2004/11/19 by Roya Akhavan‐Majid · 72 citations
Social Sciences · #China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance #Hong Kong and Taiwan Politics #Chinese history and philosophy #China #Communism #Bureaucracy #Context (archaeology) #Ideology #Mass media #State (computer science) #Political economy #Political science #Economic system #Politics #Sociology #Economics #Law #History
paper · doi:10.1177/0016549204047576
published in Gazette (Leiden Netherlands) 66(6), 553-565 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2004/11/19 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/02
Historically, analyses of change in mass media systems have tended to draw upon a ‘dissident vs state’ framework, derived largely from the western historical experience. In the case of China, a ‘state vs market’ scenario has been superimposed on this basic framework, in the context of which the Chinese Communist party-state is often portrayed as a monolithic entity intent on promoting market-oriented reform in China’s economic base, while keeping a tight grip on the country’s mass media system and political superstructure. These dominant analytical frameworks tend to mask a number of important dynamics unique to Chinese history and society, that have played a significant role in the mass media transformation process. The purpose of this article is to outline a new conceptual framework incorporating these unique dynamics. In particular, it is the contention of this article that many of the changes in China’s mass media system during the post-Mao period have been achieved by non-state actors, not in an adversarial process vis-à-vis the state, but through what may be called ‘creative renegotiation and expansion’ of new policy openings initiated by the state. The success of these non-state actors, furthermore, has been due to three major systemic factors: (1) the increasing ‘deideologization’ of the Chinese society set in motion by Deng’s pragmatic policies; (2) the gradual functional shift on the part of the local party cadres and bureaucratic authorities from ideological supervision to entrepreneurial collaboration with private investors; and (3) the increasingly common core of interest created by the media’s commercialization among the party cadres, bureaucratic bodies and media entrepreneurs and managers in extracting profits from the media.