorities, and their resultant practices, range from faithful implementation per policy provisions, to positive promotion by adapting policies into contextualized situations, and to unsupportive acceptance by changing some policy requirements.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_7

115

116

7 Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School

The Construction of HRE from Policy to Classroom HRE is a project in process, and has gained increased focus and significance in educational research and practices across nations. The increasing literature base for HRE research can be found in policy discussions, school curricula, and the initiatives of different actors, in particular the bottom-up educators. Firstly, HRE policies are constituted by regulations and guidelines coming from authorities at the international, national, and local levels. A variety of HRE policies within the UN system, particularly the Decade for HRE and the World Program for HRE, have referenced HRE and viewed it as a means to promote awareness about rights and fundamental freedoms in both non-school settings and all educational sectors, as well as being a right in itself. These ideas describe the general definition of HRE most studies have employed as “training, dissemination, and information efforts aimed at the building of a universal culture of human rights through the imparting of knowledge and skills and the moulding of attitudes” (OHCHR 1997, Para. 11). Similar trends can be identified in the development of HRE policies in the AsiaPacific region, such as the Training Workshop on HRE in Northeast Asia (1999) and the Pune Declaration on Education for Human Rights in Asia and the Pacific (1999). It reiterated the importance of HRE and generally endorsed the use of a cultural-values-based human rights framework for HRE in the education systems. The changing definitions describe what HRE should accomplish, from the general teaching of human rights to the need to address issues of gender, ethnicity, and indigenous people, and emphasize the need to integrate human rights into curricula. Schools are therefore suggested as major actors in integrating HRE into related courses and activities. This promotes a general understanding of basic HRE principles and methodologies, and provided a possible framework for cooperation and actions. In a similar vein, China’s HRE policies aim to promote HRE across all educational sectors to develop citizens’ full personality and to foster their knowledge and awareness of human rights and the law. However, HRE in China is still in its early stage, and inadequate initiatives have taken place to integrate HRE into formal education. A beneficial step has been the establishment of its national action plans that answers the what and how questions regarding HRE in both school and non-school settings. HRE, from a governmental body’s perspective, emphasizes a harmonizing function that facilitates peace, continuity, and social order (Flowers, 2004). China’s official policies define and prioritize HRE which could be seen as the intended HRE, and suggest HRE be promoted using an integrated approach to facilitate students’ knowledge and awareness of human rights and the law. As examined in Chaps. 5, 6 and 7, despite not directly having a specific national HRE curriculum, human rights were clearly still subsumed by and embedded within existing forms of education, as key carrier subjects, in schools, to improve students’ knowledge of and mind-set toward basic human rights ideas. Specifically, China’s national action plans expect schools to integrate HRE into school subjects, in particular citizenship education, in which students are expected to learn such ideas as

The Construction of HRE from Policy to Classroom

117

democracy, the rule of law, freedom, equality, equity, and justice, as well as concepts about the nation-state and society. China’s policy framework provides a working definition that describes the goals, content, and structure of HRE in schooling. Secondly, note that while HRE policies point to the need to teach human rights generally, the more recent studies specify the need to address where to locate HRE in schooling. Extant research has explored the theoretical issues surrounding HRE, such as its models (Tibbitts, 2002, 2017), ideological orientations (Bajaj, 2011a), and “didactic, methodological, and curricular” considerations (Lenhart & Savolainen, 2002; Lohrenscheit, 2002) to clarify what HRE is and how it relates to other education approaches (in particular citizenship education) and trends (e.g., globalization and multiculturalism). Although the literature reflects varied perspectives of and approaches to HRE, they are consistent in endorsing the incorporation of human rights into formal curricula. HRE does not always manifest itself in exactly the same way throughout the world. The key component of HRE research is the teaching of human rights; questions of what, how, and where to integrate HRE into curricula are some of the main areas of current debate (Suárez, 2007). A contentious argument in HRE research and practices concerns the relationship between HRE and other related but different topics, in particular citizenship education (including its multilevelled framework). Several researchers have noted that these two terms have different scopes, in terms of their content. For instance, Chap. 2 has examined that citizenship is underpinned by political and legal understandings of the individual, and citizenship education involves “a status, a feeling, and a practice” of belonging to the nation (Osler & Starkey, 2005). Human rights concepts involve inclusive membership in the world, and HRE concerns caring for dignity and justice and building a human rights culture that protects and promotes human rights and fundamental freedoms. HRE and citizenship education are commingled, based on the common goals of promoting participation and protecting students from discrimination, intolerance, or conflicts. In practice HRE could be considered an aspect of or inclusive approach to citizenship education (Fritzsche, 2007; Leung, 2008). These studies address the growing consensus that human rights underpin education for citizenship in a multicultural society, and that education for human rights is fundamental to citizenship and to learning to live together. In this sense, HRE could be seen as a part of global citizenship education; it incorporates global themes for living together, but in practice global themes should be relative to local context. Evidence also shows that HRE practices in Chinese schools have been integrated with relevant subjects, particularly legal education, history, citizenship education, and others (Oud, 2006; Zhang et al., 2000), that relate directly to human rights themes and elements. Curriculum policies and textbooks have directly referred to the teaching and learning of human rights. In other words, HRE is carried out in an embedded way to integrate human rights into related courses and activities, mainly to equip students with human rights concepts, values, and norms. The third pertinent point is the role of teachers in introducing HRE into school curricula and activities. The reviewed studies emphasize how policies and school efforts promote the incorporation of HRE into school curricula. A number of studies

118

7 Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School

have also related HRE framework to cognitive and attitudinal values or skills, actionoriented components, as well as a human rights consciousness (e.g. Bajaj, 2011c; Meintjes, 1997), many of which supplement each other and recognize teachers as mediators of classroom experience in promoting HRE carrier subjects, particularly citizenship education; whereas a Chinese perspective remains under-researched. As discussed in Chap. 2, numerous studies have highlighted four comprehensive conceptualizations of HRE: education about human rights, education through human rights, education for human rights, as well as education as a human right (Lenhart & Savolainen, 2002). Discussions among education professionals help to explain the active debates about the content of HRE and how they integrate human rights into part of the education process (Suárez, 2007). It highlights the intermediate step between the role of education in diffusing legitimate knowledge and educators’ perceptions of the teaching and promotion of HRE, and their responses and adaptions—they might copy, translate, or refine national HRE policies into contextualized educational activities—reflecting on their perceived content and importance of HRE. Teachers’ individual experiences and perceptions motivate their work and influence the teaching of different human rights topics in classrooms. Previous research clarifies the relevance of HRE to teachers’ everyday work— how they understand human rights, select participatory pedagogies, and engage in critical self-examination helps promote HRE in schooling. Osler and Starkey (2010), for instance, suggested that teachers are placed centrally in the researching of HRE, empowering learners to articulate their own rights and to advocate others’ rights. The fundamental role of teachers, as “messengers, models, and mediators” of rights construction, was emphasized in the process of HRE (Bajaj, 2011b). Other studies hold teachers (and curricula and textbooks) in high regard, noting that their advocacy plays an instrumental role for HRE and in promoting respect for human rights (the ultimate goal of HRE) (Flowers, 2000). Therefore, extant research regards teacher education as a main instrumental tool for developing HRE, typically through “teacher knowledge, pedagogical skills and behaviours” that can be applied in classrooms (Osler & Starkey, 2010). The policy discussions have clearly addressed the salience of a multilevelled policy framework for HRE; however, policy instruments, as constructions of HRE in formal education, are under-researched. Studies incorporating theoretical debates have made significant contributions to our understanding of diffusing human rights into formal education, but there is a lack of research on teachers’ own experiences and practices in the process of introducing HRE policies into classrooms within Chinese school settings, in particular after the promulgation of its national action plans on human rights. This chapter seeks to address this issue through an in-depth examination of teachers’ responses to the top-down HRE policies and their bottom-up efforts in the specific Chinese context. The exploration of teachers’ responses and practices provides an opportunity for research that involves contestation and construction of HRE in schooling to fill this gap in literature. To investigate the role of teachers in implementing HRE, in terms of their responses to Chinese HRE policies and practices in school contexts, this chapter intends to address three major interrelated research

The Construction of HRE from Policy to Classroom

119

questions: (1) What are Chinese teachers’ perceptions on human rights and HRE? (2) How do teachers respond to HRE policies in teaching different human rights topics in classrooms? (3) What are the associations between teachers’ perceived and implemented HRE, including the expected and enacted policy and curriculum? Selection of research site and the data collection process, and the coding of interviewed subject teachers have been explained in Chap. 1. Teachers are key figures in facilitating the environment in which students could grow intellectually and socially, as they have authority over the content and how to transmit them to students. Their perceptions and actions affect students’ understandings of civic knowledge and the engagement thereof (Reichert et al., 2020). Bottom-up educators’ efforts fall, organizationally, between the generalized educational policy agendas and the actual instructional patterns to be found in schools. Thus, a critical exploration of the complex intersection between education policy and classroom practice provides insights for HRE research. By referring to multiple discussions, this chapter transects the practices of HRE that take place in the selected school, highlighting the teachers’ responses to HRE policies and their dedication to the incorporation of HRE into formal curricula and contextualized teaching activities. This chapter presents three patterns that reflect how teachers understood HRE, to what extent they agreed with HRE policies, and their deciding strategies in teaching different human rights topics in classrooms. Though HRE is influenced by top-down policies and varied associated supports, the decision-making power for promoting HRE has been decentralized, level by level. Teachers act as key figures in interpreting and implementing HRE policies into contextualized teaching activities.

Faithful Implementation per Policies The first pattern is characterized by teachers’ faithfully abiding to certain HRE policies. In this process, teachers of the sampled school conceptualized embedded HRE as a means to socialize students into the concepts, values, and norms of human rights endorsed by the central authority. One interviewed teacher, T01, noted that though there was no named HRE subject, HRE overlapped existing subjects—particularly citizenship education—that involved human rights content in official textbooks and syllabi. According to him, introducing human rights in citizenship education was necessary to fulfil the goal-setting in and content of the national textbook, curriculum guide, and syllabus. Two interviewed teachers explained this further: In teaching human rights in citizenship education, we do not teach our personally held values, but what the textbook, curriculum guide and syllabus, and educational policies have clearly stated (T07). Despite different terms, the HRE embedded within relevant subjects in Chinese secondary education shared the same themes and content with other cases of HRE programmes, as reflected in school curricula and syllabi (T01).

120

7 Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School

On one hand, teachers taught universal human rights values in relevant courses; for example, in an observed citizenship education lesson, T01 taught students about the constitutional principle of “respecting and safeguarding human rights,” addressing that China’s Constitution and laws legalized and consolidated the status of citizens’ rights and fundamental freedoms. Subsequent observed courses showed that teachers introduced human rights to students closely following the national and local textbooks and syllabi, including teaching units on “personal rights and human dignity,” “economic and cultural rights,” “the right to education,” “social responsibility and justice,” etc. The interviewed teachers (T01, T02 and T07) emphasized the teaching and discussion of personal, economic, and cultural rights; however, as the textbook and syllabus mentioned little about citizens’ civil and political rights, they conducted fewer teaching activities in which students discussed those rights. Despite this, according to T04, teachers also used class cabinet elections to deliver knowledge of democracy and participation among students, and to help students maintain openness to political issues. On another hand, the teaching of human rights correlated to certain interpretations of China’s discourses on human rights. For example, in one class, T07 taught that democracy—an underlying human rights principle the state expected teachers to deliver to students—is relative in Chinese historical and cultural contexts, and that the road to democracy is closely related to such preconditions as a “democratic political system with Chinese characteristics” to limit the power of government and institutions, “national economic power” to improve people’s living standards, and “citizens’ qualities” to exercise their rights and participate in public affairs. HRE views traditional cultures and the law as key means of protecting individual rights and regulating people’s morality and behaviours. In addition, the teaching of embedded HRE is associated with a relative position on human rights ideas that is influenced by economic development. As the interviewed teachers (T01 and T04) expressed, in teaching citizens’ rights in courses, they emphasized that the right to life and development ensures the pursuit of the “common good,” and that individuals could “live a good life with dignity” in Chinese society. This is similar to the state’s human rights doctrine, which states that China “respects and safeguards fundamental rights for its citizens,” among which the right to subsistence and development ranks first, to ensure individuals’ basic living standards allow them to live with dignity. This is, to some extent, influenced by Marxist interpretations of human nature and rights as influenced by objective socio-economic conditions, echoed by Svensson (2000). Meanwhile, the teachers’ teaching of embedded HRE emphasized that individual rights were secondary to collective interests and nation building. In teaching about human rights struggles and movements in Chinese and world history, T06 emphasized the balanced development of individual rights and collective interests, reflecting the state’s policy of cultivating students with a sense of the nation-state and society in HRE. This trend was somewhat influenced by an ideological outlook on the faithful implementation of HRE. For instance, according to L03 and L04, staff intended to introduce human rights issues—in particular struggles and movements for human rights and social justice in China’s history—to students through regular

Faithful Implementation per Policies

121

CYL meetings, thus tutoring students in the ideas, norms, and values of human rights in a manner in keeping with the official discourse. Teachers also used key memorial days related to China’s democratic movements (e.g., the May Fourth Movement), which serves nation-building and individual liberation in China’s history, to introduce content related to the rights to life, democracy, national self-determination, and independence to students. Faithfully implementing varied educational policies in schooling might cause a tension between introducing human rights and promoting political socialization among students. There is no either/or choice in delivering embedded HRE; however, radical relativism might challenge the justification of universal human rights standards, and be used to defend human rights violations, given that the relative universality concept helps to relieve such tension.

Supportive Promotion Adapting Policies The second pattern was characterized by teachers’ supportive promotion of embedded HRE, meaning teachers adapted HRE policies to contextualized school and classroom conditions. Teachers tended to shift the emphasis of HRE from outcomes (international and national policies and negotiations) to the values and awareness underpinning those outcomes. In this process, teachers conceptualized HRE as a means of rallying students to be engaged in various activities and in critical thinking. First, teachers addressed rooted cosmopolitanism, which attached human rights to both local cultural particularities and a global lens in delivering embedded HRE. Closely related, teachers introduced the trend of globalization education and emphasized fostering students’ sense of global citizenship and active participation for living in a multilevelled world. According to T02, embedded HRE included the teaching of global issues related to “ending poverty, ecology, justice and peace,” as well as China’s development and role in developing world peace. At the same time, teachers used the school’s values framework—a set of values including zheng, ai, jing, and gao—to enhance students’ cultural identity in the shared school community, and to cultivate them to be autonomous learners. The meaning of the four values has been explained in Chap. 6. In this process, HRE was considered a lifelong learning process for individual development, as noted by T02. Second, teachers added a focus on public spaces, particularly cyberspace, to encourage students’ critical thinking. Recently, as Law (2011) has claimed, social media has become a “newly emerged power,” encouraging individuals to voice and protect themselves from abuses of power by social institutions. In an observed citizenship education course regarding a “campaign against destroying grass for tress,” T04 introduced how citizens could use cyberspace to question government decisions in a lawful, rational, and temperate manner. He explained that it is important to use the Internet and cyberspace as a tool to supervise and question the decision-making process of governments and social organizations in a rational manner, and to foster students’ critical thinking by obtaining information from multiple resources. In

122

7 Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School

this class, students were directed to discuss how citizens could make good use of cyberspace to make their voices heard at the governmental level, and to make municipal government solve existing problems. T04 and T05 also conceived of cyberspace as a useful means of providing students with a more open and freer arena for discussing and expressing their views on societal issues. They perceived it as helpful for students to engage in the deliberative process of civic participation via cyberspace from a pragmatic (rather than rights-based) approach, and to tutor students with a sense of justice and responsibility. Third, teachers had lateral autonomy to select different pedagogies, rather than traditional teaching methods like instruction and group discussions, to facilitate students’ critical thinking ability and participation. T07 explained that he allocated 10 minutes in citizenship education courses to guiding students to read and express their ideas about social issues and current affairs news items selected by the students. In doing so, he did not express his personally-held values, but supervised students to discuss the pros and cons of a certain social issue, so that students were analysing and critiquing their own personally-held viewpoints and attitudes. Another responding teacher, T03, argued that he respected students’ free expression and provided varied viewpoints on the same issue in class to encourage students to think independently and critically. As T03 explained, he respected and encouraged students to express their viewpoints, even those not advocated by the public, and guided them to think about why there were inconsistences between their ideas and mainstream viewpoints. In addition, teachers used service-learning pedagogy to guide activities in HRE carrier subjects. For instance, L03 guided students to launch a community service of caring for the elderly in the community, allied with the self-governing student interest groups in the sampled school. She added that the activity supplemented the teaching of “citizens’ equal rights and social security” in citizenship education, helped students understand better “the rights of special groups” and related societal issues, and enhanced their responsibility to be “participatory citizens.” According to observations, teachers selected pedagogies by discussing with students about what HRE carrier subjects and related activities to conduct (and how) to involve students’ voices. Such discussions are helpful to promote students’ independent thinking skills and sense of participation in the classroom deliberation process. These efforts enhanced the invisible class climate by revealing what students and teachers commonly appreciated, and encouraged school members to express their ideas freely and participate in class and school affairs.

