This article aims to state that:
“The Unity of prestige and potence” is the evolutionary choice and institutional development of the ten-thousand-year Chinese geo-ecology, geo-survival mode, geo-gene, geo-life quality, and geo-culture;
“The Unity of prestige and potence” and “Independent thinking” are the dual foundations for the inheritance, promotion, and innovation of Chinese civilization and institutional culture. They are interdependent and inseparable.
Facing the “Centralization as Dictatorship” Argument and the Historical Phenomenon of “Southward Migration and Northward Return”: A Comprehensive Reflection on the Origins and Evolution of China, Both Historically and in the Present, Through the Lenses of Geopolitical Anthropology, Life Sciences, History, Economics, Political Science, and the “Triple Horizon Perspective” (Immediate, Centennial, Millennial Horizons).
Section I: The Evolution of Human Civilization
(I) The Precursors, Engines, and Cradles of Civilizational Progress
Independent and free thought, coupled with an inclusive institutional ethos, serve as the precursors and cradles of civilizational progress. On the other hand, a system of authority that is unified yet capable of embracing diversity, harnessing collective strength, and driving progress through a unified yet pluralistic cultural framework, constitutes a powerful engine for civilizational advancement. These two elements are interdependent and form the twin foundations of human civilizational progress.
(II) The Formation of Humanity and the Quality of Life
Research in the life sciences and humanities reveals that humanity originated 7-8 million years ago and took shape 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. Particularly during the glacial period 195,000 to 125,000 years ago, a group of human ancestors underwent endocrine system adaptations to their ecological environment, enhancing their tolerance and inclusivity. Driven by multiple factors such as sexual reproduction, life consciousness, and especially the natural axioms and laws of “advantageous multiplication” and the “two-way interaction between advantageous genes and survival modes,” this group, through prolonged processes of variation, selection, inheritance, and evolution, developed a “dualistic interdependence of self-interest and altruism, with an overall altruistic orientation,” as well as an “instinct-dominated gene” that guided them to choose a “harmonious overall state” and a survival mode, value consciousness, and institutional culture characterized by “harmonious coexistence.” Ultimately, they diverged from other hominids such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, becoming the only modern humans of the species Homo sapiens.
(III) Geopolitical Sub-Populations
Over hundreds of thousands of years, modern humans migrated to various “geopolitical ecological” environments across different continents. Based on the “dualistic interdependence of self-interest and altruism” instinctual gene and the “overall harmonious state” dominated life movement, in the East, modern humans, in the geopolitical ecological environment surrounded by plateaus, deserts, hills, and oceans, developed relatively stable ancient agricultural survival modes. Controlled by the 14-repeat short allele geopolitical gene (S) in the serotonin transporter gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR), they formed the Chinese sub-population characterized by a prosocial and altruistic survival mode, value consciousness, and a “unified authority” geopolitical institutional culture. In contrast, the rich maritime and mineral resources and vast lands in Europe and America gave rise to great navigation, migration, territorial expansion, and a geopolitical gene dominated by the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene third exon polymorphism. This resulted in the formation of the European and American sub-populations characterized by a survival mode, value consciousness, and geopolitical institutional culture of individualistic freedom and egoism, rich in exploratory, developmental, and challenging spirits. Human society is primarily composed of these two sub-populations, with various intermediate geopolitical sub-populations coexisting alongside them.
(IV) The Evolution of Chinese and European-American Geopolitical Institutional Cultures
It is noteworthy that, first, the geopolitical genes possessed by the European and American sub-populations are almost non-existent in the Eastern sub-populations. Second, DNA archaeological discoveries published in Nature and by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2020-2022, led by Fu Qiaomei’s team, revealed that over the past ten thousand years, the geopolitical institutional culture of the European and American sub-populations has undergone multiple violent upheavals, fractures, and “major overhauls” in the process of promoting human civilizational progress. In contrast, the geopolitical institutional culture of the Chinese sub-population has been consistently passed down, embodying the “harmonious essence of life” of humanity and continuously advancing the progress of the Chinese nation and human civilization.
Section II: “Organizational Personification” and the Twin Foundations of Statehood
From the inception of humanity, humans have existed in the form of organizations and social beings. Their fate is largely determined by the fate of the “global village” and nation-states. The fate of nations is, in turn, largely determined by their domestic and international survival environments, as well as their traditional and current “institutional cultures” encompassing politics, economics, science, military affairs, culture, education, and faith.
In modern “representative democracy” societies, shaped by geopolitical instinctual genes, national institutional cultures formed by factors such as human consciousness, will, and the law of advantageous multiplication are the concrete realizations of the “organizational personification” of traditional and current national organizational personalities, primarily the transformation of the personalities of decision-makers (classes, teams) centered on governance goals and values into national organizational personalities.
In the East, from the perspective of state founding and governance, the Chinese sub-population’s national organizational personality and institutional culture, which embody the “harmonious quality of life” and prosocial altruistic survival mode and value consciousness, can be simply attributed to the twin foundations of governance: “state power”—”unified authority” and “intellectual power”—”independent thought.” When these two are in harmony, the nation is strong; when they are at odds, the nation’s fortunes decline.
Over the past ten thousand years, Chinese institutional culture has undergone four stages.
First Stage: The Construction of the Ancient “Twin Foundations”
Yu the Great’s flood control efforts transformed the “organizational personality” of the Chinese sub-population from spontaneous evolution to conscious development, forming the early “state power”—”unified authority” institutional culture of a unified state and family.
The Duke of Zhou’s establishment of rites further built the rudimentary form of the classical “unified authority” state.
The collapse of the Zhou rites and music triggered debates on “state founding and governance,” and the “contention of a hundred schools of thought” unleashed a great liberation of “intellectual power”—”independent thought.” With Confucianism’s “highest purpose” (Liang Qichao) of “inner sagehood and outer kingship” (Zhuangzi) as the “grand synthesis” (Xiong Shili, Feng Youlan) of various schools, the ideological foundation for “unified authority” state founding and governance was laid.
Following the grand principle of “great unification,” the Qin and Han dynasties established the “centralized authority-county system,” forging the foundational system of Chinese state founding and governance.
This was the first time in the history of Chinese civilization that a system integrating “unified authority and independent thought” was constructed in the form of combining the ideas of kings and princes with those of various schools of thought, leading to the rise and dominance of the Qin and Han dynasties.
Second Stage: The Tang Dynasty’s Opening of a Dualistic Democratic Politics
From the guest advisors discussing politics in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the persuasions of various schools of thought, and the contention of a hundred schools of thought, to Dong Zhongshu’s advocacy of “exclusive respect for Confucianism,” the foundation was laid for the “integration of governance and intellectual power.”
Emperor Wen of the Sui Dynasty initiated the imperial examination system to cultivate governance talents with “universal sentiment and governance skills” for “co-governance by the emperor and scholars.”
The Zhenguan era embraced the “people-oriented and state-strong” integration of “governance and intellectual power,” establishing a “dualistic democratic politics of the emperor and scholars” a thousand years earlier than the West: the emperor upheld the concepts of “fearing Heaven’s mandate,” “people-orientation,” and “the boat that carries is also the boat that capsizes,” establishing the Three Departments and the Hall of State Affairs for co-governance by the monarch and officials, practicing self-reflection and benevolent governance through accepting advice. Officials adhered to the “supremacy of public power,” practicing “self-discipline and supervision systems” to achieve honest and clean governance.
This was the second time in the history of Chinese civilization that a “two-power integration” system was established, leading to the prosperity of the Tang and Song dynasties and the peak of Chinese and even world politics, economics, science, and culture.
Third Stage: The Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties’ Implementation of Autocracy and the Decline of National Fortunes
The Yuan dynasty demoted scholars to the “nine ranks,” and the Ming emperor abolished the prime minister’s power, implementing autocracy and reducing the imperial examination to cynicism, reversing China’s national fortunes.
The Qing dynasty promoted the “steppe slave-owner system” and “literary inquisitions,” taking autocracy to its peak, and the “two-power integration” ceased to exist both in principle and in system.
A century of Westernization led to China’s semi-colonization, plunging it into the turmoil of foreign humiliation, warfare, and revolution.
This was a history of the decline of China’s national fortunes due to the organizational personalities and institutional cultures of backward ethnic groups leading to the divergence of the two powers.
Current Stage: The Exploration of New Policies
After the initial establishment of the socialist governance system and reform and opening up, China has embarked on the exploration of a “third path” distinct from both Soviet Russia and financial capitalism, while also reforming Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping’s politics.
In the new era, inheriting the millennium-old “substance and function” principles, China’s excellent traditional organizational personalities and institutional cultures have converged, revived, and renewed, with “two-power integration” remaining the twin foundations of the new policy governance.
The key to the new policy governance lies in promoting the tradition of “people-oriented and state-strong,” with the central focus on the “official system and supervision” aspects. The emphasis on both ends lies in “investigation,” and the prerequisite guarantee for “investigation” lies in adhering to the style and system of “independent thought.” Without this, the “cycle rate” will repeat itself.
Section III: Conclusion
(I) Geopolitical Historical Perspective
The aforementioned historical discussion on the formation of humanity and its institutional culture can be termed the “geopolitical gene-cultural historical perspective.”
(II) The Grand Purpose and Relationship of the “Two Powers”
If we condense ten thousand years of Chinese civilization into a single century, we can clearly see a fundamental law: when the “two powers of governance and intellectual thought” adhere to the same “people-oriented and state-strong” governance goal and value and are interdependent—as in the Spring and Autumn, Qin and Han, Tang and Song periods—the Chinese nation rises and prospers. Conversely, as in the Yuan, Ming, and Qing periods, the nation’s fortunes decline, appearing splendid on the surface but rotten within.
Therefore, following this law is the essence of innovating and strengthening China’s new policy governance.
(III) The Key to the Integration of the Two Powers
Whether the decision-making governance goal, value pursuit, and decision-making personality of real national decision-makers possess the consciousness and will for the “integration of unified authority and independent thought” and whether they establish laws and systems to implement and safeguard this is the key factor in realizing institutional innovation and “people-oriented and state-strong.”
(IV) The “Three Perspectives” for Reading History
The aforementioned “triple horizon perspective,” “geopolitical gene-cultural historical perspective,” and “organizational personification social perspective” can serve as the “three perspectives” for understanding and analyzing historical and current institutional cultures.
Authors: Shan Ruihua, Song Chen, Shan Yuanzhuang