
Frans Vandenbosch

| Traducir—Translate! | |
| Make fonts bigger>>> | Resize text-+= |
A mirror divided
A friend asked me last week: “Are there two Chinas then ?” His question, while simple, struck at the heart of a deeper truth: our view of China is often not shaped by experience, but by the narrative lens imposed upon us. In seeking an answer, I have drawn on conversations with expatriates, long-term observers, and Chinese citizens, as well as insights from Professor Hàn Dōngpíng 韩东屛, whose book The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village radically reframes Western assumptions. As Professor Hàn reminds us: “In reality, there are more than two Chinas, there are as many Chinas as there are people. Every and each person will see China in his and her own way.”
This article is not an attempt to define China. Rather, it is an invitation to question the narratives we inherit. It is a journey through the distortion of propaganda and the clarity of lived experience.
1. The China of the Western media
This is the China described by legacy media outlets, shaped by Anglo-American think tanks and ideological institutions. It is a narrative of fear, crafted for public consumption. In this version, China is a dystopia: an authoritarian, surveilled, expansionist state with no room for dissent or diversity.
From The New York Times and BBC to VRT and De Standaard, the imagery is repetitive. Few of their correspondents have linguistic proficiency in Mandarin, let alone deeper cultural understanding. The cycle of reinforcement is institutionalised: think tanks such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) or the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) publish reports funded by military contractors [1], which are then cited by journalists and politicians without scrutiny.
Figures such as Simon Leys (Pierre Ryckmans), Gordon Chang, Frank Dikötter, and Jonathan Holslag have gained prominence by reinforcing these narratives. Their views align with strategic needs rather than cultural comprehension. As Edward Said once wrote, “Every empire… tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate” [2].
Programmes such as the US State Department’s “Countering Chinese Influence Fund” [3] and the National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) China grants [4] fuel this machinery. NATO’s StratCom initiatives [5] and CIA-linked cultural media fronts during and after the Cold War [6] ensure continuity. The result is theatrical, not analytical. Belgium’s own media landscape, including the reports and writings of Van de Weghe, rarely diverges from this pattern.
2. The China of the Chinese
Contrary to the image painted in the West, the China experienced by Chinese citizens and resident foreigners is vibrant, complex, and resilient. It is a country where urbanisation, technological development, and social stability coexist, despite contradictions and challenges.
Over 800 million people have escaped absolute poverty since the 1980 ‘s [7]. China’s life expectancy now surpasses that of the USA [8]. Its high-speed rail network spans over 42,000 km, making it the world’s largest [9]. Trust in government consistently ranks among the highest globally [10].
For Flemish engineers in Suzhou or teachers in Chengdu, China is not a land of fear but of opportunity. Their accounts, totally absent from mainstream media, tell of competence, dynamism, and local pride. As Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong once wrote: “Understanding others begins with understanding oneself but understanding oneself also requires a mirror. China has long been denied a clear mirror in the West” [11].
This is the China of weddings and funerals, of community squares and neighbourhood committees, of protest and pragmatism. It is the China of the global South, seen not as a threat, but as a partner.
3. Western propaganda: How it works
The negative portrayal of China is not accidental. It is manufactured. Western disinformation ecosystems are extensive and often opaque. Organisations like the NED [4], USAGM [12], and various “independent” NGOs form a closed circuit of funding and narrative control. The ASPI, for instance, receives support from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin [1].
Reports on Xinjiang often originate from ideologically driven researchers such as Adrian Zenz, whose work has been criticised by German scholars for methodological flaws [13]. Yet these are widely cited in European media without verification.
In Belgium, the prominence of voices like Jonathan Holslag owes more to alignment with NATO than academic distinction. Counter-narratives, such as those from Chinese scholars or neutral observers, are either ignored or actively suppressed. A balanced view is not merely rare; it is institutionally discouraged.
4. Living in the real China
Each year, thousands of foreigners choose China as home. They are not agents or ideologues. They are scientists, teachers, students, and small business owners. Their reality contradicts the dominant script.
Foreign teachers speak of respectful students and efficient administration. Flemish entrepreneurs in Suzhou describe streamlined procedures and municipal support. Engineers from Limburg working in Hangzhou recount low crime, affordable healthcare, and high living standards. A 2023 survey showed that 87% of foreigners living long-term in China rated their quality of life as “satisfactory” or “excellent” [14].
This is not to deny challenges: language barriers, internet restrictions, or bureaucratic hurdles exist. But the lived experience often exceeds Western expectations. One recalls the words of Aldous Huxley: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored” [15].
Those who return to Europe with positive stories are often met with disbelief. Their testimony undermines a profitable fiction, … and thus must be erased.
5. Why the Western narrative persists
Why does a distorted image of China prevail, even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence? The answer lies in power and profit.
Sinophobia is a lucrative genre. Books like The Coming Collapse of China by Gordon Chang (published in 2001) continue to sell despite being repeatedly disproven. Academic careers are built on hostility towards China. Grants, media appearances, and institutional influence reward those who comply with the anti-China consensus.