Unsupportive Acceptance Changing Policies The third pattern was teachers’ unsupportive acceptance of HRE policies, in which they agreed with, but did not support some of the expectations placed on them. Though teachers in the sampled school took initiatives to promote embedded HRE, HRE was still controlled in certain areas. The major tension concerned maintaining the political bottom line for fulfilling the political tasks of education in China

Unsupportive Acceptance Changing Policies

123

(i.e., fostering qualified citizens for China’s socialist modernization). In this process, teachers perceive HRE as a part of the socialization process for making Chinese citizenry through schooling, the same as other school subjects. Some interviewed teachers (e.g., T05 and T07) perceived that they should avoid selecting politically sensitive topics in teaching human rights in HRE carrier subjects, and thus took actions that unsupportively changed some central authority expectations. For instance, T07 stated they would supervise content that did not offend CPC’s leadership and socialist ideology when teaching such topics as the nature of the right to free expression. L02 also expressed that, though freedom of expression is a basic human right codified in China’s Constitution and laws, teachers cannot encourage students to accept ideas and attitudes that are harmful to the national honour and image, or that offend the party leadership and Chinese socialism, in introducing human rights in classrooms. Without the full right to free speech, individuals cannot effectively engage in the deliberative process of political participation; however, “human rights and sovereignty exist side by side,” T07 noted, “[and] every state will integrate its ideology into school education to socialize students by equipping them with the ideas the state intends to transmit to them.” To maintain the political bottom line in teaching human rights in HRE carrier subjects, teachers mainly performed self-censorship when introducing politically sensitive topics, to bridge state-endorsed HRE and the political task of education. As L02 noted, teachers would inspect students to ensure they did not participate in assemblies and political movements, including monitoring students’ behaviours in cyberspace. Despite this self-censoring, teachers could still introduce human rights into courses and activities, but chose to make ideological and political education more down-to-earth. For example, based on the observed bulletin board on campus, the local government required teachers to support the censoring project (i.e., censoring disseminated messages, publications, and video products, particularly those passed through new media, as well as students’ manners and behaviours to supervise voices and perspectives presented in those publications) in school; however, T03 did not, and instead attempted to depoliticize ideological and political education by addressing social issues and daily life and develop students’ potentials and abilities to succeed in school and the community. An interesting finding is that the same teacher might be included in all the three patterns; for example, T07’s perceptions were quoted in all types of responses. It means that there are distinct profiles of teachers’ perceptions and practices of HRE characterized by how teachers’ responses differentiate in teaching different human rights content in classrooms. A second challenge was teachers’ de facto decision-making power in participating in school affairs. T03 and T04 found that, while they had autonomy in teaching and conducting activities promised by different stakeholders, there were still “obstacles” to teachers’ participating in the school’s decision-making process. For example, the local government developed its citizenship education project and designed its bilingual textbook in cooperation with the sampled school; however, as T03 argued, the textbook’s goal-making and content-selection processes did not include the sampled school teachers “who would teach this course” to students, only local educational

124

7 Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School

authorities, external experts, and third-party institutions. In their opinion, they had a degree of flexibility when introducing human rights content into school curricula and activities, in that they could decide the learning materials, ways, and strategies, but had limited opportunities to participate in the deliberative process of goal-making.

Teachers’ Perceptions and Concerns in HRE Practices Underlying current discussions about HRE is evidence that teachers responded not only in terms of how HRE is perceived and practised, but also what and where HRE has emerged in their teaching. When delivering embedded HRE, teachers aimed to tutor students in the concepts, values, and norms of human rights interpreted from different dimensions, and to socialize them to live in a multilevelled society. First, teachers addressed a national focus that conceptualized HRE as a means to transmit human rights ideas that echoed China’s discourse to students, in teaching human rights in classrooms. In this sense, teachers emphasized enhancing students’ collective identities by giving them access to the public sphere at the local, national, and global levels, and making them belong to a Chinese society that included the politicization of school life. It reveals the effects of education as an institution for cultivating well-prepared citizens and forming students’ national cultural identity, in a particular school community. However, teachers found embedded HRE might be challenged by the political tasks of education in China. The unsupportive acceptance pattern revealed that teachers kept away from teaching politically sensitive topics that might offend China’s political bottom line. Secondly, teachers attached embedded HRE with local societal issues in teaching human rights, such as migrant children’s education, and recognized a rooted cosmopolitanism by identifying both cultural-relativization and diversity. The teaching of human rights served to socialize students into human rights ideas by rallying them to participate fully in school life, and thus enhance their sense of belonging to their school and community. In this regard, teachers perceived embedded HRE to be a socialization project for cultivating students to be participatory citizens living in a multilevelled world, and for helping them succeed in the school and community. Teachers also utilized the public space in local communities to develop a sense of social justice and shared responsibility among students. This approach considered local emphases and strategies to remake collective identity, and redefined the teaching of human rights in the multilevelled framework of citizenship education. Thirdly, teachers concentrated on teaching human rights to socialize students to pursue a life of dignity from an individual rather than collective perspective, and to facilitate students’ critical thinking ability and disposition to participation. In particular, as discussed, teachers of the case school made good use of the shared values framework—zheng, ai, jing, and gao—to foster citizens with four-haves (civic literacy; elite dispositions; creativities; and international visions). In this approach, teachers perceived HRE as a means of facilitating each student’s lifelong learning and full human and academic development.

Teachers’ Perceptions and Concerns in HRE Practices

125

The role teachers played in implementing intended HRE into contextualized classroom practices demonstrates that HRE is not imposed from above or exogenous to national realities. China is just beginning to integrate HRE into its formal curriculum, and treating human rights content as a module or cross-cutting theme in secondary education. In this context, teachers viewed the inclusion of HRE as an embedded subject in the formal curriculum as the priority. It supports the values-and-awareness model of HRE practices proposed by Tibbitts (2002, 2017), which advocates the inclusion of human rights into related school subjects and activities to promote individual knowledge and awareness of human rights and critical thinking. However, HRE is practised in an embedded way in formal education; as Tibbitts (2002) argued, for HRE to become a genuine field, we must challenge ourselves to become more “coherent,” to be “unique,” and to “replicate” ourselves.

Summary There is no any either-or choice between the universal and relative positions on human rights ideas; it is necessary to adopt a thick account of human rights to include all these considerations in HRE work, which is, to some extent, a top-down affair that includes different perspectives to depict a complex picture with certain pros and cons. However, the teaching of human rights in embedded HRE must not be regarded as a political buzzword, such as “socialist spiritual civilization.” This recognizes the importance of how to evaluate HRE to move us forward (Suárez, 2007), though evaluation is difficult when there are varied views about what constitutes appropriate HRE aims, content, and approaches. The interactions among discourses, policies, and practices of HRE highlight the diversity of ideas and perceptions, while also promoting reflection and theorization about HRE. HRE practices in Chinese education, to some extent, support the thick account of human rights ideas. However, a thick account does not subscribe to a simply cultural approach that takes culture as the primary factor that grounds and shapes rights. Any culturally relative argument must accept that citizens enjoy basic rights to effectively engage in deliberative processes of political participation. The construction of HRE is particularly critical in discussions about how to implement HRE and how to teach human rights, especially the controversial issues related to Chinese policies, in school in a certain context. Relative interpretations cannot be used by the central authority as leeway to restrict certain rights, using national conditions as a pretext, a practice for which some scholars, such as Svensson (2000), have criticized it. This chapter suggests that teachers are key figures in bridging intended and implemented HRE. It attempts to supplement the general picture of embedded HRE using the example of a Chinese secondary school that shows similar HRE goals and content, but with different content-selection, pedagogies, and learning outcomes. There exists no one best system for HRE; rather, it may be modified and adapted to suit varied contexts. Teachers’ efforts have facilitated the promotion of HRE by emphasizing the teaching of human rights, critical thinking, and participation. However, to fulfil

126

7 Teachers and HRE: Responses and Practices in Chinese School

China’s multiple educational tasks, several challenges have affected the development of HRE in China, the main one being the need to fulfil the political aim of education. The analysis of teachers’ practices of HRE provides a window into the debates in the field and suggests feasible directions for future research. A shift of attention from self-censure to further thinking about the development of human rights justifications, norms, and enforcement mechanisms in different contexts can help in developing the thickness of human rights accounts and the practices of HRE in school settings. HRE is not just about talking about human rights values and concepts; what is more important is teaching students how to live with human rights. Future research could examine how to infuse HRE into all aspects of curricula, and how to apply human rights in daily life, particularly a student lens.

References Bajaj, M. (2011a). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508. Bajaj, M. (2011b). Schooling for social change: The rise and impact of human rights education in India. Continuum. Bajaj, M. (2011c). Teaching to transform, transforming to teach: Exploring the role of teachers in human rights education in India. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 53(2), 207–221. Chan, J. (2000). Thick and thin accounts of human rights: Lessons from the Asian values debate. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 58–73). Curzon Press. Donnelly, J. (1984). Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 6(4), 400–419. Flowers, N. (2000). The human rights education handbook: Effective practices for learning, action, and change. Human Rights Education Series, Topic Book. The Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Flowers, N. (2004). How to define human rights education? A complex answer to a simple question. In V. B. Georgi & M. Seberich (Eds.), International perspectives in human rights education (Vol. 112, pp. 105–127). Bertelsmann Foundation Publication. Fritzsche, K. P. (2007). What do human rights mean for citizenship education. Journal of Social Science Education, 6(2), 40–49. Law, W. W. (2011). Citizenship and citizenship education in a global age: Politics, policies, and practices in China. Peter Lang Publishing. Lenhart, V., & Savolainen, K. (2002). Human rights education as a field of practice and of theoretical reflection. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 145–158. Leung, Y. W. (2008). An “Action-poor” human rights education: A critical review of the development of human rights education in the context of civic education in Hong Kong. Intercultural Education, 19(3), 231–242. Lohrenscheit, C. (2002). International approaches in human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(34), 173–185. Meintjes, G. (1997). Human rights education as empowerment: Reflections on pedagogy. In G. J. Andreopoulos & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights education for the twenty first century (pp. 64–79). University of Pennsylvania Press. OHCHR. (1997). Guidelines for National Plans of Action for Human Rights Education. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Compilation/Pages/ GuidelinesforNationalPlansofActionforHumanRightsEducation(1997).aspx

References

127

Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2010). Teachers and human rights education. Trentham Books. Oud, M. (2006). Creative tensions and the legitimacy of human rights education—a discussion on moral, legal and human rights education in China. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(1), 117–125. Reichert, F., Torney-Purta, J., & Liang, W. (2020). Teachers’ organizational participation: Profiles in 12 countries and correlates in teaching-related practices. Theory & Research in Social Education, 1–31. Suárez, D. (2007). Education professionals and the construction of human rights education. Comparative Education Review, 51(1), 48–70. Svensson, M. (2000). The Chinese Debate on asian values and human rights: Some reflections on relativism, nationalism and orientalism. In M. Jacobsen & O. Bruun (Eds.), Human rights and Asian values: Contesting national identities and cultural representations in Asia (pp. 200–228). Curzon Press. Tibbitts, F. (2002). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 159–171. Tibbitts, F. (2017). Evolution of human rights education models. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Human rights education: Theory, research, praxis (pp. 69–95). University of Pennsylvania Press. Zhang, L., Wang, J., & Wang, M. (2000). China: Legal Education. Human Rights Education in Asian Schools, 3, 41–45. Retrieved from https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/pdf/asia-s-ed/v03/ 06li.pdf

Chapter 8

A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

Extant research (e.g. Bajaj, 2011; Tibbitts, 2002) examined varied theories, models, and ideological orientations of HRE; however, some scholars (e.g. Leung et al., 2014) criticized that human rights taught or learned in schools must be practised and experienced, or else the perceived contradiction may contribute to the failure of HRE programmes. In this respect, human rights should be generally conceived as more relevant to the day-to-day studying and living life in schools. Yet the ways to evaluate HRE practices in the student perspective and their self-in-connection are important indicators for effective HRE practices. The incorporation of HRE in China’s education system elucidates the framework and pathways of HRE being integrated into the regular school life, shown in previous chapters. Teachers’ resultant HRE practices meld closely with their responses to policies and curriculum formulations coming from the central authority, showing different priorities and concerns. However, how Chinese students respond to the HRE teaching and learning is still under-researched. This chapter seeks to reveal how students perceive and interpret HRE, as the student self-conception is an important feature of the evaluation of HRE practice in school settings. It mainly concerns on how human rights underpin daily process of school life, particularly the extent to which students perceive the school community is human rights friendly, and their perceptions on human rights principles and levels of participation, as the results of effective HRE. This chapter delineates students’ positive self-reported attitudes towards categories such as school environment favourable for the respect and protection of human rights, opportunity for learning and participation, mechanisms of the protection of and appealing for rights among school members, etc.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_8

129

130

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

The Evaluation of HRE Practices School is conceived as the product of communities that organized education to “reproduce values and institutions considered central to identity and progress” (Mc Ginn, 1996, 350). The evaluation of HRE practices investigates altogether the outcomes on the learners, educators, learning environments, as well as communities and institutions. In the process, self-understandings become a key indicator in defining the HRE goals, as Jennings (1994) noted, HRE practices are designed to involve individuals in experiences that affect self-understandings and ultimately lead them to identify that they are defined in part as a connection with the oppressed. Evaluations, involving the values learned, pedagogies used, the level of participation, as well as the student self-conception, are key indicators to critically rethink about the interplay between HRE theories and implementations. Bajaj (2004) depicted the impacts of HRE courses carried in the Dominican Republic on students’ responses. She found that four categories in students’ responses, including “knowledge of human rights issues; perceptions of personal abilities and preferences; commitment to non-violent conflict resolution; and willingness to intervene in situations of abuse and solidarity with victims,” were increased among the experimental group who participated in the HRE courses in comparison to their responses prior to the course and compared with the control group (p. 28). It seems that the instruction in human rights created a special status among HRE by enhancing students’ knowledge of human rights, attitudes, and behaviour. In this respect, a student lens should be central in the evaluation of HRE practices. However, HRE should be viewed as “a diverse prism rather than a one-size-fits-all approach” (Bajaj, 2004, 33) or “a positive progression towards the establishing of a world education system” (Lenhart and Savolainen, 2002, 145). Previous studies highlighted four major comprehensive conceptualizations of HRE: education about human rights; education through human rights; education for human rights, as well as education as a human right, equipping students with knowledge of and mindset towards human rights, and fostering individual empowerment and participation. HRE in school, particularly the experience and practice of human rights in all areas of school life, could empower children to enjoy and exercise their rights and to respect and uphold the rights of others (Covell et al., 2010). In this sense, the examination of the student self-conception on human rights principles and the school human rights climate could be considered as a critical tool for effective HRE. Several studies suggested that the school environment in which all school members shared human rights values and joint for actions is considered central of the school human rights climate. Correspondingly, varied instruments have been developed for examining the school human rights climate from an empirical perspective, as shown in Chap. 2. For example, Amnesty International (2012) described ten principles a human rights friendly school should have. The school embraces human rights as core operating and organizing principles, such as democratic governance, equal access to education, participation in school life, the integration of human rights into school subjects, and respectful language and behaviour, etc.

