Unveiling Regional Discrimination in Chinese Society

“A migrant worker’s actual wage per working hour is only one quarter that of a city employee” (Gong 54).  Among a plethora of challenges, migrant workers in China are awfully underpaid, experience delays in salary disbursements, work under appalling conditions, and have limited access to labor insurance and social security measures (Gong 54). The urban-rural divide in China is a well-established issue and an undeniable reality. This paper seeks to delve deeper into the identity-based discrimination experienced by migrant workers and rural populations and explore the origins of the urban-rural gap within China’s adoption of a socialist framework inspired by the Soviet Union.

The discrimination against migrant workers primarily manifests through institutional channels rather than through the general public (Gong 32). Undeniably, China’s rapid economic growth in the past three decades has been driven by the exploitation of cheap rural labor by domestic and foreign corporations (Gaetano 26). Both political and corporate interests, as such, are opposed to rectifying or minimizing the urban-rural gap. However, attributing this discrimination solely to state institutions and corporations would be a fragmented perspective that overlooks and exonerates the role of urban populations in perpetuating this divide. It appears urban residents have internalized the division created by the dual social structure state policies, viewing themselves as the “superior breed” (Gong 51) and often harboring discriminatory attitudes toward people from the Chinese countryside.

To illustrate the complementary roles of institutional and public discrimination, the treatment of individuals from the Henan province serves as an apt example. Post-COVID, authorities and businesses across several provinces exploited the pandemic as a pretext to deny employment, refuse housing, restrict mobility, and make arrests of people from Henan (CHRD). However, such discrimination predated COVID, as exemplified by the case of Miss Yan, who was denied employment in Hangzhou on account of her Henan roots (WSJ). In addition to such instances of institutional discrimination, the Chinese general public also unequivocally endorses these sentiments. The Chinese social media platform “NetEase” has served as a breeding ground for particularly malicious comments directed at people from Henan (Peng 2)– labeling them as fraudsters, swindlers, and cheats. As such, in the present day, Chinese citizens are also complicit in discriminatory practices and widening the urban-rural gap.

While Spring Grass and Rivers Ho do not appear to have faced explicit forms of discrimination owning to their Southern roots, specific instances potentially personify more subtle forms of prejudice among urban populations. When Spring Grass started working at the Red Glory Department Store, her accent invited sneer and scrutiny from the local employees (Qiu 13.5). Despite this, her time at the store was an overwhelming success– she established her footing in the city and created a successful business from her little stall. Her commendable work ethic and propensity to assist Mr. Swen and the department store employees even earned her the ‘Outstanding Worker’ award. However, when an employee first proposed nominating Spring Grass for the award, another employee was quick to emphasize that she was an “outsider” (Qiu 14.5), unworthy of consideration. While it is unclear whether the dissenting employee was referring to Spring Grass’s roots as an outsider to the city or her status as an unofficial employee, the sentiment of viewing migrant workers as “outsiders” appears to align with the sentiments of urban populations.

The negative stereotypes linked to the people from Henan and the association of migrant workers as outsiders can both be traced to the Chinese household registration system, better known as the hukou. After 1963, the Ministry of Public Security drew clear distinctions between an “agricultural hukou” and a “non-agricultural hukou” (Gong 50) which laid the bedrock for the urban-rural divide. Agricultural hukou holders in the non-urban regions of China were defined as farmers, an inherited and fixed identity decided by the hukou. As Chinese authorities cracked down on the transferability of the hukou, rural populations were permanently identified as farmers– an identity one could not dispose of even after working in non-agricultural sectors in the city for extended periods of time (Gong 50). Spring Grass, herself, likely referencing the hukou and its non-transferability, claimed that there is no home for her and Rivers in the city (Qiu 16.11). As such, the household registration system established and perpetuated the concept of a migrant worker as an “outsider.” Moreover, the distinct differences in benefits and services available to the two hukou holders have likely catalyzed a superiority complex among urban populations causing rural identity-based discrimination, as indicated by the treatment of people from Henan.