Structural bias within Western media prevents balance. Journalists who attempt nuanced reporting (such as those who once worked for South China Morning Post or Xinhua) are stigmatised. As Professor Hàn Dōngpíng has shown in his work, ideological orthodoxy dictates what may or may not be said about China [16].
The West projects its own decline onto China, using it as a scapegoat for internal malaise. Demonisation comforts the fearful and distracts the discontented.
6. Choosing which China to believe
The question is not whether there are two Chinas, but which version one chooses to believe, .. and why. The Western narrative is seductive because it flatters our moral vanity. The Chinese narrative is challenging because it demands humility.
To side with the lived experience of the Chinese people is not to embrace propaganda, it is to insist on balance, context, and truth. To dismiss 1.4 billion people as dupes or victims is not analysis; it is arrogance.
We, westerners, must choose to follow recycled narratives from London and Washington, or listen to Flemings in Wuxi, Kunshan and Wuhan.
Beyond the duality
My friend Eric asked if there were two Chinas. In responding, I was reminded of what Professor Hàn Dōngpíng wrote: “There are as many Chinas as there are people.” There is no single truth, but there are more honest attempts to seek it.
The West sees China through a mirror of distortion. But the cracks are visible. And through them, a more textured, dignified, and real China emerges, if only we dare to look.
The STEM-sociology clash
Quantitative rigor vs. ideological echo chambers in higher education
Frans Vandenbosch 方腾波 14.05.2025
STEM versus sociology
To render the discussion more transparent, it is first necessary to define the concept of sociology and to delineate the precise scope of the STEM disciplines. Which fields of higher education are classified as STEM (the so-called beta sciences or hard sciences), and which fall under sociology (commonly referred to as alpha sciences, soft sciences, or the humanities)?
According to Professor Wouter Duyck [1] ,[2] there exists a clear demarcation between STEM and sociology. The latter encompasses disciplines such as psychology, communication sciences, pedagogy, theology, journalism, political science, law, criminology, speech therapy, physical education and movement sciences, philosophy, language and literature, Eastern European languages, Eastern languages and cultures, African languages and cultures, ethics, art history, archaeology, anthropology, medicine, veterinary science, rehabilitation sciences and physiotherapy, pharmaceutical sciences, and applied linguistics.
Indeed, here in Europe, we conventionally classify the natural and medical sciences (医学科学- yīxué kēxué), veterinary science (兽医学 shòuyīxué), rehabilitation sciences and physiotherapy (康复科学与物理治疗 kāngfù kēxué yǔ wùlǐ zhìliáo), pharmaceutical sciences (药学 yàoxué), the humanities (人文学科 rénwén xuékē), and applied linguistics (应用语言学 yìngyòng yǔyánxué) under the umbrella of sociology or the alpha sciences.
By contrast, STEM clearly refers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. This domain comprises numerous professions, including mechanical engineer, civil engineer, electrical engineer, chemist, bioengineer, data scientist, physicist, actuary, mathematician, materials scientist, geophysicist, and cryptographer, among others.
Not coincidentally, this same divide is also reflected in the Randal Olsen study [3] [4] concerning the IQ distribution among students of various academic disciplines.
Chinese versus western politicians
Given that nearly all Western politicians come from a background in sociology or similar ideological echo chambers, while their Chinese counterparts are overwhelmingly trained in STEM disciplines, the dysfunction of Western political systems needs no further explanation. Our leaders excel at spouting incoherent word salads, but when it comes to intellect, competence or dedication to the people, they are anything but cutting-edge.
Sociology in China
On top of that, in China, the discipline of sociology is approached with a markedly quantitative orientation, characterised by an emphasis on empirical data, statistical analysis, and methodical research techniques. Notably, at Nanjing University, students enrolled in criminology and legal studies programmes are required to acquire proficiency in AutoCAD, reflecting a broader interdisciplinary integration of technical competencies into the social sciences.
After several minor Gaokao reforms by the Chinese Ministry of Education, it was on 7 June 2023 in the afternoon that it became clear to the Gaokao candidates that the fun was over for the “Liberal Arts” students. The Mathematics exam was so hard for them that they had to step out and didn’t even participated in the science or language exams at the following day. On top of that, on 8 and 9 June 2023, some regions (Shanghai, Zhejiang, Guangdong …) had extra (optional) exams for elective subjects under the “3+1+2” reform. There, the troubled history students had to take their comprehensive exam, competing against physics-focused peers for fewer university slots.
In most western countries sociology education is close to indoctrination: analytical skills are not highly encouraged; sociology students are made clear to only rely on what’s regarded as “reliable sources”. Which is outright dangerous, as it opens the door for intellectual brainwashing and government propaganda.
In numerous Western educational contexts, sociology instruction is adopting a prescriptive framework that prioritises adherence to established authoritative sources over the cultivation of independent analytical skills. This pedagogical approach often emphasises conformity to a narrowly defined set of “reliable” sources, potentially at the expense of fostering critical thinking and open-minded inquiry. Such an environment may inadvertently suppress intellectual autonomy and discourage students from engaging with diverse perspectives or challenging prevailing paradigms.