The Evaluation of HRE Practices

131

Likewise, Fong (2004) developed the Indicators and Evaluative Checklists for Human Rights Friendly Environment in Schools to query the ethos in Taiwanese schools from ten major areas, such as secure school environment, the uphold of students’ human rights, equal and fair treatment, protection of and appeal for rights, respect for diversity and differences, democratic participation and learning,teachers’ professional autonomy, being loved, respected, and blessed, and so forth. By using this checklist, Lo et al. (2015) examined the school human rights ethos in two secondary institutions in Hong Kong, which revealed noteworthy trends in mean scores between teachers and students in areas such as equal and fair treatment, protection of and appeal for rights, and feelings of being loved and respected. This study found that school mission and leadership style appeared to account for significant differences. Besides, a scale developed by Shiman and Rudelius-Palmer (1999)—Taking the Human Rights Temperature of Your School—has been widely used to evaluate the school’s human rights climate and the influential factors, and to help the school derive an action plan that improves human rights, based on 25 items. This scale has a Chinese version with modification of the wording, and has operational regulations for quantitative evaluations. Notwithstanding the overarching goals of HRE held in the global and local levels, and implementations of HRE delivered by different stakeholders, students had their own perceptions and responses. This chapter illuminates a student lens on what human rights have been learned in school, how students have been involved in the development of HRE, and their assessment on the extent to which their school could be considered human rights friendly. It posed three interrelated research questions: (1) To what extent do Chinese students consider their school as human rights friendly? (2) How do students perceive human rights principles learned in school and the level of participation? (3) What are the major conditions facilitating and challenges to the HRE practices in Chinese schools? The sampling and the research methods has been explained in Chap. 1. The case school is a public mainstream secondary school in an important, open city in southern China, Shenzhen, which is actively involved in the socio-economic and curriculum reforms. The school encouraged its members to take active roles in making the school community a safe, engaging, and supportive environment for them to study and live in; students were likewise anticipated to create a democratic, equal, and interactive relationship in school. As explained in Chap. 6, a set of values—zheng, ai, jing, and gao—were asked to be shared among school members to facilitate a climate where values such as equality, justice, dignity, respect, caring, safety, etc., underpin all aspects of school life. In general, the study adopted the survey instrument developed by Shiman and Rudelius-Palmer (1999) for designing a student questionnaire and analysing the quantitative findings, based on their widespread acceptance and usage. Checklists by Amnesty International (2012) and Fong (2004), together with the human rights lists codified in varied international, national, and local documents, were also adapted for the interview with students and educators and for analysing the qualitative data.

132

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

Students’ Evaluations on the School Human Rights Climate Students’ self-reports indicated how they evaluate their school’s human rights climate. Three categories in students’ responses—the school governance and management, the courses delivered and activities conducted, and the environment in which students studied and lived—were reflected high preference, see Table 8.1.

School Governance and Management Students generally agreed that the school policies are favourable for their full development of human personality. This was reflected in their high ratings to the survey questions of “my school provides equal access, resources, activities, and scheduling accommodations for all individuals” (M = 3.40), “all students receive equal information and encouragement about academic and career opportunities” (M = 3.27), as well as “members of my school care about my full human and academic development and try to help me when I am in need” (M = 3.34). To make sure each student’s needs were fulfilled, the school provided a student development support centre and emphasized developing students’ comprehensive potentials and abilities. The interviewed students (e.g., S10) commonly saw such school policy enhance their “full personality development” and “individualized development”, which has been stated as the school’s mission statement and seen as a pathway for facilitating a friendly and welcoming school culture, as denoted in the school’s twelfth five-year plan of development. In addition, students agreed school policies were implemented based on the principle of equality before the law. High ratings were given to the items on “in matters related to discipline, all persons are assured of fair, impartial treatment in the determination of guilt and assignment of punishment” (M = 3.42); “institutional policies and procedures are implemented when complaints of harassment or discrimination are submitted” (M = 3.37), as well as to the statement “someone accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent until proven guilty” (M = 3.00). The interviewed students, S35, also expressed that students should be presumed “innocent” and protected without discrimination until proven to have done wrong in school. As she explained, when a student was assigned punishment by teacher and/or school, he/she would be firstly considered of innocent and complaint to the school. No matter what the student did, he/she would be treated fairly.

Moreover, students agreed the school policies encouraged them to participate in school affairs. They commonly perceived that “members of my school can participate (individually and through associations) in democratic decision-making processes to develop school policies and rule” (M = 3.22), and “members of my school have the right to form associations within the school to advocate for their rights or the rights of others” (M = 3.30). Some interviewed students (e.g. S31, S32, 33) argued that they had “opportunities” to be involved in the decision-making process for some school

Students’ Evaluations on the School Human Rights Climate Table 8.1 Students’ preference to the school’s human rights climate Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following questions. Please tick  after each item All students receive equal information and encouragement about academic and career opportunities My school provides equal access, resources, activities, and scheduling accommodations for all individuals Members of my school care about my full human and academic development and try to help me when I am in need Institutional policies and procedures are implemented when complaints of harassment or discrimination are submitted In matters related to discipline (including suspension and expulsion), all persons are assured of fair, impartial treatment in the determination of guilt and assignment of punishment Someone accused of wrongdoing is presumed innocent until proven guilty Members of my school can participate (individually and through associations) in democratic decision-making processes to develop school policies and rules Members of my school have the right to form associations within the school to advocate for their rights or the rights of others Employees in my school are paid enough to have a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being (including housing, food, necessary social services, and security from unemployment, sickness, and old age) of they and their family Members of my school will oppose discriminatory or demeaning actions, materials, or slurs in the school When someone demeans or violates the rights of another person, the violator is helped to learn how to change his/her behaviour When conflicts arise, we try to resolve them through non-violent ways Members of my school encourage each other to learn about societal and global problems related to justice, ecology, poverty, and peace Diverse voices and perspectives (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, ideological) are represented in courses, textbooks, assemblies, libraries, and classroom instruction. I can express my culture through music, art, and literary form Members of my school encourage each other to organize and act to address societal and global problems related to justice, ecology, poverty, and peace. I take responsibility in my school to ensure other individuals do not discriminate and that they behave in ways that promote the safety and well-being of my school community. My school is a place where participants are safe and secure

133

Mean 3.27 3.40 3.34 3.37 3.42

3.00 3.22

3.30 3.39

3.21 3.28 3.31 3.39 3.34

3.30 3.34

3.38

3.29 (continued)

134

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

Table 8.1 (continued) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following questions. Please tick  after each item Members of the school are not discriminated against because of their life style choices, such as manner of dress, association with certain people, and non-school activities. No one in our school is subjected to degrading treatment or punishment My personal space and possessions are respected My school welcomes participants, teachers, administrators, and staff from diverse backgrounds and cultures, including people not born in China Members of my school can produce and disseminate publications without fear of censorship or punishment I have the liberty to express my beliefs and ideas (political, religious, cultural, or other) without fear of discrimination Members of my school can take adequate rest/recess time during the school day and work reasonable hours under fair work conditions

Mean 3.34

2.91 3.21 3.40

2.44 3.04 3.11

Note 1 = strongly disagree, not at all important, and 4 = strongly agree, very important; because figures are rounded up to 2 decimal places, the differences in mean do not necessarily add up

affairs by participating in student organizations, which are considered the mediator between the school board and the rest of the student body. According to S03 and S10, the school encouraged various student-organized and -managed student interest groups to make them experience decision-making power in deciding the goals, content, and implications of some school activities, and to facilitate their potentials and full personality development. Students also took opportunities to participate in school affairs by writing letters to the school principal, and voicing themselves by posing questions and offering suggestions about school management, particularly teaching and learning, through opinion polls (e.g., S08, S14, S17, S32). S32 expressed that students also spread their political views in cyberspace, such as Weibo, like the Twitter, though it was under Internet censorship. According to him, students, as citizens, have the “responsibility to question and speak” about the government, social issues, and current affairs; the Internet and social media are new “weapons” and pathways to involve themselves in “limited” political participation. However, civic participation in the school context was functional rather than rightsbased. In the eye of S32, we [students] are encouraged and take initiatives to participate in activities; however, it mainly aims to promote our belonging to the community and skills for actions than that we have the right to participate.

Students’ Evaluations on the School Human Rights Climate

135

Curricula and Activities Students perceived that the school curricula and activities positively shape a school culture favourable for the development of human rights. The findings showed high ratings that “members of my school encourage each other to learn about societal and global problems related to justice, ecology, poverty, and peace” (M = 3.39), and to organize and act to address those issues (M = 3.34). Most students agreed that “when someone demeans or violates the rights of another person, the violator is helped to learn how to change his/her behaviour” (M = 3.28). In addition, students commonly perceived that in their school “diverse voices and perspectives (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, ideological) are represented in courses, textbooks, assemblies, libraries, and classroom instruction” (M = 3.34). Individual can “express my culture through music, art, and literary form” (M = 3.30), and “members of my school will oppose discriminatory or demeaning actions, materials, or slurs in the school” (M = 3.21). Students also perceived that “I take responsibility in my school to ensure other individuals do not discriminate and that they behave in ways that promote the safety and well-being of my school community” (M = 3.38). Despite there being no specific HRE subject, students of the case school commonly expressed that human rights were explicitly embedded in their learning of moral education, citizenship education, and history (e.g., S07), including constitutional rights, the inalienable human dignity, fundamental freedoms and basic human rights and values, such as equality, democracy and justice, and non-discrimination, etc. Some students highlighted the learning of some basic rights, such as “the right to life and development” (S21), “right to education” (S10, S25), and “free choice of life style” (S35). Teachers (e.g., T01, T02, T07) also clearly stated that students learned human rights principles in subjects as moral education and citizenship education, per the curriculum formulations and syllabi. They also expressed their hopes about students becoming citizens who displayed critical thinking, a sense of social responsibility and participation, and a concern for the rights and privileges of others, which could be reflected in the class mottoes and slogans designed altogether by teachers and students. Moreover, some students (e.g., S19, S21, S25, S30, S32) noted the most important channel for them to learn human rights was participating in extra-curricular activities on campus and outside school, especially the community service and service learning programmes. For example, students agreed that volunteering to care for the elderly in the community helped them understand more about “citizenship” (S24, S26), “social responsibilities” (S32), and a sense of “belonging” to the community/society (S29). Other students (e.g., S03, S10) also reported experiencing deliberative process of organizing and managing activities, particularly those endorsed by student interest groups, through which they practised “self-organization, self-participation and selfmanagement” in designing the goals, content, and methods. Despite of positive responses that curricula and activities help shaping the school’s human rights climate, students had different attitudes toward the embedded HRE in

136

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

the case school. Although many students (e.g., S12, S33, S34) argued that human rights were explicitly embedded within the existing school subjects; some expressed that HRE was “far away from their school life” (S12, S27, S36) and they had to “prepare for the examination of major subjects” (S01, S36) to earn the course credits mandated by the school. Teachers also expressed their worries about the effects of HRE instructions. As T04 explained, the embedded approach to HRE was somewhat disadvantaged, because “human rights might be given little attention if teachers are not invested in the process, and the exposure may not be deep or sustained for the students,” shown in Chap. 7.

Visible and Invisible School Environment Findings showed that the visible and invisible school environments were perceived as friendly and welcoming, as reflected in students’ high ratings to the items on “members of the school are not discriminated against because of their life style choices, such as manner of dress, association with certain people, and non-school activities” (M = 3.34), and “my school welcomes participants, teachers, administrators, and staff from diverse backgrounds and cultures, including people not born in China” (M = 3.40). Students also perceived that “my school is a place where participants are safe and secure” (M = 3.29), and “personal space and possessions are respected” (M = 3.21). They considered that the school has space for freedom of expression and information, which was reflected in their responses to items on “I have the liberty to express my beliefs and ideas (political, religious, cultural, or other) without fear of discrimination” (M = 3.04), and “no one in our school is subjected to degrading treatment or punishment” (M = 2.91). In addition, students perceived that their school was good for school members’ well-being, including “members of my school can take adequate rest/recess time during the school day and work reasonable hours under fair work conditions” (M = 3.11). However, students gave relative lower ratings to the item—“members of my school can produce and disseminate publications without fear of censorship or punishment” (M = 2.44). This might be influenced by the local “censoring project,” namely, censoring disseminated messages, publications, and video products, particularly those passed through new media, as well as students’ manners and behaviours to supervise voices and perspectives presented in those publications in school, which has been discussed in Chap. 6. This reflected a possible tension between students’ perceived right to freedom of opinion and information and the political tasks of education in Chinese society that maintains the social stability and the political bottom line. Besides, the school expected its members to share and practice the set of values— zheng, ai, jing and gao—to foster a culture wherein equality, justice, caring, respect, safety, as well as quality of education underpinned the school day-to-day life. The invisible environment reflects the latent ideas and values shared among school members in building a friendly and welcoming school climate. Especially, the interviewed

Students’ Evaluations on the School Human Rights Climate

137

students expressed that the school took initiatives to create a safe school environment. For example, during school hours both external visitors and internal school members would be recorded before entering the campus. The school document Programme of Safety Education Year also showed how the school facilitated a safe campus environment in students’ school life, and presented safety and security as a shared responsibility, with the overall aim of ensuring students’ safety and protecting them from any violations. As L03 and L06 noted, safety is of national and local concern, and the school, as a national pilot zone of safety education, has conducted various activities to promote a safe school environment. The interview data reflected that the invisible school environment, like relationship among school members, was a key factor in influencing students’ learning and practices in their school. As S18 pointed out, students and teachers “worked together” to develop and revise class mottoes, slogans, and codes of conduct, fostering “a friendly relationship of mutual respect and understanding.” In addition, S17 and S19 noted that their classes developed support groups within which students helped to promote each other’s learning and participation in class activities, and shared mutual respects and supports to deal with issues they may be facing in the classroom and school.

Students’ Self-reported Perceptions on Human Rights Ideas With the emerging topic of education for global citizenship in educational research and practices, the teaching of HRE has become a shared project to empower students and promote their active participation in the school community. The increased knowledge of human rights has been regarded as an important feature of students’ self-reported beliefs, attitudes and behaviours towards human rights in learning HRE courses. This section depicts the findings of students’ conception of human rights values and the level of participation. In general, students conceived of human rights as a complex concept along different dimensions and expandable validity.

Human Rights as the Social Construction Along Different Dimensions Students strongly agreed that individuals enjoy natural and equal rights, as reflected in the items on “each person possesses natural rights” (M = 3.46; see Table 8.2) and “all human beings have equal rights regardless of their race, sex, family background, etc.” (M = 3.58). Most of them commonly gave high ratings to the statements on “every person has the right to free expression” (M = 3.37) and “everyone has the right and freedom to express themselves, with relation to public affairs” (M = 3.40), which are essential rights for every human being to attain other human rights. In the sense, most students responded that “each citizen’s human dignity should be

138

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

Table 8.2 Students’ preference to the human rights ideas Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following questions. Please tick  after each item Every person has the right to free expression All human beings have equal rights regardless of their race, sex, family background, etc. Each person possesses natural rights Each citizen’s human dignity should be inviolate Everyone has the right and freedom to express themselves, with relation to public affairs All Chinese citizens’ human rights should be protected, but not necessary to outsiders Citizens’ rights are shaped by the nation-state The right to minimum living standard is a citizen’s basic right Rich areas have the responsibility to provide financial help for the needy areas; that embodies the principle of social justice with due consideration to equity All citizens share a common responsibility for the fate of their country The nation-state has the fundamental responsibility for citizens’ right to subsistence and development All human rights bear corresponding obligations that should be translated into concrete duties to guarantee their rights Education is a fundamental human right and essential for exercising all other human rights Taking the make-up class in schools in holidays violate students’ right to relax Children’s rights should be respected in school Schools have an essential responsibility to protect students’ privacy Students have the basic right to safety and security in school The school bears the responsibility to protect children from violations Electing student representatives to participate in school affairs would make school life more democratic The teachers ensure equal opportunities for students to express their views of human rights issues

Mean 3.37 3.58 3.46 3.59 3.40 2.56 3.15 3.45 3.44

3.43 3.48 3.42 3.47 3.28 3.56 3.60 3.49 3.58 3.42 3.52

Note 1 = strongly disagree, not at all important, and 4 = strongly agree, very important; because figures are rounded up to 2 decimal places, the differences in mean do not necessarily add up

inviolate” (M = 3.59) in character, and argued that they learned human rights as “inalienable rights” enjoyed by all people because of being a human being (e.g., S08), and “codified in the Constitution and laws” of China (S09). This reflects a liberal and individualistic orientation in students’ conceptualization of human rights ideas, along with the validity of natural and free rights to each citizen. Students gave lower ratings to the statement, an inverted question, “all Chinese citizens’ human rights should be protected, but not necessary for outsiders” (M =

Students’ Self-reported Perceptions on Human Rights Ideas

139

2.56), illustrating 47.3% of the respondent students disagreed with it and accepted the equal protection of human rights between Chinese peoples and others. On the other hand, some students conceived of human rights, as politics, as social constructions of expandable validity for communities that embrace them. For instance, students agreed that “citizens’ rights are shaped by the nation-state” (M = 3.15). As S09 noted, As Constitution includes shared values in Chinese society and rules of conducts for its citizens, rights codified in the Constitution of the China and laws have to reflect China’s conditions and needs.

