On Jan. 29, members of the Photographers Association of Jishan County, Shanxi Province, pose for a photo with local villagers and their drum team in Miaocha Village, as part of the “Photographers’ Spring Festival Rural Outreach Activity.” Photo: IC PHOTO

---

In recent years, the term “jiceng” (grassroots) has been used with growing frequency, particularly in the context of primary-level social governance. In everyday use, its meaning seems self-evident—it denotes people’s living communities and daily lives. However, a closer examination reveals that this concept carries profound cultural and social implications. 

‘Grassroots’ and ‘group’ 

In traditional Chinese culture, the character “ji” refers to the “foundation of a building’s walls” and also conveys notions such as “beginning” and the “foundation of an enterprise or state.” Discussing traditional Chinese society, Fei Xiaotong noted that “in the feudal system, political power was not entirely concentrated in the hands of the supreme ruler... Within certain limits, each level had its own political authority.” Here, ceng (level) refers to the hierarchical structure of both political and social power. 

The term “jiceng” (grassroots) signifies the lowest level of society, fundamentally centered on people’s livelihoods and daily work. Its meaning also connects, to some extent, with the traditional Chinese concept of “qun” (group). In Chinese thought, “qun” represents the cultural expression of basic social organization, closely tied to people’s everyday interactions. Within the framework of human social organization, “qun” encompasses more than mere gatherings; it carries deeper and more distinctive social connotations. 

The concept of “qun” is indispensable when interpreting the fundamental social logic of Chinese culture. In this context, it refers to primary groups and informal organizations in the modern sociological sense, with the family as the most basic social unit. More broadly, “qun” can be understood as a community. Such communities do not exist in isolation; they are rooted in specific locations and linked to distinct natural environments and resources, forming unique living ecosystems. The origins of various human civilizations stem from these foundations—a central focus of humanistic geography. Beyond emotional ties, structures of social relationships, customs, cultural practices, production modes, and ways of life are all closely shaped by their geographical contexts. 

Social domain 

In Chinese society, the term “grassroots” encompasses multiple dimensions, spanning social, political, cultural, and economic domains. Socially, “grassroots” refers to the everyday lives and experiences of ordinary people, representing the lifestyle of the majority. At the community level, grassroots activities center on local organizations, including community development, local governance, and social welfare services. Such activities are deeply intertwined with people’s daily lives, with community members actively participating in both decision-making and implementation processes. 

Regarding the grassroots structure of traditional Chinese society, Fei Xiaotong observed: “Life cannot continue in chaos, so in villages, two overlapping systems are often observed. One is the official system, and the other is the local or civilian system. If the official system were merely a bureaucratic formality, it would not be an issue; however, in reality, it is backed by central authority, while the civilian system remains unofficial. As a result, these two systems become entangled at the grassroots level.” 

Similarly, Wu Qi described how, by the 19th century, China had developed a three-tiered structure in which grassroots social organizations relied on both horizontal and vertical connections. Under the dual governance system of gentry-bureaucratic mobility, local elites served as a vital link between the upper ruling structure and grassroots governance, playing an indispensable role in local society. In areas where official control was weak—particularly at the primary level—state laws could not comprehensively regulate all aspects of social life. Instead, local communities formed groups based on geographic or kinship ties, establishing informal agreements and rules to govern daily production and social interactions. Local elites were often the creators and enforcers of these customary regulations, serving as key agents in maintaining social order. 

In this passage, Wu Qi highlights two forces embedded in traditional grassroots society: local elites and residents. Local elites, often referred to as gentry by Fei Xiaotong and Wu Han, occupied an intermediary space between imperial authority and the common people, playing a defining role in grassroots society before the founding of the CPC. 

Political domain 

The separation of political governance from grassroots life is largely a theoretical construct; in practice, it remains inseparable from residents’ daily experiences. Fei Xiaotong wrote, “The Baojia system was initially designed to serve as a self-governing unit at the grassroots level, establishing an open, bottom-up path to realize a modern democratic government. If this goal were achieved, it would be a good thing. However, the system’s designers overlooked one crucial point: politics is an integral part of life, and political units must be aligned with the units of daily life.” 

Here again, Fei Xiaotong’s reflections on grassroots society and governance in 1940s China remain strikingly relevant: “Few who discuss China’s administrative system pay attention to the space between the county government office and the doorsteps of individual households. Yet, this segment is the most intriguing and crucial, for it is where the interaction between China’s traditional centralized autocracy and local autonomy occurs. Without understanding this key aspect, traditional Chinese politics cannot be fully grasped.” 

Neglecting the relationship between governance and daily life risks turning the means into ends. The fundamental objective of grassroots governance is to address residents’ daily needs and enhance their quality of life. In practice, grassroots services and governance are complementary; the improvement of grassroots living conditions and services lies at the heart of effective grassroots governance. 

Effective governance at the grassroots level integrates both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Ideally, grassroots organizations should adopt a flat, decentralized structure, remaining closely connected to the daily lives of residents. The key to effective governance lies in prioritizing residents’ everyday experiences, maintaining community order, and strengthening grassroots governance systems and mechanisms. The analysis above primarily reflects the state of grassroots society in China before the founding of the CPC. 

Economic domain 

In economic terms, “grassroots” encompasses individual entrepreneurs, small business owners, and small-scale traders—groups that form the backbone of local economies and sustain residents’ livelihoods. These entities are essential to community development, meeting local consumption needs, and providing essential services that enhance residents’ quality of life. Their responsiveness to local market dynamics ensures that daily necessities and conveniences are readily available, supported by basic public services. 

Since modern times, China’s rural grassroots society has undergone continuous transformation, with “land” at its core. Economic development, technological progress, and social change have reshaped the relationships and norms surrounding land ownership and use. In rural society, kinship-based structures—centered on the family, clan, and local community—constitute the foundation of public and social life. Fei Xiaotong argued that the basic unit of Chinese rural society is more accurately described as a “small clan,” reflecting its hierarchical and kinship-based structure. Within these communities, residents form communities through kinship-based relationships, managing various enterprises and giving the family a clan-like character. 

In rural society, families could serve political, economic, and religious roles. Their multifunctional nature required families to extend beyond the nuclear unit, incorporating broader kinship ties. In this context, the family itself functioned as an enterprise, with its size dictated by the scale of its economic activities. To manage these roles, families established internal rules and social norms, ensuring that husbands and wives respected each other’s roles and that fathers and sons fulfilled their respective responsibilities. Through these familial structures, communities resolved conflicts, settled disputes, and addressed significant life events. The family, clan, and traditional community together formed the public sphere of social life, fostering social norms that regulated public behavior and safeguarded collective interests. 

Cultural domain 

Culturally, “grassroots” refers to the everyday experiences and traditional cultural forms rooted in local communities and societies. Grassroots culture finds expression in local festivals, intangible cultural heritage, cuisine, and more. Since the late 20th century, popular culture and new media have permeated grassroots society, with the internet providing a platform for residents to create and share content that resonates widely. The creative potential at the grassroots level has drawn significant attention and is actively shaping grassroots society. In Chinese culture and society, the concept of “grassroots” is deeply embedded, representing the lives, resilience, and vitality of ordinary people. It forms the bedrock of social change and cultural inheritance. 

Understanding the concept of “grassroots” in this context offers deeper insight into how China has managed its vast and diverse population throughout history—meeting regional needs while fostering a sense of community from the ground up. For instance, the gentry group, a common subject in Chinese discourse, has played a pivotal role in grassroots culture. National identity is not cultivated overnight; it begins with knowing one’s neighbors and recognizing one’s community. This process reflects the concrete construction of a human social community and is central to the essence of grassroots society. 

The contributions of village tutors exemplify the power of grassroots society. Despite their modest economic conditions and isolated, often difficult lives, these tutors educated and guided their villages, helping residents manage daily affairs and contributing profoundly to the stability and development of grassroots society—this is truly thought-provoking. Indeed, grassroots elites often embody the values and collective spirit of the communities they serve. 

Building a resilient grassroots society requires cultivating a culture of grassroots participation, enhancing the technical capacities of local communities, promoting social environments and cultural traditions that prioritize local governance, and implementing mechanisms tailored to local needs and conditions. This approach not only fosters social engagement but also empowers grassroots communities to better tackle future challenges. Efforts in this direction must focus on the daily lives, social norms, and values of the people in grassroots society. At the heart of social governance lies the people, and ensuring their well-being is paramount. This is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed in the ongoing development of a new model of grassroots social governance. 

Ding Yuanzhu is from the Teaching and Research Department of Social and Ecological Civilization under the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (National Academy of Governance). 

Edited by WANG YOURAN