As such, the cause for regional discrimination in present-day China is undoubtedly the existence of a stringent hukou­-based identity. However, it is interesting to note that the hukou appears to be used as a tool to enforce and perpetuate regional discrimination­– the cause of this phenomenon is not embedded within this system. The Household Registration Law was enacted by the Kuomintang government in 1931 and it did not restrict hukou transferability or the freedom of movement (Gong 35). Only after 1958 with the promulgation of the Household Registration Regulations, was the hukou used to limit the mobility of farmers (Gong 49). Subsequently, in 1963, the segregation of agricultural and non-agricultural hukou established an institutionalized urban-rural gap or a dual social structure. The household registration system was weaponized by the Socialist government of Mao Zedong, which was also responsible for instilling the concept of regional discrimination.

The turning point, within the context of regional discrimination, came in 1953 when the Communist Party of China (CPC) abandoned the “ideals of a new democracy” established since the revolution of 1949 and declared a commitment to replicate Soviet-style socialism (Gong 36). With the initiation of the first five-year plan, the CPC prioritized the need for immediate industrialization and sidelined investment in the agricultural sector. This marked the initiation of a state-sanctioned policy of urban prioritization and rural disregard.

To fund the establishment of heavy industries, the CPC relied primarily on the agricultural sector– farmers’ tributes (gong shui) (Gong 39). However, describing these funds as tributes is an appalling mischaracterization, given that the government’s centralized agricultural procurement system levied harsh agricultural taxes and used “price scissors” to artificially slash the price of agricultural produce (Gong 40). The prioritization of heavy industry with the simultaneous reliance on agriculture prevented the absorption of rural populations into urban settings as the planned economy determined the allocation of labor (Gong 42). The CPC also collectivized agriculture and enforced stringent purchase quotas that farmers were required to fulfill (Gong 43). Early in Spring Grass’s life, these socialist policies drove her mother to assume greater responsibility on the agricultural front as an increased amount of labor had to be exerted to fulfill quotas and to make a living from the artificially lowered prices. Agricultural collectivization and the renunciation of private land ownership dictated production activity and threatened the sustenance of farmers. As such, in 1956 and 1957, millions of farmers fled to urban areas in search of better employment opportunities (Gong 49). However, given the need to ensure food security and the requirement of funds to industrialize, the CPC enforced the 1958 hukou amendments– placing an absolute restriction on the freedom of farmers’ movement.

Therefore, regional discrimination in China originates from the socialist government’s policy of industrialization at the expense of the rural workforce. In the past, rural populations were exploited to fund the industries of modern China; in the present, they are exploited to ensure the availability of cheap labor. The basis of regional discrimination, as such, exists in the replication of the Soviet socialist system. The hukou system has been used as a means to ensure the perpetual enslavement and subordination of rural populations, and the following differences instituted between urban and rural hukou have shaped the form of discrimination present in today’s Chinese society.

 

Word Count: 1295

Work-Cited:

Chinese Human Rights Defenders, “China Must End Discrimination against Hubei Residents and African Migrants in the Context of Containing Pandemic”, 2020

Gaetano, Arianne M. “Rural Women and Migration under Market Socialism”, Out to Work, University of Hawai’i Press, pp.14-27

Gong, Renren. “The historical causes of China’s dual social structure.”, Confronting Discrimination and Inequality in China, University of Ottawa Press, 2009, pp. 30-69

Peng, Altman Yuzhu. “Amplification of regional discrimination on Chinese news portals: An affective critical discourse analysis”, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 2020, pp. 1-17

Qiu, Shanshan. “Spring Grass”, Chapter 14-16

Wall Street Journal, “Chinese Woman Denied a Job in Case of Provincial Prejudice– and She’s Suing”, 2019

This entry was posted in Fall 2023. Bookmark the permalink.