Students learned that the realization of human rights is related to sovereignty, because the state plays a leading role in providing “socio-political and economical security” to Chinese people and protecting citizens’ rights, which is closely related to China’s “national power” (S33). Therefore, some students felt learning human rights within school curricula, particularly in moral education and history, emphasized the supremacy of national interests, suggesting citizens cannot, in exercising their rights, “infringe upon others’ rights and the interests of the state” (e.g., S16, S33). Students perceived that they had rights, but at the same time must also accept their duties; as S30, S33 and S35 highlighted, only if you have “done your duty,” could you “exercise your rights.” In addition, students commonly showed strong preference for the item on “the right to minimum living standard is a citizen’s basic right” (M = 3.45), which was interpreted as wen-bao (the right to subsistence) to improve people’s livelihood, and was regarded as a foremost human rights without which all other rights were basically unobtainable in China’s human rights discourse. Students also agreed with the statement “rich areas have the responsibilities to provide financial help for the needy areas; that embodies the principle of social justice with due consideration to equity” (M = 3.44). As S16 expressed, this statement was closely related to the philosophy of “early and common prosperity,” advocated by Deng when putting forward the idea of economic reform to “allow some regions, enterprises, workers and peasants to get rich” and to help others to ultimately achieve common prosperity (Deng, 1978). Additionally, students perceived human rights ideas as social constructions from the perspective of a balanced development of the nation-state and individuals’ rights. For example, the survey findings show that most students agreed “the nation-state has the fundamental responsibility to citizens’ right to subsistence and development” (M = 3.48); meanwhile, “all citizens share a common responsibility” for the fate of their nation-state’s interests” (M = 3.43). The interviewed students further argued that learning human rights did not specify “which right is individual, and which are collective rights,” but only include the teaching and learning of the balanced development of individual rights and collective interests, particularly national interests (e.g., S17); individuals should be devoted to the well-being of the collective (S26, S27, S33), and aware of collective rights for the good of society (S34). Furthermore, students conceived of human rights as a process resulting from social justice movements in Chinese and world history, based on their learning in history

140

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

lessons (e.g., S28, S31), and felt China should link human rights values with its specific situations after “drawing lessons from history.” For instance, the respondent students (e.g. S09, S32, S35) regarded China’s national strengthening movements in late Qing period, the birth of the ROC, the May Fourth Movement, the war of resistance against Japanese aggression, and the establishing of the PRC as important events and movements that pursued “national independence and self-determination” to safeguard people’s lives and dignity, and fundamental rights. Despite the competing accounts of human rights ideas along different dimensions—natural or socially constructed, most students commonly perceived that “all human rights bear corresponding obligations that should be translated into concrete duties to guarantee their rights” (M = 3.42).

Foundational Principles Underpinning Human Rights Findings reveal that students mainly addressed three key foundational principles regarding human rights concepts in learning HRE. The first one was freedom: according to them, freedom of expression (e.g., S05, S32) and personal rights and freedoms were foundational principles for human rights, in line with what they had learned in moral education (S26, S27, S33). In addition, freedom was inseparable from the rule of law (S09), such as governing the state (school) by law and being law-abiding (S07, S11). The second principle was democracy, which the interviewed students perceived as being “ruled by the people” (S03 and S31) in a “democratic management system” (S10, S30). The concept of democracy was closely related to such principles as the rule of law (e.g., S03, S33, S34), justice (S12, S33), and freedom and equality (S16, S27), and less-closely related to the social order (S31) and belonging (S35) to Chinese society for fulfilment. The main opportunities for students to learn and exercise democracy were voting for class carders in classrooms, and for representatives to participate in the school’s Congresses of Teachers, Staff, and Workers. For instance, the interviewed students perceived referendums for class cadres as a direct democracy system, which they considered an important way to learn and exercise democracy (e.g., S15, S31). From voting and being voted on, the interviewed students (S15, S25, S32) stated that they understood better about such political values as the rule of law, justice, and equal expression. As S32 expressed, the concept of democracy he learned helped him know more about the conditions of democracy in the school, Modern societies pursue democratic societies; similarly, school should develop to become democratic school. In our school, it held staff congress to promote grassroots democracy in school management. It also conducted opinion poll every semester with which we [students] can express freely and openly about the teaching and school affairs.

The interviewed students considered their school as providing an friendly and welcoming environment for cultivating democratic citizenship, and felt China’s democ-

Students’ Self-reported Perceptions on Human Rights Ideas

141

racy development relied on “informed and active” citizens (S33, S35), despite some students perceiving democracy as “far away from their lives in school” (e.g., S12, S27, S36). As S31 expressed, social order was also a major element in developing a democratic and harmonious society in China, in learning about the harmonious society in moral education lessons and ad hoc school activities. The third principle was citizenship. In their interviews, students expressed that citizenship and person-making were major aims of HRE carrier subjects. Students perceived issues closely related to citizenship—including civic principles, citizenship identity, and participation—as important content learned from relevant courses and activities. For instance, some students expressed that citizenship was a major element of the perceived HRE, such as civic relationships between the individual and the state (e.g., S21, S22), interpersonal relations (S24, S31), and citizens’ roles, rights, responsibilities, and engagement in Chinese society (S31, S33, S34). They (e.g., S31, S34) thought that citizenship is membership within a certain society, and is closely linked to nationality and a set of common rights and responsibilities. Other interviewed students perceived cultural, geographical, economic, and global forms of citizenship as important elements of their citizenship identity, due to such social developments as multiculturalism (e.g., S21), migration (S10), economic reform (S16), and globalization (S35), reflecting students’ learning of a multilevelled framework of citizenship through HRE carrier subjects. The interviewed students mainly regarded nationality as an important prerequisite to enjoying citizenship politically, and the embedded HRE as a pathway to enhancing students’ “national citizenship identity” (e.g. S32). Therefore, students conceived of citizens’ devotion to the state as a major means to realizing national interests (S26, S27, S33), and linked national honour and pride to citizenship (S29, S32). They emphasized the “welfare-state” (S28) and a “harmonious and stable society” (S30) to understanding the concept of citizenship that linked individuals to the nation-state. Consequently, students generally linked roles and responsibilities to fully enjoying their rights (e.g., S25, S35), and to being responsible citizens in learning HRE in relevant courses.

Perceived Children’s Rights in Schools In speaking of human rights, students have strong agreements with such survey questions as “children’s rights should be respected for in school” (M = 3.56; see Table 8.2) and “the school bears the responsibility to protect children from violations” (M = 3.58). Specifically, the respondent students showed strong preference for statements saying “schools have an essential responsibility to protect students’ privacy” (M = 3.60). They agreed that “students have the basic right to safety and security in school” (M = 3.49) and “taking the make-up class in schools in holidays violate students’ right to relax” (M = 3.28). In the interviews, students maintained that their school respected them and protected their rights to safety and security (e.g., S24), privacy (S34), and relaxation (S27). However, S35 stated the feeling that she even did not

142

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

care about the using of video surveillance to monitor the exams, which might violate the individual privacy. Among children’s rights, most students commonly perceived the right to education as “a fundamental human right and essential for the exercise for all other human rights” (M = 3.47). They also showed a strong preference for participation in school life, including “electing student representatives to participate in school affairs would make school life more democratic” (M = 3.42), and felt that “teachers ensure equal opportunities for students to express their views of human rights issues” (M = 3.52). Some interviewed students (e.g. S32, S08, S03) expressed that their teachers provided opportunities for them to freely express their opinions, right or wrong, which helped them think about a topic from different perspectives and respect others’ different expressions. Students also considered conflicts and (verbal and physical) abuses as important issues with regards to protecting students’ human rights in school (S25, S35), and that students should be presumed “innocent” and protected without discrimination until proven to have done wrong in school (S35). There are increasing concerns about how school could ensure peaceful coexistence among its members, HRE supports students more to challenge injustice, make a difference and develop solidarities at different levels. This helps shaping a friendly school climate that underpins mutual respects and coexistence for critical thinking and actions. Although most students recognized that they had learned human rights, some (e.g., S02, S06, S20) expressed that they “did not understand deeply” about such concept, but perceived that citizenship and citizens’ basic rights “attached to China” helped protect individuals’ dignity and good life, based on their learning in lessons and activities. In this case, it seems that in China’s cultural context students are not in the position to ever share their deeply held negative or critical views, their responses might be seen as answers to curriculum content learned. Part of the interviewed students may not recognize they have the capacity to say anything other than the official answer alternatively. Students’ perceptions reflect the possible tension between rhetoric and reality concerning people’s rights and human rights situation; the codification of human rights in China’s laws and policy documents does not necessarily mean they are fully protected and exercised in reality. As discussed, some scholars (e.g. Sen, 1999) criticized that in a society where the right to free speech is not clearly held by all members, it is not allowed as some level, institutionally, culturally, relationally, or legally, and one cannot effectively engage in political participation. This reflected the limitation of Chinese HRE: China’s internal conflicts between promoting human rights and maintaining political bottom line clearly challenged the development of HRE in schools.

Students’ Self-reported Preferences on HRE

143

Students’ Self-reported Preferences on HRE In speaking of the aims of HRE, students gave high ratings to the listed items of “developing values and attitudes” (M = 3.43; see Table 8.3), “learning to solve problems for civic engagement” (M = 3.41), “enhancing students’ abilities and critical thinking” (M = 3.39), and “imparting knowledge to promote students’ understandings about human rights” (M = 3.35). In the students’ viewpoints, HRE developed their understandings about “human rights principles and fundamental freedoms” (M = 3.49), “human dignity” (M = 3.47), “citizenship” (M = 3.47) and “citizens’ rights” (M = 3.42). The surveyed students also perceived that learning HRE facilitated their value beliefs towards “cultural differences” (M = 3.46), “the rights of the disadvantaged” (M = 3.46) and “non-discrimination” (M = 3.42). Most students expressed that learning HRE helped them understand “individuals possess human rights simply by being a human being” (M = 3.46), which grounded human rights concept in human nature. They also came to appreciate HRE learning as a “lifelong process” (M = 3.42) intended to “strengthen their full personality development and sense of dignity” (M = 3.46). Students agreed that learning HRE through the activities of national flag raising ceremony and the keynote speech on the May Fourth Day, aided their understanding of “the relationship between individuals and the nation-state” (M = 3.43), which was a major means by which the school and teachers moulded students’ attitudes toward collective rights. Additionally, students commented that learning HRE made the learning environment in classrooms “more human rights friendly” (M = 3.27), and that the class environment was “inclusive and respectful” when students expressed individual opinions on human rights issues (M = 3.38). In this respect, students claimed they were “willing to express” diverse ideas in class (M = 3.37), and learning HRE helped them “pay more attention to human rights violations” (M = 3.38). Importantly most students stated that they “will take initiatives to deal with unfair treatments” (M = 3.27), and took responsibility to “help the needy classmate” in classrooms (M = 3.29). In learning HRE, students generally saw “students freely express their views on human rights-related issues and clarify the values in class discussions” as the dominant method (M = 3.19; see Table 8.4), closely followed by “students select human rights-related issues for discussion and report the discussion results by individual or group in class” (M = 3.18). “Teachers talk, and students take notes in class” was rated the third most important method among students (M = 3.17). The interviewed students noted that reasoning and applying dominated the learning of relevant courses, and teachers adopted group discussions and reports to conduct teaching; therefore, free expression and discussion was recognized as an important method for receiving HRE in the key carrier subjects (e.g., S07) and of enhancing their critical thinking skills from different perspectives (S20, S31). Some interviewed grade 8 students (S10, S28) explained that they learned more human rights content in moral education, and “teachers talk, and students take notes” was an important method for teaching HRE, and guided them to think further on certain issues.

144

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

Table 8.3 Students’ preference to the perceived aims and impacts of HRE Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the Mean following questions. Please tick  after each item. Through HRE-related courses and activities I learned how to solve problems for civic engagement HRE-related courses and activities aims to developing our values and attitudes of human rights HRE-related courses and activities aims to imparting knowledge to promote our understandings about human rights HRE-related courses and activities aims to enhance our abilities to discuss, analyse, critique, and make decisions HRE-related courses and activities is a process that direct to the full development of my personality and my sense of dignity HRE-related courses and activities is a lifelong learning process HRE-related courses and activities facilitates my understanding about human dignity HRE-related courses and activities helps me understand better about individuals possess human rights simply by being a human being HRE-related courses and activities strengthens my understanding about the importance of the human rights principles and fundamental freedoms HRE-related courses and activities facilitates my understanding of citizenship HRE-related courses and activities facilitates my understanding of citizens’ rights HRE-related courses and activities helps me understand the issue of cultural differences better HRE-related courses and activities promotes my understandings of gender equality and non-discrimination in school HRE-related courses and activities helps me understand the issues of the disadvantaged better HRE-related activities, like the national flag raising ceremony on May Fourth Day, inform my attitudes toward the relationship between individuals and the nation-state HRE-related activities make class environment more human rights friendly The class environment was inclusive and respectful when I expressed my opinions of HR issues Students can freely express their ideas in class, and they are willingness to express diverse ideas HRE-related activities enable me to pay more attention to issues of human rights violations I will take the initiative to communicate with the teacher when I am unfair treated by the teacher I will stand up to help a needy classmate if any student were rejected in class

3.41 3.43 3.35 3.39 3.46 3.42 3.47 3.46 3.49 3.47 3.42 3.46 3.42 3.46 3.43

3.27 3.38 3.37 3.38 3.27 3.29

Note 1 = strongly disagree, not at all important, and 4 = strongly agree, very important; because figures are rounded up to 2 decimal places, the differences in mean do not necessarily add up

Students’ Self-reported Preferences on HRE Table 8.4 Students’ preference to the perceived methods of HRE Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following questions. Please tick  after each item. Teachers talk, and students take notes in class Students can select human rights-related issues for discussion and report the discussion results by individual or group in class In class discussions, students can freely express their views on human rights-related issues and clarify the values Students can conduct debates on human rights-related issues in class Students can adopt role-play for discussing and learning human rights-related issues in class Students regularly attend HRE-related activities in class Students regularly attend HRE-related extra-curricular activities in school Students regularly attend HRE-related extra-curricular activities outside school

145

Mean 3.17 3.18 3.19 2.95 2.77 3.25 3.32 2.87

Note 1 = strongly disagree, not at all important, and 4 = strongly agree, very important; because figures are rounded up to 2 decimal places, the differences in mean do not necessarily add up

Some the surveyed students gave low ratings to methods of debate (M = 2.95) and role-play (M = 2.77) for HRE learning in their school. As S02, S15, and S33 explained, role-play and debate were self-organized by students who needed more knowledge and skills for preparation; therefore, they preferred teacher-organized, group discussions, and participating activities, which made them think about the topic from different perspectives and from first-hand experiences. While other respondents saw debate as an important method of experiencing HRE, as it required looking for different information and sources that would help them to keep an open mind. As S16 expressed, Debate encouraged us to search materials from different sources, and the process of debating and giving arguments from different standpoints made us think about the same topic differently and critically, which made us participate in-depth in lessons.

S03 and S26 also argued that debate and public meeting for discussion were important methods for learning human rights themes, through which promoted their independent thinking skills for discussing related social issues. Students preferred to carry out discussion and debates in class, as these allowed them to analyse and critique current issues and make decisions on their own. Debate was seen as an important means to discuss and learn about human rights issues in lessons, particularly citizenship education, in school, as S34 expressed, and promoted critical thinking and thinking skills when discussing social issues. Debate also encouraged them to use different sources and information to think about the same topic with a more open mind, in S34’ eye. S07 and S30 noted they would make use of discussions to analyse and question social hotpots, particularly those closely related to students’ school life. As S25 expressed, they discussed the topic “say

146

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

NO to bullying,” through which they understood better the importance of respecting and protecting others’ rights, and of behaving appropriately through friendly social interaction at school. In this case students claimed that critical thinking and independent thinking skills were important skills for and major tasks of learning HRE carrier subjects (S09). They were encouraged to look for different information sources to conduct class discussions with a more open mind in those courses. The respondents argued they (S25, S32, S34) would “avoid using textbooks alone” to form their arguments when approaching discussions; instead, they would adopt information from the Internet, media, books, and other sources to frame their thinking, and to help them reflect on what they had learned in their past schooling.

Views or Answers? Critical Reflections on Students’ Self-reports China’s education operates under a dual leadership system, with both political and administrative responsibilities. The intertwined relation between politics and education affected China’s human rights discourse and the development of HRE in school settings to protect the Chinese cultural legacy. As in other studies of student expressions in the domain of political, moral, and civic education, Chinese students might be not in the position to ever share their deeply held negative viewpoints in the cultural context, and their responses may be seen as answers reflecting learned curricula content. There exist a lag between the investigated students’ self-explanations of how they perceived and interpreted human rights and HRE. As shown in previous sections, although most students gave high ratings to the questionnaire items; only several students reported negative expressions, for example, some (e.g., S02, S06, S20) expressed that they “did not understand deeply” about the human right concept. Students’ responses to human rights may be interpreted as what they have learned in lessons, for instance, students commonly showed strong preference for the right to subsistence (wen-bao) to improve people’s livelihood, which was regarded as a foremost human rights without which all other rights were basically unobtainable in China’s human rights discourse. Some respondents argued that what they have learned in HRE carrier subjects, particularly in moral education and history, did not specify “which right is individual, and which are collective rights,” people should be devoted to the well-being of the collective for the public good of society. Therefore, some students reported strong preferences on the emphasis of national interests over individual interests. Particularly, as revealed in Chap. 7, some teachers did not agree with the teaching of sensitive political topics in HRE carrier subjects, instead, they chose to make political education down to earth. T03 noted that he tried to depoliticize political education by addressing social issues and daily life aiming for developing students’ potentials and full personality. In this situation, some students may not recognized

Views or Answers? Critical Reflections on Students’ Self-reports

147

they have the capacity to say something other than the official answer alternatively. With the active promotion of the national action plans on human rights, there are improving developments of human rights and HRE in China; however, this is not necessarily mean that human rights codified in official corpus have been fully protected and exercised. China’s internal conflicts between democracy and one-party-rule, and between free speech and the political bottom line clearly challenged school education. As Sen (1999) has questioned, people may not effectively engage in political participation in a society where the right to free speech is not fully enjoyed by its citizens. Some quantitative findings also revealed a strong contrast between the positive recognition of the importance of human rights in general and the lower recognition of human rights knowledge. For instance, Sommer and Stellmacher (2009) showed that 76% of the interviewees saw the worldwide realization of human rights as “very important”. While less than 50% of the interviewees perceived some civil and political rights—such as right to peaceful assembly and association (39.2%), right to asylum (39.1%), right to freedom of religion (29.3%, the least)—and economic rights (like right to reasonable work hours and paid holidays, right to participate in cultural life, and right to form and join a trade union and the protection of unemployment) as “very important” (pp. 67–70). 53.3% of the interviewees could name at least three human rights articles, while only 19.1% could name at least five examples. Though individuals could not define human rights, Tibbitts and Fernekes (2011) mentioned the previous study of Gallatin (1976), as quoted in Branson and Torney-Purta (1982), noted children have the philosophy of rights that reflected an acceptance of human rights by virtue of being human, though they could not necessarily define human rights. Another critical reflection is the functional civic participation in students’ selfreports. Extant research shows a positive connection between service learning programmes and students’ political participation (Walker, 2002), and that participating in extra-curricular activities (such as belonging to groups and associations) have impacts on other forms of civic participation in adulthood (McFarland & Thomas 2006). The case school, according to the interviewed school staff, L02, is effective in promoting students’ civic engagement by teaching civic content and skills, ensuring an open classroom climate for discussions, and supporting effective participation opportunities. The student data also revealed their positive responses to civic participation in school and communities, as revealed in previous sections. Community service may influence youths’ feelings and actions about civic participation (Finlay et al., 2010); this incorporates the inclusion of a civic character into the development of a civic identity that promotes civic engagement into adulthood. However, the civic participation was more functional to foster the full personality development of students. As S32 expressed, though students were encouraged to participate in activities, the engagement mainly aimed to promote the sense of belonging to the community and the skills for participation in school/community affairs. In addition, the participation was orderly and heavily regulated. T07 argued that, teachers and the CYL staff would remind students “not to participate in activist political activities,” like boycotting, handing out political leaflets that offend the party

148

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

leadership or socialism, or any other type of social movements of demonstrating, strikes, protest, etc. He explained that the school staff supervised students’ political engagement for any such activities, because if students had excellent academic achievements and orderly participation in the organization and activities held by the CYL, they would have good record of school achievements that would help them step into a better high school. The functional civic participation reveals the internal conflict between promoting human rights and maintaining the political bottom line, hence some students may not willing to share their deeply held negative or critical views.

Summary Studies note that children are recognized as citizens in their own right instead of “citizens-in-waiting” (Osler & Starkey, 2005). HRE is not just about learning human rights values; teaching students how to live with human rights is more important. The main challenge of the development of HRE in Chinese schools is the need to fulfil the political aim of education. McLaughlin (1992) distinguished the minimal and maximal citizenship, which pointed out that the minimal citizens were law abiding and public spirited but with limited deliberation and self-determination, while the maximal citizens would actively question or have critical perspectives on social matters. In a similar vein, Chinese HRE seems to show a minimal framework to tackle local problems. The possible tension between the perceived and interpreted HRE practices from the student perspective, and how to bridge the split between the intended and implemented HRE need to be further discussed considering the complex power relations in the Chinese context. Even given these limitations, the analysis of the student self-conception of human rights and HRE provides a window into the debates in the field and suggests feasible directions for future research. The shift of attention to further thinking about how to apply human rights in daily life and the evaluation of HRE practices in different lens help expand the HRE research in distinct contexts.

References Amnesty International. (2012). Becoming a human rights friendly school: A guide for schools around the world. Amnesty International Ltd. Bajaj, M. (2004). Human rights education and student self-conception in the dominican republic. Journal of Peace Education, 1(1), 21–36. Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508. Branson, M. S., & Torney-Purta, J. (1982). International human rights, society, and the schools. National Council for the Social Studies.

References

149

Cerna, C. M. (1994). Universality of human rights and cultural diversity: Implementation of human rights in different socio-cultural contexts. Human Rights Quarterly, 16(4), 481–508. Covell, K., Howe, R. B., & McNeil, J. K. (2010). Implementing children’s human rights education in schools. Improving Schools, 13(2), 740–752. Deng, X. (1978). Emancipate the mind, seek truth from facts and unite as one in looking to the future. In Central Committee of Communist Party of China Document Editorial Commission (Ed.), The selected works of Deng Xiaoping (Vol. II, pp. 105–116). Foreign Languages Press. Finlay, A., Wray-Lake, L., & Flanagan, C. A. (2010). Civic engagement during the transition to adulthood: Developmental opportunities and social policies at a critical juncture. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 277–305). John Wiley & Sons. Fong, T. L. (2004). Research and construction on evaluation’s category and item for campus human rights Milieu. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human Rights Education. Soochow University, Taipei, Taiwan. Gallatin, J. (1976). The conceptualization of rights: Psychological development and cross-national perspectives. In R. P. Claud (Ed.), Comparative human rights (pp. 51–68). Johns Hopkins University Press. Gregg, B. (2011). Human rights as social construction. Cambridge University Press. Jennings, T. E. (1994). Self-in-connection as a component of human rights advocacy and education. Journal of Moral Education, 23(3), 285–295. Lenhart, V., & Savolainen, K. (2002). Human rights education as a field of practice and of theoretical reflection. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 145–158. Leung, Y. W., Yuen, T. W. W., Cheng, E. C. K., & Chow, J. K. F. (2014). Is student participation in school governance a “mission impossible”? Journal of Social Science Education, 13(4), 26–40. Lo, Y. L., Leung, Y. W., & Yuen, W. W. (2015). Exploring school ethos: An investigation of children’s human rights in two secondary institutions in Hong Kong. Intercultural Education, 26(3), 192–209. Mc Ginn, N. F. (1996). Education, democratization, and globalization: A challenge for comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 40(4), 341–357. McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 401–425. McLaughlin, T. H. (1992). Citizenship, diversity and education: A philosophical perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 21(3), 235–250. Meyer, J. W., Bromley, P., & Ramirez, F. O. (2010). Human rights in social science textbooks: Cross-national analyses, 1970–2008. Sociology of Education, 83(2), 111–134. OHCHR. (1997). Guidelines for national plans of action for human rights education. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Compilation/Pages/ GuidelinesforNationalPlansofActionforHumanRightsEducation(1997).aspx Ong, A. (1999). Flexible citizenship: The cultural logics of transnationality. Duke University Press. Osler, A. (2016). Human rights and schooling: An ethical framework for teaching for social justice. Teacher College Press. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. Penguin Books. Shiman, D., & Rudelius Palmer, K. (1999). Taking the human rights temperature of your school. In D. Shiman & K. Rudelius Palmer (Eds.), Economic and social justice: A human rights perspective. Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Sommer, G., & Stellmacher, J. (2009). Menschenrechte und Menschenrechtsbildung: Eine phychologische Bestandsaufnahme. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. State Council. (2009).National human rights action plan of China (2009–2010). Beijing: State Council.

150

8 A Student Lens on HRE: Contents and Pedagogies

State Council. (2011). National program for child development in China (2011–2020). Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2011). The socialist system of laws with Chinese characteristics [Zhongguo Tese Shehui Zhuyi Falv Tixi]. Beijing: State Council. State Council. (2012). National human rights action plan of China (2012–2015). Beijing: State Council. Suárez, D. (2007). Education professionals and the construction of human rights education. Comparative Education Review, 51(1), 48–70. Tibbitts, F. (2002). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 159–171. Tibbitts, F., & Fernekes, W. R. (2011). Human rights education. In S. Totten & J. Pedersen (Eds.), Teaching and studying social issues: Major programs and approaches (pp. 87–118). Information Age Publishing. Tibbitts, F., & Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2010). Perspectives of research on human rights education. Journal of Human Rights Education, 2(1), 8–29. Tibbitts, F., Foong, D., Kasprzak, T., Keet, A., & Melouk, M. (2010). Impact assessment of the rights education action programme. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ pol32/011/2010/en/ Walker, T. (2002). Service as a pathway to political participation: What research tells us. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 183–188.

Chapter 9

Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

The perspectives, policies, and practices of HRE in a Chinese lens suggest a minimal framework, outlining the goal-making, content-selection, and methodologies of HRE to be conducted in China’s education system. This book enriches the general debates surrounding human rights and HRE, especially the HRE research and implementations in the Chinese context. Although there has no independent, specific HRE subject in Chinese schools, this book explored the roles and strategies different actors adopted in promoting HRE, and their perceptions and interpretations thereof, suggesting different concerns and content. Chapter 2 traced the literature on human rights and HRE, suggesting a thick account that evolved with the inclusion of culture into the sphere of human rights and HRE at both international and national/local levels. Chapters 3 and 4 delineated how the discourse on human rights and HRE was constructed and developed in different periods of Chinese history, and unpacked what kinds of Chinese citizenry the state wanted its people to become for its nation-(re)building. Chapter 5 depicted the curriculum development regarding HRE in China, including the pedagogization of citizenship and human rights underlying its philosophical and cultural traditions, and how HRE has been sanctioned in the national curriculum as cross-cutting themes to be involved in the development of political education and global citizenship education. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 presented how different actors—school, educators, and students— have been included into the promotion of HRE in China’s school systems, and why they acted as they did. This chapter concludes by explaining the Chinese HRE as a socialization project for citizenship-making, to understand the dynamics and complexity of how policies and diverse perspectives shape and facilitate the contextualized practices. It shows a minimal framework of Chinese HRE, which means HRE mainly aims to enhance students’ knowing about and mindset towards human rights, to increase their critical thinking, as well as to facilitate the orderly participation. This echos what Tibbitts (2002) has proposed as the values and awareness model—a philosophical and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4_9

151

152

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

historical approach—to include human rights related themes and content within other school subjects and public training activities. HRE that targets professional groups, such as law school students and civil servants, has also been developed in China, to guarantee human rights through their professional activities. However, the transformative function of HRE is not included in Chinese HRE due to its political conditions, though some HRE activities centre on the protection of rights regarding the vulnerable groups, such as children, women, minorities, etc. This chapter also discusses the theoretical contributions and implementations of this study, by revisiting extant theories of human rights and HRE. Even given the limitations of Chinese HRE, this study could provide some suggestions for future directions of HRE study in different contexts.

Cultural Relativization of Human Rights and HRE This study suggests that HRE in a Chinese school can be conceptualized as a socialization project promoting human rights and HRE as prescribed by the central authorities, but with flexibility for the school, bottom-up educators, and students to interpret, implement, and practice the embedded HRE in contextualized school and classroom conditions. This book delineates the inclusion of historical contexts and the deviations of culture into the sphere of human rights and HRE in China, which supports a thick account therein. The term human rights in this book has been examined as an evolving and complex concept, including values as specified in the UDHR and international human rights laws (e.g., rights of the person; rights associated with the rule of law; political rights; economic rights; and rights of communities), and underlying principles (e.g., justice and peace, dignity, freedoms, equality, democracy, citizenship and participation) and interpretations thereof. Human rights are about guaranteeing individual liberty against infringement by the state and more—establishing social conditions conducive to the living of dignified human lives. China’s human rights doctrine is closely related to the common good for a life of dignity, such as the right to decent basic standard of living. This study suggests a meaning of human rights that is socially constructed and culturally specific to China’s institutional environments and conditions, which complements the theoretical debates surrounding whether human rights are innate or created, and whether they are universal or relative. The debates in general literature enumerate different perspectives to conceptualize the framework of human rights, but, as this book has demonstrated, cannot detail how human rights discourse was constructed and developed in the Chinese context. This study complements the complexity of human rights concepts from a cultural and historical perspective, taking account of the construction and development of human rights in different periods of Chinese history, and suggesting the nation-state is the principal actor in defining, selecting and prioritizing human rights. Human rights in China have been codified in law for protection and enforcement and, despite

Cultural Relativization of Human Rights and HRE

153

a concern for individual rights, emphasize the supremacy of collective interests in response to social changes, for China’s nation building and individual liberation. It answers questions of who is entitled to possess human rights, the ultimate basis of human rights, and the relationship between individuals and the state. This book suggests that HRE in a case school is a socialization project characterized by different actors adopting different coping strategies to interpret and fulfil HRE provisions. It reflects the tension between the intended and implemented HRE, deliberating the key actors’ perceptions and interpretations of human rights and HRE, and their efforts to socialize students to become citizens living in a multilevelled polity. This study enriches HRE research from a Chinese lens. Extant research on HRE policies in the international community is closely associated with movements to promote human rights awareness, and the redress of violations through educational activities. However, the conceptualization of HRE policies and practices in the global or regional framework, as this study has criticized, is dominated by Western based human rights organizations, and lacks other nation specific issues, traditions, and cultures from which to develop alternative visions of what constitutes a good life. This study elaborates the conceptualization of and challenges to embedded HRE in China’s context, particularly its policies, strategies, and implementations for promoting HRE in secondary schools, which shows different concerns and strategies. Though discussions about HRE research describe different models, typologies, and pedagogical considerations, they cannot explain the dynamics and complexity of HRE practices underlying different levels of stakeholders and interactions, with specific reference to China. A general perspective on HRE theories explain how different stakeholders (e.g., governmental actors, NGOs, educationalists) conceptualize HRE for implementation (Flowers, 2003), and present different approaches to HRE in relation to different strategies (Tibbitts, 2002, 2017), and typologies serving distinct goals and powers (Bajaj, 2011). While China paints a different picture of HRE in line with its historical, social, and cultural traditions. This research also differs from empirical studies that discuss the implementation of HRE by locating HRE within region and country specific studies; subsuming HRE in both non-school settings and formal school systems (Flowers, 2007; Teleki, 2007); and evaluating HRE from diverse perspectives (Tibbitts et al., 2010). Even though HRE, in the general literature, has presented different agents, such as teachers, as promoting HRE in different settings, this study has shown the general literature does not touch on the context of China and its diverse actors. The embedded HRE in China is closely connected with different actors’ interpretations of HRE, and their goals, distinct content, and strategies in implementing HRE. As such, a general perspective on HRE is not appropriate for understanding the embedded HRE in China’s context. This book enlarges on how various actors define HRE, by explaining different interpretations held by the central authority, school, educators and students, and provides a framework for understanding HRE in certain school context that underlie the interplay among those stakeholders. This study denotes a lens on the cultural reletivization of human rights and HRE in China, suggesting different perspectives, policies, and practices of HRE. Despite

154

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

there being no independent, specific HRE subject, this book examines how the key actors respond to expectations of HRE by detailing the coping strategies used to interpret and implement these requirements.

Bottom-up Voices: Actors, Roles, and Strategies This book unpacks how the key actors—the school, teachers, and students—adopted various coping strategies in perceiving and interpreting human rights and HRE in China, and influential factors thereon. The bottom-up voices are reflected in the consistency or inconsistency between different actors’ perceptions and implementations of HRE in response to policies and curriculum formulations. As shown in Chap. 6, the school took the initiative to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency in the school’s planning, process and policy, through strategies of safeguarding the right to education for each student, ensuring decision-making power for internal and external actors participating in school governance, and granting staff autonomy and flexibility for conducting teaching and educational activities. The case school developed embedded HRE by re-framing human rights themes and modules in national, local, and school curricula, to socialize students into human rights ideas, norms and values. It also conducted various extra-curricular activities favourable for the promotion of HRE, and for students’ full personality development. Moreover, the school created a human rights friendly school culture, as a result for effective HRE, taking into consideration the school physical environments and the underpinning shared values and behaviours. It acted as an HRE provider to adapt national HRE provisions to its specific context, and enhance the bilateral interactions of policies and practices. While the school interpreted and fulfilled HRE policy provisions, bottom-up educators took the leading role in adapting macro expectations into differentiate teaching and educational activities. As explained in Chap. 7, teachers had their own perceptions of human rights and HRE, their own interpretations of the expectations given them by different stakeholders, and perceived that they had lateral autonomy and flexibility for conducting embedded HRE in different ways. In other words, though teachers were not fully involved in the HRE decision making and goal setting processes, they had the autonomy to decide HRE contents, pedagogies, and strategies for delivering those carrier subjects, in accordance with teaching conditions and students’ needs, and without seeking the permission of school leaders and education institutions. In details, some teachers shared and accepted official interpretations of what and how HRE should be conducted, and perceived their assigned responsibilities to be consistent with their own perceptions. They implement the embedded HRE through such major strategies as respecting and protecting students’ rights in school; integrating human rights contents within carrier subjects and extra-curricular activities; and strengthening students’ full personality development. Some other teachers showed supportive attitudes towards HRE policies and agreed with the expectations

Bottom-up Voices: Actors, Roles, and Strategies

155

placed on them, but adapted those responsibilities to fit different situations that arose in teaching the embedded HRE. They promoted HRE by adapting the way they did so; for instance, teachers went beyond national and local curricula by emphasizing migrant children’s rights in schooling, recognizing rooted cosmopolitanism in teaching embedded HRE in consideration of both the cultural particularities of China and global diversities, and focusing on public spaces, particularly cyberspace, to foster students’ citizenship identify and sense of participation. They also used their lateral autonomy to develop different pedagogies of HRE, e.g., participatory and experiential learning, to facilitate students’ critical thinking abilities and willingness to participate. Yet some teachers accepted some expectations they did not support or saw as causing tensions between their perceived responsibilities and the educational processes. Thus they showed their negative opinions of responsibilities they felt inconsistent with their perceptions of HRE and/or educational realities, and responded by not selecting contents that might offend the political bottom line, and avoiding conducting extra-curricular activities that might affect students’ security and safety, and so forth. Students’ self-reports unpack what, how, and how well HRE was promoted in their school, as revealed in Chap. 8. In general, students reported high ratings to their school’s human rights climate, by examining how the school has been managed, what human rights contents have been included in HRE carrier subjects and activities, and whether the environment in which students studied and lived is friendly and welcoming. Students saw human rights as a dynamic and complex concept along different dimensions (such as natural and/or socially constructed) and a result of the balanced development of individual rights and collective interests. This study illuminated three key principles of human rights (freedom, democracy, and citizenship) in the students’ views that reflected their conceptualization of HRE learning and of what kind of citizens they wanted to become through their schooling. In learning human rights, students perceived an integration approach for HRE through other subjects and relevant activities. They expressed that human rights were explicitly embedded in their learning of school subjects, such as moral and citizenship education, legalrelated studies, and history. In learning human rights related themes and topics in classrooms, critical thinking were developed by looking for different information sources and using different methods to analyse, critique, and make decisions. The integration approach also involved learning human rights in various extra-curricular activities to promote students’ civic participation in the communities, and orderly and regulated political participation to groups and associations in the school. In general, the case school interpreted and tailored HRE policies to fit its conditions and development plan; teachers integrated HRE into contextualized teaching and educational activities, in line with their perceptions of what and how HRE should be conducted in schooling; and students acted as autonomous learners reflecting how well HRE has been promoted in the school. Those different strategies enabled the three groups to play different roles in conducting contextualized practices of HRE to fulfil macro expectations. Chinese HRE, in this sense, could be conceptualized as a socialization project for promoting human rights as prescribed by the central

156

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

authorities (as the intended HRE that should fulfil the political aim of education in China), while allowing different actors some flexibility in interpreting and practising embedded HRE (as the implemented HRE and cope with different conditions).

Socialization Project as Contextualized Practices for Citizenship-Making in Chinese School HRE in China’s school, in this study, is conceived of as a socialization project for citizenship-making in a multilevelled (global, national and local) world. As discussed in Chaps. 6, 7 and 8, HRE results from the dynamics of the interplay among the multilevel policies of HRE and the strategies different actors used in interpreting and fulfilling those provisions, shaping the content of HRE and facilitating students’ understandings thereof. It denotes the interactions between expectations and practices of HRE in the micro-school context. This socialization project is closely related to visions and discourse on human rights in the Chinese context that are constructed and interpreted in accordance with the political, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions. The human rights concepts are evolved from a traditional Western perspective to a culturally specific one, wherein human rights are perceived as evolving and complex responses to specific contexts and the rise of collective rights in the Chinese society. Accordingly, the Chinese central authorities assigned HRE policies to foster an human rights culture across the society and to socialize students, through the embedded HRE, into human rights concepts, values, and norms underpinning China’s human rights discourse. The socialization process for citizenship-making can be analysed from three approaches to promote the embedded HRE in the school context.

A Cultural Approach to Embedded HRE in Making National Cultural Identity The first approach involved the school adopting a cultural approach to embedded HRE, to foster a national cultural identity among students, and students learning to behave in ways expected by different stakeholders at the national and local/school levels. HRE involves the interpretation, adaption, and enforcement of human rights ideas and related themes within school subjects, in a dynamic manner, to cope with the needs of bringing cultural identity and cultural diversity into schooling. Different meanings can be attributed to the same HRE by adapting the concepts, values, and norms of human rights to suit the cultural needs of individuals and communities. This study suggests that the concept of HRE is, from a Chinese perspective, evolving from a traditional universal notion toward a contextual one incorporating cultural elements and cultural diversity. The school used a culturally based approach to inte-

Socialization Project as Contextualized Practices for Citizenship-Making …

157

grate HRE within school affairs to socialize students to become citizens different stakeholders wanted them to become, and to prepare them to live in a multicultural society. Specifically, the school promoted the embedded HRE from policy to classrooms in accordance with its development plan to protect school members’ rights and social security for a good life with dignity in the community. It developed HRE within existing subjects and activities by upholding an aesthetic tradition, through the promotion of the shared values to foster a safe, engaging, supportive, and harmonious school culture. In particular, the school established a shared values framework (i.e., zheng, ai, jing, and gao) to facilitate a friendly school environment that shaped its members’ cultural identity, in line with the school’s development plan. As explained in Chap. 6, the school culture was favourable for the promotion of HRE, affirming the impacts of culture (at global, national, local, and school levels) in promoting the embedded HRE in the school, taking due account of cultural diversity. The values framework was adopted from both traditional and intercultural standards, and from national and global spheres, with which the shared values (e.g., equality and justice, caring, respect, accountability, and quality of education, harmony, and global citizenship, etc.) underpin all aspects of school life. The school adopted the cultural approach to facilitate students’ full human and academic development, which has been perceived as the main content of and aim for the strengthening of students’ rights to education in Chinese educational policies. This approach to education involves traditional culture in the school’s management, curriculum development, and teaching and learning process. For instance, the school mission of “seeking truth and facts to develop full personality; and pursuing good virtues and aesthetic philosophy to live a noble life” is inherited from the traditional concepts of self-cultivation (xiu-shen), harmony (he), a way of good life (xiang-shan), and related moral spiritual ideals. In the sense, HRE in the case school is generally portrayed the cultural approach to fostering students’ national cultural identity, and inducting school members into the norms and rules of a given community. In addition, to cope with Shenzhen’s pioneering status in the social, economic, and educational development, the case school intended to develop its students’ international vision by socializing them with the four-haves, i.e., qualities, elite disposition, creativity, and international visions shown in Chap. 6, to become global citizens. It reflects the school’s development plan of what good citizenship is and what kinds of education practices best promote it.

A Values and Awareness Approach Socializing Students to Live in the Multilevelled Polity The bottom-up educators adopted a values and awareness approach to teach and socialize students in the ideas of human rights, which was constructed, interpreted, and promoted by different stakeholders, preparing students to live in the multilevelled

158

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

polity. In Chap. 7, three patterns explained the consistency and inconsistency between teachers’ perceptions of what and how HRE should be taught, the interpretations of perceived expectations placed on them, and the implementations thereof, reflecting how they responded and practised HRE policies into classrooms. The values and awareness approach depicted how bottom-up educators used varied coping strategies to facilitate students’ perceptions of human rights and HRE and to socialize them to be citizens studying and living in the multilevelled society. Firstly, some teachers adopted a national focus that conceptualized HRE as a means to transmit human rights concepts, values, and norms endorsed by the central authorities to students. For instance, some teachers integrated core socialist values into the teaching of HRE carrier subjects, arguing that those values echoed such common values shared by the international community as equity, justice, democracy, freedom, and peace and development, etc. Therefore, teachers conceptualized the embedded HRE proceeding from both universal and culturally specific perspectives to impart knowledge and mould attitudes toward human rights among students. Chapter 7 has examined that teachers perceived human rights concepts to be both universal and relative, by agreeing with universal principles of human rights while acknowledging the role culture played in validating the meaning of human rights in China’s context. Teachers therefore conceived of the embedded HRE as a project for socializing students to become participatory citizens for China’s modernization. With a national concern, teachers emphasized teaching students of human rights, with both universal meanings and relative understandings that echoed the Chinese context, aiming at protecting students’ rights, full personality development, and enhancing their collective identities by giving them access to the public sphere at the local, national, and global levels, and making students belong to a Chinese society that includes the politicization of school life. However, teachers who perceived HRE with a strong national focus found HRE provisions might be challenged by the control of the CPC-led state and education realities. The ought-is tension surrounding HRE practices in the case school argued that teachers did not agree with and changed some expectations of HRE, for instance, avoiding teaching politically sensitive themes and content that might offend China’s political bottom line, and therefore censoring the delivering of human rights ideas and related themes within key carrier subjects and educational activities. The lag between expectations and realities challenged teachers’ interpretations and implementations of embedded HRE, considering the too careful focus on students’ safety, teachers’ limited de facto decision making power when participating in school management, and other educational problems. Thus, some teachers perceived the limitations of promoting HRE in the school, and pointed towards emphasizing questions related to educating students to become qualified citizens for China’s socialist cause, and making students’ national cultural identity. Secondly, some teachers taught and socialized students into human rights ideas by rallying students to participate in school and communities, and enhance their sense of belonging to the school and community. Despite the national promotion of HRE, and the state’s role in the goal-making and content-selection, teachers tended to focus

Socialization Project as Contextualized Practices for Citizenship-Making …

159

more on the local situations, because it was easier for students to identify with the local community in the context of Shenzhen. Teachers paid far more attention to local issues in teaching the HRE carrier subjects, and encouraging students to participate in the school and communities through various extra-curricular programmes. Chapter 7 has discussed that some teachers promoted the embedded HRE by attaching it with culturally particularities, in accordance with Shenzhen’s context and conditions, including emphasizing the societal issue of migrant children, recognizing rooted cosmopolitanism by identifying both cultural relativism and diversity, and focusing on the public space in local community to develop a sense of social justice and of shared responsibility among students. School staff also guided activities and service learning programmes for students to participate in, as presented in Chaps. 6 and 7, such as community service and the belonging to groups and associations, to publicize knowledge and awareness of the law and rights among students, and enhance their sense of belonging to their community. In addition, bottom-up educators emphasized the involving of human rights ideas and themes in varied teaching activities and the school day-to-day life to create a culture that honours and respects human rights. Chapter 7 revealed teachers’ concerns about educating students to take efforts at creating a welcoming education environment, and rallying students to participate in school affairs and community services. These teachers perceived the embedded HRE as a socialization process for cultivating students to be participatory citizens, and for helping students succeed in local communities. Thirdly, some teachers perceived HRE as a means of facilitating each student’s lifelong learning and full human and academic development, in line with their chosen contents and strategies. Teachers concentrated on the teaching of HRE carrier subjects for cultivating knowledge and awareness of human rights among students, and socializing them to pursue full personality development and a good life filled with dignity. Students’ critical thinking ability and disposition to participation were emphasized in their teaching. Specifically, in the case school, teachers made good use of the shared values framework (i.e., zheng, ai, jing and gao) to enhance students’ cultural identity in the shared school community, and cultivate them to be autonomous and lifelong learners, able to cope with the school development plan.

Good and Critical Citizens: A Cognitive and Cultural Approach The third approach of HRE as socialization project for citizenship-making involved shaping students’ perceptions of what constitutes a good citizen in learning and experiencing the embedded HRE in school. From the student perspective, HRE was delivered in an integration approach through existing school subjects and activities, in which they learned ideas of human rights and skills for actions in the school and

160

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

communities. Chapter 8 presented students’ self-reports on how they understand human rights and HRE, and their evaluations on the school’s human rights climate. The embedded HRE could be perceived as a means of cultivating good citizens with skills necessary to live in the multilevelled polity, in two ways. First, students recognized the embedded HRE shaped their national cultural identity as good citizens living in Chinese society. Through the HRE carrier subjects and activities, they learned about human rights ideas, exercised codes of behaviours regarding the private and public morality, and participated in the school and community affairs, in which they conceived of the good citizenship as the inclusive notion of moral and ethical behaviour, civic virtues, interpersonal relationships, and concern for the welfare of others. Some students recognized the importance of state authority for nation-building and the learning of state-defined socio-political values, in accordance with China’s political situations. They also internalized the school’s expectations of the fourhaves—having qualities, elite disposition, creativity, and international visions—to realize their lifelong learning and full human and academic development, as denoted in Chap. 8. Students therefore perceived good citizens as being citizens qualified to acquire academic knowledge and skills in living in the multilevelled polity, which situate the goals and contents of HRE in relation to the school/local, national, and international sites of power. Students affirmed the role Chinese culture plays in promoting the embedded HRE by combining the questions of what human rights delivered and what kind of citizens were to be cultivated. They perceived the term human rights as dynamic and complex, and as upholding core values from both Chinese traditional thoughts and universal principles, such as equality, justice, collective rights, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, etc. Some students (e.g., S12) saw the embedded HRE as intended to foster their national cultural identity, and future as builders of and successors to China’s socialist modernization. In addition, students perceived that HRE carrier subjects aimed to cultivate their socialization and politicization by focusing on their learning of civic virtues and sociopolitical values endorsed by the central authorities, and knowledge of morality in personal, local, national, and global domains. Some students believed core socialist values echo some common principles shared by different types of societies, and that HRE in China’s context can therefore be attributed to some similar international HRE programmes, by affirming the impact of cultural elements and Chinese doctrines. Students also internalized a set of shared values framework promoted by the school, through which individual learners were expected to enhance the cultural identity, to behave appropriately, and to pursue happiness in studying and living in the case school. The cultivation of good citizens by shaping their national identify in this study shows students’ perceptions of the relationship between the promotion of HRE and China’s political conditions. Chapter 8 revealed that students perceived human rights as rights that ensure a decent standard of living among Chinese people, which is codified as the right to subsistence and development in the Chinese laws, coping with China’s discourse on human rights and HRE. A student lens helps to explain

Socialization Project as Contextualized Practices for Citizenship-Making …

161

what socially constructed human rights are and how to promote them in the school settings. Human rights ideas are conceived of as social constructions and relative to China’s context and conditions, rather than saying human rights in China are full and sufficient simply because multiple stakeholders say there are. As discussed, in a given society where the right to free speech is not clearly held by all citizens, they cannot effectively engage in deliberative processes of political participation. A second point is that students recognized the embedded HRE shaped their abilities for and dispositions to critical thinking, coexistence, and participation in school and community affairs, exercising their rights and duties in the society. Chapter 8 revealed that students identified the importance of critical thinking in learning the embedded HRE, and they had the abilities to analyse and critique what they have learned in HRE’s carrier subjects and were willing to express and share their ideas in classrooms. Though teachers were aware of the political bottom line in teaching HRE carrier subjects and activities, they furthermore encouraged students to use diverse sources to learn human rights ideas and related themes, and be sceptical of politicization in the school. Students (e.g., S18, S36) also expressed that the media, Internet, their family, and public institutions were major sources for them to broaden the horizons and diversify their critical thinking in learning human rights related topics. In addition, students were granted some flexibility and autonomy in learning the embedded HRE, and in participating in varied extra-curricular activities. For example, students used various interest groups to design and conduct diverse school activities and participate in community service, such as volunteer activities and service learning programmes. In learning and experiencing the embedded HRE, they recognized a sense of localization and globalization, which, along with global citizenship, was perceived as an important characteristic of good citizens (e.g., S35). As examined in Chap. 8, students had a sense of rooted cosmopolitanism that distinguished localized embedded HRE features from globalized ones. On the one hand, students had a strong sense of belonging to the living city of Shenzhen, in accordance with its position as a pioneer in China’s social, economic, and educational development; therefore, they perceived the embedded HRE as a project for the teaching and learning of values and spirits attached to Shenzhen (e.g., awareness of reform and opening up and Shenzhen spirit), participating in social service programmes in local communities, and becoming good citizens devote to Shenzhen’s development. On the other hand, students identified that the embedded HRE positioned them as members of the global community in a global age, instead of simply as national or local citizens. Therefore, being a good citizen included elements of global citizenship, which emphasized global knowledge, vision, abilities, and responsibilities to counter injustice, such as poverty and conflict, in the global society. This was reflected in the school’s expectation of four-haves: its students would have international visions, and have qualities, elite disposition, and creativity, to live in a multilevelled polity.

162

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

Theoretical Implications of the Book This study has made some contributions to extant theories of human rights and HRE. It revisits and offers a critique of and supplements to extant theoretical debates surrounding human rights and the evolution of human rights in China. It also revisits theories of HRE, and implementations of the embedded HRE in the Chinese context, considering the goal-making, content-selection, and pedagogies of HRE in Chinese schools.

Revisiting Theories of Human Rights This book has demonstrated human rights are socially constructed and culturally specific, particularly in China’s context. This study supports extant research of human rights theories in two areas, and fills the research gap regarding a Chinese lens on the perspectives, policies, and practices of HRE. First, the findings of this book rejoins the debate of whether human rights are innate or socially constructed. In answering this question, this study challenges various viewpoints, including natural rights theory (Donnelly, 1982; Donnelly & Howard-Hassmann, 1987), deliberative theory (Ignatieff, 2001), social justice model (Beitz, 1979, 2003), and the protest theory of human rights (Baxi, 2012; Stammers, 2009), and suggests that human rights concepts in China were defined by the state, and codified in laws for protection and enforcement, with a concern for individual rights, but emphasizing the supremacy of collective interests in response to social changes resulting from China’s nation-building and individual liberation. This answers such basic questions as who is entitled to possess human rights, the ultimate basis of human rights, and the relationship between individuals and the nation-state. Second, the present study supplements the ongoing debate about whether human rights are universal or relative (Donnelly, 1989, 2007; Espiell, 1998; Perry, 2000). The development of human rights ideas in China suggests the conceptualization of human rights has universal meaning, with the selective absorption and adaption of Western learning of human rights concepts, while the position culture enjoys closely affects the validity of human rights, particularly in Confucian thought. The notion of human rights, in the context of China, was conceived of as characteristics of culturalization, and the conceptualization and implementations thereof ascribed to human rights having universal meanings. The position Chinese culture enjoys, however, suggests the validity of human rights taking account of universal conditions, deviations of culture, and other forms of relativity. This study interprets the contents and scope of human rights in the Chinese context, and suggests that human rights concepts are culturally specific. In addition, this study examines the ideas of human rights from a historical perspective within China’s specific sociopolitical context, supplementing the multidisciplinary perspective on human rights.

Theoretical Implications of the Book

163

In general, this book complements the complexity of human rights concepts from a social, cultural, and historical perspective, taking account of the progression of human rights in different periods in the Chinese history, suggesting that the state acted as a principal actor defining, selecting, and prioritizing human rights ideas, and shaping the protection mechanism of human rights in different periods of Chinese society. This study suggests a meaning of human rights that is evolved from a universal meaning found in traditional Western perspectives, to a culturally specific one wherein human rights are perceived as evolving and complex responses to specific contexts and, in China’s case, the rise of collective rights in Chinese society. Chapters 3 and 4 described that the ideas of human rights were developed in accordance with social changes in different stages of China’s nation-building, by pursuing national independence, protecting individual and collective rights, and fighting for public goods and a good life for Chinese citizens. Human rights concepts in China therefore can be conceptualized from a socially constructed and culturally relative orientation. In other words, ideas of human rights in China reflect the acceptance of universal human rights principles in international policies, while leaving space for relative culture to echo the Chinese discourse.

Revisiting Theories of HRE This study enriches concepts of HRE in international policies that are associated with movements to promote human rights awareness, and the redress of violations through educational activities (Flowers, 2003; Tarrow, 1992; Tibbitts & Fritzsche, 2006; Tibbitts & Kirchschlaeger, 2010). International HRE policies aim to create a universal culture that respects and acts to protect and promote human rights and HRE; however, the conceptualization of HRE and HRE practices in international policies is, as this study has criticized, dominated by Western based human rights organizations, and lacks other nation specific issues, traditions, and cultures from which to develop alternative visions of what constitutes a good life. Although China’s national action plans on human rights provide a general framework of HRE in all education sectors, this study elaborates on the conceptualization of the embedded HRE in a case school, particularly the ways and strategies to integrate HRE into school’s context, in responding to HRE policies made by central authorities at different levels and its development plan. Previous studies in the general literature have focused on how different stakeholders (e.g., governmental actors, NGOs, and educationalists) promoted HRE (Flowers, 2003; Tibbitts & Fritzsche, 2006); however, they did not touch on the context of China and its diverse stakeholders. This book denotes a Chinese lens on HRE policies, taking into consideration different stakeholders at the national and local/school levels, and the interactions among them, and presents how different agents interpret and fulfil those provisions and requirements.

164

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

Secondly, this book expands theoretical discussions about HRE research, which describe different conceptualizations for HRE (Flowers, 2003), models (Tibbitts, 2002, 2017), typologies (Bajaj, 2011), pedagogical considerations of HRE (Bajaj, 2011; Flowers, 2000, 2003; Meintjes, 1997; Reardon, 2009; Tarrow, 1992; Tibbitts, 2002), and relationship between HRE and citizenship education (Osler, 2002; Osler & Starkey, 2003, 2005). The study enlarges on how different stakeholders define HRE, by explaining different interpretations of HRE given by the state, local government, school, teachers, and students. This study also enlarges on the values and awareness model of HRE (Tibbitts, 2002, 2017), which reviews school education and public training promoting HRE by teaching human rights related issues, by examining the roles different stakeholders played and the interactions between them, which this study has unveiled. In addition, this study supplements the theory of HRE that situates the goals and objectives of HRE in relation to local, national, and international powers (Bajaj, 2011), by providing a framework for the conceptualization of HRE within a certain school context, and underlying the interplay among different levels of stakeholders in detail and in depth. Thirdly, this research differs from extant empirical studies, regarding implementations of HRE that mainly locate HRE within region and country specific studies that attempt to present human rights themes and methodologies through educational standards and curricula; locate HRE in non-school settings for training projects for certain groups (Teleki, 2007); subsume HRE in formal school settings focusing on contents, cross curricular themes and activities, and pedagogies (Flowers, 2000, 2007); and evaluate HRE from diverse perspectives (Amnesty International, 2012; Shiman & Rudelius-Palmer, 1999) as discussed in Chap. 2. Those studies reviewed HRE in different settings by presenting human rights themes, contents, and methods with regard to diverse projects for promoting HRE, while neglecting to examine how different actors interpret and implement HRE within different contexts in response to the policies and requirements of diverse stakeholders. This book supports empirical research suggesting HRE is subsumed by and embedded in formal school settings focusing on contents, cross curricular themes, and activities in Chinese secondary school. It expands on empirical studies by examining various stakeholders’ expectations of HRE promotion at national, local, and school levels, the roles different actors (the school, teachers, students) played in interpreting and fulfilling those expectations, and the coping strategies they used to carry out embedded HRE. The embedded HRE in China is closely related to multiple stakeholders’ expectations and different actors’ interpretations and implementations of those requirements, which offers a systematic explanation for the dynamics and complexity of HRE (regarding the goal-setting, content-selection, and approaches) in Chinese secondary school. As such, HRE, as presented in previous literature, is not appropriate for understanding the embedded HRE in the specific context of a Chinese secondary school. Finally, this book supplements the relationship between (multilevelled) citizenship education and HRE, explaining how HRE is a special feature of citizenship education in practice (Fritzsche, 2007), and suggesting that human rights underpin the cultivation of citizenship at different levels to enable students to live in a

Theoretical Implications of the Book

165

multilevelled world, as examined by Hahn (1998) and Osler and Starkey (1996) in previous studies. The findings of this book note that HRE in China is subsumed into rather than separate from citizenship education, and emphasize the citizenship making function of HRE. Citizenship education and HRE in Chinese secondary schools are commingled, with the same goals of protecting students and promoting their participation in schools, based on the shared principle of education matters for citizenship.

Closing Words This book traced the emergence and evolution of the human rights conception and HRE in the Chinese context, and examined the main sources of influence that shape the conceptions. A Chinese lens on the perspectives, policies, and practices of HRE suggests that China’s understanding of human rights and HRE have been affected by Chinese thinking and adapted to suit its national circumstances, although the idea of human rights is essentially imported from the West into Chinese political discourse in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. China’s deeply embedded philosophical and cultural traditions clearly shed light on its ideas of citizenship and rights. Also, the efforts to construct an independent and strong nation-state since the late Qing China fashioned the Chinese thinking of rights, and the reciprocal relation between the individual and community/state. Human rights have been seen as a way of enhancing the omnipotence of the Chinese state for its nation-building goals. For instance, late Qing and Republican scholars perceived political rights as an important pathway for empowering the nation-state against foreign imperialism; in a similar vein, the emphasis on subsistence and development rights in post-1949 China is a useful means of facilitating the construction of socialism. Therefore, the predominant features of human rights discourse in the PRC are the restraint on state power and its stress on welfare and subsistence rights. Such emphasis is rooted in traditional Chinese ideas, mostly the Confucian doctrine. The embedded HRE suggests the approach to integrate HRE into existing school subjects and activities. I have also claimed in this book that the goal-setting and content-selection of Chinese HRE rely heavily on the provisions given by central authorities; however, the practices have different facets depends on how the people perceive and respond those requirements in the school and classroom contexts. Thus, there have been different pictures of HRE practices suggested by different actors. The HRE goals unpack the enhancing of rights, citizenship, critical thinking, and participation; however, students have limited deliberation and self-determination in political participation, though with public spirited. It is similar to the gap between the minimal and maximal citizenship denoted by McLaughlin (1992). The possible tension between the perceived and implemented HRE shows the complex power relations in the Chinese context. This book has demonstrated a complex scenario of HRE in China by illustrating that the key actors adopt varied coping strategies to promote the embedded HRE in the

166

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

school settings. To understand this issue, this book presented and discussed how HRE has been shaped by different players (i.e., international, national and local authorities, schools and bottom-up educators), by the dynamics and complexity of the interplay among those players, and by a tension of HRE practices between the intended and implemented programmes. The study concludes its findings by presenting, with the help of existing theories and the collected data, a conceptualization of the embedded HRE as a socialization project for citizenship-making in China. HRE in the case school has been integrated into key components of schooling to shape and facilitate students’ perceptions of human rights and HRE, and promote the socialization of students as citizens in a multilevelled polity. Despite its contributions to and supplementing of human rights theories and HRE studies, this study has three major limitations. First, the study is not representative of other cases in China. The concept of HRE as a contextualized practice only explains the dynamics of the interplay among actors in the context of Shenzhen, China; other contexts might yield different explanations of HRE. In addition, this study has focused on HRE in a single secondary school only, and cannot explain the situation of primary schools, high schools, nor higher education, which might have differences in terms of HRE policy provisions and different actors’ practices. Moreover, though China’s national action plans on human rights and other HRE policies provide general descriptions of what and how to carry out HRE in schools at all levels, it does not offer operational regulations nor integrated plans for HRE implementation. Therefore, HRE practices depend closely on bottom-up educators’ responses to those provisions and their decided contents and pedagogies. Second, as in other qualitative studies of curriculum and student expressions in the domain of political, moral, and civic education, the study’s limitation is that students are not in the position to share more their deeply held negative views in the Chinese cultural context, and their responses may be seen as answers reflecting what they have learned in school subjects. Though this study used various strategies to address the triangulation of data collection and analysis, and the reliability of findings presentation, there may be a lag between participants’ self-explanations of how they perceived and interpreted the concepts, policies, and practices of HRE, and how the researcher coded, analysed, and presented the findings. Because of these limitations, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other schools in China or elsewhere. Besides, including more participants who are ethnic minority could provide different viewpoints on the perspectives of HRE in practice, which will help enrich this study. Third, as Parker (2018) noted, HRE has a curriculum problem specifically, the absence of a coherent knowledge structure created in specialist communities; the embedded HRE in Chinese school is promoted indirectly and lacks episteme, which is associated with the tension between the widespread recognition of HRE’s importance and lack of consensus over its meaning in distinct societies. China is just beginning to develop HRE in its education systems, and including human rights content as a module or cross-cutting theme in schooling. Even given these limitations, this study suggests possible directions for future research. For instance, more studies could address developing a reasonably stable curriculum that

Closing Words

167

advocates teachers, policy makers, and HRE specialists can adapt to local needs and circumstances. Further thinking about the development of human rights justifications, norms, and enforcement mechanisms in different contexts can help in expanding the framework of human rights and HRE practices. How to live with human rights should be included further in HRE programmes in schooling, especially how to infuse HRE into all aspects of school day-to-day life.