This concern aligns with philosophical analyses of indoctrination in education. For instance, Rebecca M. Taylor discusses the ethical implications of indoctrination, emphasising the importance of educators fostering environments that encourage critical examination rather than uncritical acceptance of information [5]. Similarly, discussions on the “hidden curriculum” highlight how implicit educational practices can perpetuate social control by promoting acceptance of specific values and norms without encouraging reflective consideration [6].
Moreover, the reliance on a limited set of sources and perspectives can create conditions conducive to ideological conformity, where alternative viewpoints are marginalised. This dynamic is reminiscent of concerns raised in critical discourse studies, where the suppression of diverse narratives can lead to a form of intellectual homogenisation [7].
To uphold the foundational academic principles of open inquiry and epistemic pluralism, it is imperative for educational institutions to critically assess their pedagogical approaches. Encouraging students to explore diverse perspectives helps them develop strong analytical and critical thinking skills. These skills are essential for fostering informed, independent individuals who can contribute meaningfully to societal discussions.
The forgotten servitude of sociology
The economy is traditionally divided into three interdependent sectors: the primary sector (extracting raw materials through agriculture, mining, and forestry), the secondary sector (transforming these materials into goods via manufacturing and construction), and the tertiary sector (providing services, from retail to education).
While all sectors are vital, the tertiary sector exists to serve the others, facilitating, distributing, or optimizing the value created by primary and secondary labour. Yet most sociologists, entrenched in the tertiary sector, have forgotten this hierarchy. They dismiss their role as servants to miners, farmers, and engineers, instead posturing as an intellectual elite. Their boast of being “highly educated” rings hollow when divorced from tangible output; unlike STEM fields, which solve concrete problems, sociology often produces self-referential discourse detached from the material realities sustaining society.
Worse, many sociologists reject the humility of service, instead adopting a priestly tone, lecturing the very producers they ought to assist. This dissonance mirrors the broader Western decline: a leadership class that prioritizes rhetoric over results, ideology over infrastructure, and self-aggrandizement over service. If sociology wishes to reclaim relevance, it must rediscover its place, not as a pulpit, but as a tool for those who build and feed the world.
Too many sociologists retreat into their moral high ground, treating ‘critical theory’ as mental comfort when confronted with their inability to explain, or even address, the real-world disruptions their ideas may exacerbate. Yet this is seldom intentional; it’s typically an unconscious byproduct of their ingrained academic habits.
Communication science
So-called communication science, particularly as practised in the spheres of Western politics and journalism, has evolved into a discipline uniquely unburdened by the constraints of empirical verification. Its primary output does not consist of testable hypotheses or verifiable models, but of syntactically flawless declarations that masterfully evade precision, accountability, or falsifiability. Statements are constructed with such semantic elasticity that they can mean anything (or, more usefully: nothing) depending on the needs of the moment. One might begrudgingly admire this rhetorical agility, where lexical sophistication is inversely proportional to informational clarity. For the masters in communication “science”, it is not the quality of the information provided to the public that counts, but the beauty of the word salad.
In its applied form, communication science functions less as a vehicle for transmitting truth than as a mechanism for manufacturing legitimacy. It equips politicians with the vocabulary of sincerity without the burden of substance, and journalists with the tools to shape public sentiment while preserving the appearance of neutrality. Concepts such as “narrative framing” and “agenda setting” are deployed not to interrogate power structures but to manage audience perception in ways that conveniently align with institutional interests.[8]
Were its practitioners to adopt methodologies more common to the natural sciences (such as reproducibility, falsifiability, or objective measurement) they might inadvertently discover inconsistencies in their own assumptions, or worse, contradict the ideological frameworks they are tasked with reinforcing. [9] Thus, it is perhaps no coincidence that western communication “science”, in its modern form, remains comfortably nestled within the “soft” academic disciplines: intellectually malleable, methodologically ambiguous, and ideologically aligned with the cultural apparatus it serves.
A call for intellectual renaissance in western academia
The stark dichotomy between STEM’s quantitative rigor and sociology’s ideological echo chambers exposes a crisis at the heart of Western higher education. While China integrates empirical discipline into its social sciences—producing leaders capable of solving real-world problems—the West clings to a system that rewards rhetorical gymnastics over substantive thought. Our universities have become factories of conformity, churning out politicians and “experts” skilled in crafting elegant word salads but devoid of analytical depth. We have a leadership class allergic to accountability, intoxicated by dogma, and utterly unequipped to address the complex challenges of our time.
If the West wishes to reclaim its intellectual vitality, it must dismantle the ideological monoculture masquerading as sociology. Let us demand curricula that prioritize critical inquiry over indoctrination, evidence over narrative, and competence over charisma. The alternative is irreversible decline, a fate we can no longer afford to ignore. The choice is clear: either embrace the rigor that built modern civilization, or perish in the echo chambers of our own making.
Thank you for reading! We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please share your comments here below and join the conversation with our community!
本文英文:有两个中国!
Dit artikel in het Nederlands: Er zijn twee Chinas !
Print this article [bws_pdfprint display=’print’]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS





