A leading Chinese scholar, Zheng Yongnian, emphasized that China's think tanks should focus more on the country's unique conditions rather than relying on Western knowledge. He believes that by developing an "indigenous knowledge system," these organizations can better reflect and promote China's soft power globally. Zheng, who is a political economist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, stated that think tanks play a crucial role in shaping a nation's ideas and policies.

He pointed out that while universities often lean on Western theories in social science research, think tanks are more practical and grounded in empirical research. They analyze public policies from a distinctly Chinese perspective, looking into how these policies evolve and are implemented by the government. Zheng's insights were shared during an interview with Chinese Social Sciences Today, where he discussed the importance of adapting policy analysis to fit China's specific context for better international understanding.

Original article

This article is like a puzzle piece that doesn't quite fit. It talks about how some smart people in China think their country should do things differently, especially when it comes to learning from other countries. But it doesn't really tell us what we can do with this information. It's more like a grown-up conversation that might be interesting to listen to, but it doesn't give us any special tools or ideas to use in our daily lives. It's not super helpful for us to solve problems or make our lives better. It's more like a story about what some important people think, and it doesn't really teach us anything new or exciting. It's not very practical, and it might make us feel a bit confused because it's all about big ideas and not about things we can do right now. So, while it's an interesting chat, it's not something that will make a big difference in our lives or help us in a clear and useful way.

The emphasis on developing an "indigenous knowledge system" for think tanks, while seemingly focused on local context, has indirect implications for family and community structures. When intellectual and policy direction is primarily shaped by a singular, internally defined perspective, it can inadvertently reduce the influx of diverse ideas that might otherwise challenge or reinforce existing family and community practices.

The core duty of families and clans is to nurture the next generation and care for elders. If the prevailing discourse, influenced by these think tanks, prioritizes certain national or collective goals over the fundamental, localized responsibilities of kinship, it can weaken the bonds of trust and mutual obligation. When the focus shifts to external projection of "soft power" or adherence to a specific national narrative, the practical, day-to-day duties of raising children, caring for the elderly, and maintaining community cohesion can be overshadowed.

This can lead to a situation where individuals feel less personally responsible for the well-being of their immediate kin and neighbors, as the perceived locus of important decision-making and societal direction resides in more abstract, centralized bodies. The natural stewardship of the land, often a deeply ingrained duty within local communities tied to generational survival, could also be affected if policies are formulated without a strong grounding in the lived experiences and traditional practices of those who directly depend on and care for the land.

The consequence of such a focus, if it leads to a diminished emphasis on the direct, personal duties within families and local communities, is a potential erosion of the very foundations of survival. Children may find their upbringing less rooted in the direct guidance and protection of their extended kin, and elders may experience a weakening of the familial support systems that have historically ensured their care. Trust within these bonds can fray if the perceived obligations shift from immediate family and community to broader, more impersonal national objectives. The continuity of the people and the responsible care of the land are directly threatened when the primary drivers of thought and policy neglect the fundamental, localized duties that have ensured survival for generations.

"Think tanks play a crucial role in shaping a nation's ideas and policies."

This sentence uses strong language to emphasize the power and influence of think tanks. By saying they "shape" ideas and policies, it suggests a level of control and authority, which may not always be the case. This phrase could be seen as virtue signaling, as it highlights the importance of think tanks without providing evidence or context. It presents their role as crucial and positive, potentially overlooking any potential drawbacks or biases.

"While universities often lean on Western theories in social science research, think tanks are more practical and grounded in empirical research."

Here, the text creates a contrast between universities and think tanks, suggesting that the latter are more practical and reliable. This comparison may be misleading, as it implies that universities are less practical or empirical, which is an oversimplification. It could be seen as a strawman argument, as it sets up a false dichotomy and presents think tanks in a more favorable light.

"They analyze public policies from a distinctly Chinese perspective, looking into how these policies evolve and are implemented by the government."

The use of the phrase "distinctly Chinese perspective" emphasizes a unique and perhaps superior viewpoint. This language may appeal to national pride and suggest that China's perspective is special and should be prioritized. It could be seen as cultural bias, as it promotes a specific national identity and potentially downplays other perspectives.

"Zheng, who is a political economist at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, stated that think tanks play a crucial role in shaping a nation's ideas and policies."

By introducing Zheng's expertise and affiliation, the text adds credibility to his opinions. However, it does not provide any counterarguments or diverse perspectives. This selective presentation of information may create a biased narrative, favoring Zheng's viewpoint without exploring other valid opinions.

"Zheng's insights were shared during an interview with Chinese Social Sciences Today, where he discussed the importance of adapting policy analysis to fit China's specific context for better international understanding."

The text suggests that adapting policy analysis to China's context will lead to better international understanding. This claim is presented as a fact, but it is an assumption and may not be universally true. It could be seen as a form of gaslighting, as it presents a potential outcome as if it were an established truth.

The text conveys a sense of determination and a call for action, as Zheng Yongnian, a leading Chinese scholar, expresses his belief in the importance of developing an "indigenous knowledge system" for China's think tanks. This emotion is strong and purposeful, as it sets the tone for a bold initiative to shape the nation's ideas and policies. Zheng's words carry a sense of urgency and conviction, emphasizing the need to adapt policy analysis to China's specific context.

The emotion of determination serves to inspire and motivate readers, encouraging them to see the value in this unique approach. It creates a sense of trust in Zheng's expertise and vision, as he confidently asserts the benefits of this indigenous knowledge system. This emotional appeal is further strengthened by the use of specific, practical examples, such as the role of think tanks in analyzing public policies from a Chinese perspective and their focus on empirical research.

To persuade readers, the writer employs a strategic choice of words, emphasizing the practical nature of think tanks and their role in shaping a nation's policies. By contrasting universities, which are often associated with theoretical research, with think tanks, which are grounded in empirical analysis, the writer highlights the unique and essential contribution of these organizations. This comparison creates a sense of distinction and importance, further emphasizing the need for an indigenous knowledge system.

Additionally, the writer uses the concept of "soft power" to evoke a sense of pride and influence. By suggesting that an indigenous knowledge system can promote China's soft power globally, the writer implies a powerful and positive impact on the nation's international standing. This emotional appeal is a subtle yet effective strategy to gain support for Zheng's proposal, as it taps into a sense of national pride and the desire for global recognition.

Overall, the text skillfully employs emotional language and persuasive techniques to advocate for a shift in China's intellectual landscape. By evoking emotions of determination, trust, and national pride, the writer effectively guides readers towards supporting the development of an indigenous knowledge system, shaping the nation's ideas and policies with a unique, Chinese perspective.