References Amnesty International. (2012). Becoming a human rights friendly school: A guide for schools around the world. Amnesty International Ltd. Bajaj, M. (2011). Human rights education: Ideology, location, and approaches. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(2), 481–508. Baxi, U. (2012). The future of human rights (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press India. Beitz, C. R. (1979). Human rights and social justice. In P. G. Brown & D. Maclean (Eds.), Human rights and US foreign policy (pp. 45–63). Lexington Books. Beitz, C. R. (2003). What human rights mean. Daedalus: On International Justice Winter, 132(1), 36–46. Dembour, B. (2010). What are human rights? four schools of thought. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(1), 1–20. Donnelly, J. (1982). Human rights as natural rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 4(3), 391–405. Donnelly, J. (1989). Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. Donnelly, J. (2007). The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 281–306. Donnelly, J., & Howard Hassmann, R. E. (1987). International handbook of human rights. Greenwood Press. Espiell, H. G. (1998). Universality of human rights and cultural diversity. International Social Science Journal, 50(158), 525–534. Flowers, N. (2000). The human rights education handbook: Effective practices for learning, action, and change. Human Rights Education Series, Topic Book. The Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota Flowers, N. (2003). What is human rights education. A survey of human rights education (pp. 107–118). Bertelsmann Verlag. Flowers, N. (2007). Compasito: Manual on human rights education for children. Directorate of Youth and Sport of the Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.eycb.coe.int/compasito/ Fritzsche, K. P. (2007). What do human rights mean for citizenship education. Journal of Social Science Education, 6(2), 40–49. Hahn, C. (1998). Becoming political: Comparative perspectives on citizenship education. State University of New York Press. Ignatieff, M. (2001). Human rights as politics and idolatry. Princeton University Press. McLaughlin, T. H. (1992). Citizenship, diversity and education: A philosophical perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 21(3), 235–250. Meintjes, G. (1997). Human rights education as empowerment: Reflections on pedagogy. In G. J. Andreopoulos & R. P. Claude (Eds.), Human rights education for the twenty first century (pp. 64–79). University of Pennsylvania Press. Osler, A. (2002). Education for human rights and citizenship in a multicultural society: Making a difference. Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 5(1), 5–16. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (1996). Teacher education and human rights. David Fulton Publishers.

168

9 Chinese HRE in Focus: A Minimal Framework

Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: Theoretical debates and young people’s experiences. Educational Review, 55(3), 243–254. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2005). Changing citizenship: Democracy and inclusion in education. Open University Press, McGraw Hill Education. Parker, W. C. (2018). Human Rights Education’s Curriculum Problem. Human Rights Education Review, 1(1), 5–24. Perry, M. J. (1997). Are human rights universal? The relativist challenge and related matters. Human Rights Quarterly, 19(3), 461–509. Perry, M. J. (2000). The idea of human rights: Four inquiries. Oxford University Press. Reardon, B. A. (2009). Human rights learning: Pedagogies and politics of peace. Paper presented at the Conferencia Magistral 2008–2009, Puerto Rico. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. Shiman, D., & Rudelius Palmer, K. (1999). Taking the human rights temperature of your school. In D. Shiman & K. Rudelius Palmer (Eds.), Economic and social justice: A human rights perspective. Human Rights Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Stammers, N. (2009). Human rights and social movements. Pluto Press. Tarrow, N. B. (1992). Human rights education: Alternative conceptions. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Cultural diversity and the schools: Human rights, education, and global responsibility (Vol. 4, pp. 21–50). Routledge Falmer. Teleki, K. (2007). Human rights training for adults: what twenty-six evaluation studies say about design, implementation, and follow-up. In Human Rights Education Associates (Ed.), The Research in Human Rights Education Paper Series 1 (Issue 1). Human Rights Education Associates. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ 74BF01F5CE2682EEC12574C600519C87-HRA-Aug2007.pdf Tibbitts, F. (2002). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights education. International Review of Education, 48(3–4), 159–171. Tibbitts, F. (2017). Evolution of human rights education models. In M. Bajaj (Ed.), Human rights education: Theory, research, praxis (pp. 69–95). University of Pennsylvania Press. Tibbitts, F., & Fritzsche, P. (2006). International perspectives of human rights education. Journal of Social Science Education, 5(1), 1–15. Tibbitts, F., & Kirchschlaeger, P. G. (2010). Perspectives of research on human rights education. Journal of Human Rights Education, 2(1), 8–29. Tibbitts, F., Foong, D., Kasprzak, T., Keet, A., & Melouk, M. (2010). Impact assessment of the rights education action programme. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ pol32/011/2010/en/

Index

A All-China Lawyers Association, 84 American Revolution, 17 Amnesty International, 28, 130 An-ju le-ye, 50 Asian values, 18 Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Centre, 27 Association of Southeast Asian Nations Human Rights Declaration, 19 B Bai-ri wei-xin, 60 Bangkok Declaration, 19 Beijing Normal University, 85 C Cai Yuanpei, 38, 63 Censoring project, 103 Central Asia, 27 Chen Chi, 61 Chen Duxiu, 41, 63 China. See Mainland China, People’s Republic of China, post-1949 China, post-Mao China, pre-1949 China, Socialist China and Constitution, 45–47, 64 and cosmopolitanism, 50, 51 da-tong, 50, 51 and education system, 77 and human rights, 38, 62. See also renquan national human rights action plans, 84, 86, 99, 116

right to development, 51 right to subsistence, 47 sovereignty, 49 white papers, 48, 87 and liberalism, 38 and nationalism, 42, 44 collectivity, 46 The People, 45, 48, 64. See also The bloc of four classes and socialism, 63 citizenship project, 59 Common Program, 44 democratic centralism, 64 Ministry of Public Security, 84 national human rights action plan, 48, 83 People’s Government, 77 planned economy, 64 school subject a brief history of social development, 80 China’s Socialist Construction, 80 civics, 80 constitution of the PRC and socialist construction, 79 cultivation of youth, 79 economic knowledge, 80 knowledge of social sciences, 79 moral cultivation, 74 moral education, 82, 83. See also deyu morality and the rule of law, 82 political knowledge, 79, 80 politics, 74, 79 scientific perspective on life, 80 thought and politics, 82

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 W. Liang, Human Rights Education in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1304-4

169

170 Socialist Harmonious Road, 48 socialist market economy, 65 State Education Committee, 77. See also Ministry of Education yi-de zhi-guo, 51, 67 yi-fa zhi-guo, 51, 67. See also quan-li China Human Rights Net, 84 China Leagues for Civil Rights, 38 China Society for Human Rights Studies, 84 China University of Political Science and Law, 85 Chinese Foundation for Human Rights Development, 84 Chinese Nationalist Party, 75 Class struggle, 45 Cleaning project, 103 Communist Party of China, 75. See also CPC and economic reform, 46, 65 and four modernizations, 65 and stability, 65 Children’s League of Resisting Japanese Invasion, 76 China Young Pioneers, 76 Communist Youth League of China, 6, 78, 104, 108. See also CYL core socialist values, 82 early communists, 41, 44 four cardinal principles, 65 honours and disgraces, 82 Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, 65 mass line education and practice, 68 people’s democratic dictatorship, 65 scientific theory of development, 82 three represents theory, 82 Confucianism, 35, 50, 74 ai-ren, 36 and ethics benevolence, 36. See also ren faithfulness, 36. See also xin jun-zi, 37 righteousness, 36. See also yi ritual/propriety, 36. See also li wisdom, 36. See also zhi and politics guo-ti, 37 guo-zheng, 37 collective rights, 37. See also gong-quan common good, 36, 37 gong, 36 justice, 36. See also zheng min-ben, 36, 39, 43 moral equality, 36. See also ping-fen moral hierarchy, 37

Index natural equality, 36 public morality, 36. See also gong-de ren, 36 si, 37, 40 tian-ming, 37. See also natural law Constitutionalism, 40, 61 Constitution of the Anhui Patriotic Society, 42 Constructors, 80 Convention on the Rights of the Child, 21 Counter-revolutionary activity, 45 Cultural relativism, 18, 52, 152, 153 Cultural revolution, 64, 79 Curriculum documents of civics subjects in China, 74

D December 9th Movement, 108 Deng Xiaoping, 46, 65, 80 Dominican Republic, 130 Draft Pacific Charter of Human Rights, 19

E Europe, 27 Expert, 78 Exploiter, 44

F Five-loves, 82. See also love of home country, people, labor, science, and socialism Freedom to strike, 45 French Revolution, 17 Fudan University, 85

G Gao Yihan, 41 Globalization, 83 Green school project, 110 Guangzhou University, 85

H Han ethnic group, 59 He, 157. See also harmony He Qi, 61 Hobbes, 14 Hong Kong, 25 Hu Jintao, 66 Hu Liyuan, 61

Index Human rights and common good, 19 and cultures, 18 and historical perspective struggles for freedom, 12 and institutional environments, 14 deliberative school of human rights, 15 protest school of human rights, 15 social justice model, 15 and legal perspective human rights law, 12 and relativism, 18, 19 and sociological perspective universal equality, 12 and universality, 16 human nature, 16 international consensus, 17 social justice movements, 17 choice theory, 14 historical perspective three generations of rights, 12 interest theory, 14 moral rights, 14 natural rights life of dignity, 14 negative in character, 13 social contract, 14 social construction, 16 Human rights education, 20. See also HRE and Chinese education, 84, 89, 99, 101, 104, 157 citizenship-making, 156 good citizens, 159 national cultural identity, 156 and citizenship education, 25, 26, 90 and evaluation, 27 Indicators and Evaluative Checklists for Human Rights Friendly Environment in Schools questionnaire, 29, 130 Taking the Human Rights Temperature of Your School questionnaire, 28, 131 and models accountability model, 24 transformational model, 24 values and awareness model, 23 and non-school projects, 26 and regional and country practices, 27 and school curriculum, 27 and stakeholders, 23 carrier subjects, 6, 27, 90, 99, 104, 105, 141

171 Chinese policies, 86 education about human rights, 25, 118 education as a human right, 25, 118 education for human rights, 25, 118 education through human rights, 25, 118 for coexistence, 24 for global citizenship, 24 for transformative action, 25 international policies, 21 Declaration and Integrated Framework of Action on Education for Peace, Human Rights and Democracy, 21 International Congress on the Teaching of Human Rights, 21 Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace, and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 21 UN Decade for HRE, 21 World Conference on Human Rights, 21 World Plan of Action on Education for Human Rights and Democracy, 21 World Program for HRE, 21 regional policies Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and HRE, 22 Pune Declaration on Education for Human Rights, 22, 116 Seoul Declaration, 22 Sixth Workshop on Regional Arrangements for the Promotion and Protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific Region, 22 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 22 Training Workshop on HRE in Northeast Asia, 116 Hunan University, 85 Hunan University Press, 85 Hu Shi, 38, 63

I India, 27 Individualism, 66 Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, 164 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 48

172 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 48 Islamic values, 18

J Japan, 27 Jiang Zemin, 66 Jilin University, 88 Jun-quan, 62

K Kang Youwei, 38 Kant, 13 Korea, 27

L Landlord, 44 Law Association of Asia and the Pacific, 19 Liang Qichao, 38, 40, 61 and xin-min shuo, 40, 61, 74 Liang-hui yi-you activity, 107 Li Dazhao, 41, 63 Li-ji, 50 Liu Shipei, 38, 39 Luo Longji, 39, 63 Lu Xun, 38

Index Nationalist Party of China, 44 Nation building, 42, 44 Nationhood, 74 New Culture Movement, 40, 41 North America, 27 NVivo software, 5

P Parental involvement committee, 103 Peace education, 27 Peasant, 44, 64 Pedagogization, 74 Peking University, 85 People’s Congress, 77 Petty bourgeoisie, 44, 64 Philippines, 27 Principal responsibility system, 78 Program of safety education year, 110 Proletarian worker, 44, 64 Proletariat would, 46 Pu-fa jiao-yu, 87

Q Qian Qichen, 49 Qing dynasty late Qing, 2, 38, 60

M Ma Jianzhong, 61 Mao Zedong, 44, 45, 51, 78 Marxism, 63 Maximal citizenship, 148 May Fourth Movement, 107, 121, 140 May Fourth Youth Day, 108 Mencius, 36 Minimal citizenship, 148 Min-quan, 38–40, 43, 61 gong-quan, 39. See also popupar rights Mo-zi fei-gong, 50 jian-ai, 50 Mukden Incident, 108

R Rawl, 15 Reactionary, 44 Red, 78, 80 Relative universality, 121 Renmin University of China, 85 Republic of China, 2, 42, 140. See also ROC Bei-yang government, 62 Constitution, 42, 43, 62 Nanjing provisional government, 62 national government, 62 school subject civics, 75 political doctrines, 75. See also dangyi Rooted cosmopolitanism, 121

N Nankai University, 85 Narrative of origin, 76 Narrative of promise, 76 National bourgeoisie, 44, 64 National Day of China, 108

S School magazine ling-xiu, 110 ming-shi, 110 peng-xiang, 110 School trade union, 103

Index School values ai, 110, 121, 136 four-haves, 4, 124, 160, 161 gao, 110, 121, 136 jing, 110, 121, 136 zheng, 110, 121, 136 Second World War, 17 Shandong University, 84 Shantou, 65 Shen-quan, 62 Shenzhen, 4, 65, 102, 157, 158, 161 specific economic zone, 4 Shenzhen University, 85 Shi-bao magazine, 39 Social class, 45 Social harmony, 36 Southwest University of Political Science and Law, 85 SPSS statistics, 6 Student development support centre, 101 Successors, 80 Sun Yat-sen Three Principles of the People, 43, 51, 62. See also san-min zhu-yi min-quan, 43 min-sheng, 43 min-zu, 43

T Taiwanese school, 29 Thailand, 27 The Analects of Confucius, 36, 37 The Chinese Soviet Republic, 44 Thick account of human rights thick societies communitarian society, 11 Thin account of human rights thin societies individual freedoms, 11 Tiananmen Square Incident, 65, 82 Tian-xia wei-gong, 50 Tian-yi magazine, 39 Tibet, 49 Toiler, 44 Tsinghua University, 85 Twitter, 134 Two basics project, 80

173 U United States Declaration of Independence, 16 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1, 12, 17, 21, 52. See also UDHR

W Wang Tao, 61 War of resistance against Japanese aggression, 44, 140 Weak cultural relativism, 18, 22 Weibo, 134 Wen-bao, 47, 139, 146 Wuhan University, 85

X Xiamen, 65 Xiang-shan, 157. See also a way of good life Xiao-kang, 50, 51 Xi Jinping, 66, 68 and Chinese dream, 68 Xin-min, 40, 61, 74. See also new citizens kai min-zhi, 61 xing min-quan, 61 xing min-zhu, 61 Xin-yue magazine, 38, 39 Xin-zheng, 60 Xiu-shen, 157. See also self-cultivation Xue Fucheng, 61

Y Yan Fu, 38 Yang-wu yun-dong, 60

Z Zhao Ziyang, 47 Zhejiang, 68 Zheng Guanying, 61 Zhong-hua min-zu, 59 Zhong-ti xi-yong, 40, 60 Zhuhai, 65 Zou Rong, 38