A Deeper Dive Looking at China: Second Annual TPPI China Initiative Conference

According to Dr. Benjamin Wang (Stanford University), the debate in China today is not about China catching up with the world, but rather about China “bringing its own sense of the world [to the world], not slotting into the western sense of the world.”

Global academics and intellectuals recently presented and debated social and political theory in China at the 2026 Telos-Paul Piccone Institute China Initiative Conference, “The Chinese New Leviathan: Cultural Subjectivity and Statecraft Today.” The goal of the two-day forum in New York City was to further explore and discern what makes modern China tick.

I came away from the Conference with Three Awarenesses:

• First, of the nature of Chinese nationalism and civilizational discourse;

• Second, of the tricky eddies of language and meaning; and

• Third, of the essentiality of dialogue and collaboration.

  
  

Chinese Nationalism and Civilizational Discourse (Awareness One)

The Chinese Communist Party promotes nationalism and civilizational discourse with spirited institutional vigor. Five thousand years of Chinese civilization. Confucianism is our proud legacy. Love our country. Love Socialism. Love the Party. These are to be cultivated.

The debate over the nature of the Chinese state, of its modern nationalism, blossoms from this golden heritage. The status of civilization brings gravitas, connects dots over millennia, provides comfort and security in the memory of longevity. The practical benefits of Love of Socialism and Love of Party seem clear for those who govern: Legitimacy. Power. Control.

In China, concepts from centuries before Christ breathe strong. The Great Unity (Da Yitong 大一统). The World Under Heaven (Tianxia 天下). These are treasured philosophical ideas. They envision a global approach to statecraft, something more ancient than the Westphalian nation-state international system. There is an aspirational focus on good governance and taking care of all, a sense of wider community. Harmony and relationships predominate as motivator and method.

Da Yitong and Tianxia were joined in the early 20^th Century with Cosmopolitanism (Shijie Zhuyi 世界主义) and evolving concepts of Nationalism (Minzu Zhuyi 民族主义). The former envisions a global order grounded in the ethics of a world community. In a China that loves slogans, the latter now calls for burying the Century of Humiliation (百年国耻) to achieve National Rejuvenation (民族复兴) and the Chinese Dream (中国梦) while promoting a Community of Common Destiny for Mankind (人类命运共同体). Independence, self-determination, pride, control of own destiny and identity. These are very relatable ideals.

Language and Meaning (Awareness Two)

I have studied Mandarin for four decades and still I struggle with the cultural, literary, and historical references that are peppered throughout as metaphor (idioms and proverbs) framing thought and unlocking richer meaning. The Conference illuminated that the same phenomenon exists within the expression of language and thought in philosophy and academia.

There are baselines that connect speakers with listeners. Without the background context and history, who said what, why, and how the same have been critiqued, debated, and analyzed over time, meaning is clouded, misunderstandings can easily proliferate, knowledge and communication are hampered. The analogy of these risks to other situations, e.g., business and politics, immediately came top of mind.

When Leviathan and the role of sovereign were raised, everyone else knew intuitively that Thomas Hobbes pronounced his theory of autocracy to prevent chaos 375 years ago and how R.G. Collingwood and Carl Schmitt in the 20^th Century and others before and after had and have their own interpretations and reinterpretations on the nature of civilization and models of statecraft. From these, they based their papers, tested theories, and argued, defended, and possibly amended positions.

Listening to panelists discuss Leviathan’s application to China and where that took the discussion, I know I missed subtext because so much of the deeper conversation was Greek to me. It reinforced in my mind that common lexicons, or at a minimum an appreciation of the differences between lexicons, are vital.

Dialogue and Collaboration (Awareness Three)

This one should be basic, though it seems increasingly like a lost art. Talking and thinking and interaction among diverse peoples and ideologies matter. Those gathered at the Conference were professors, postdocs, PhD candidates, Masters students, think tankers, and me. From China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, Italy, England, Hungary, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Canada, and America. These are people earnest in exploring how the world does, can, and might see China, while reflecting critically on what the Western tradition can (and cannot) bring to the analytical table.

It took me until late on the second day to begin asking questions during vibrant post-panel Q&A sessions. I can discuss Chinese thinkers and the Hundred Schools of Thought of the Warring States Period with a modicum of intelligence [see On Being Chinese]. However, discussing them with experts and within the framework of Collingwood, Schmitt, and Hobbes was initially a tad intimidating.

Sharing takes many forms, from the academic to the entertaining. My dinner companions on Friday night were the Deputy Director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore and philosophy professors from Chang Jung Christian University in Taiwan and the University of Colorado. A good part of the amiable conversation touched on issues that do not arise at my kitchen table, namely, travel budgets, research opportunities, how philosophy is taught and received. Dialogue. Connections.

Conclusion

Nationalism fueled by civilizational discourse is powerful. It can be used for good. It can spiral out of control and lead to something bad. In the words of one Conference attendee, “nationalism is emotional mobilization.”

I end a discussion of an academic conference focused on philosophical questions of social and political theory with more questions. Is the choice for China Leviathan or Behemoth? Who frames and is allowed to participate in the debate? Is hegemony among states a truism of humanity? Can traditions seemingly so disparate as China and the West have a collective future of peace?