China and Collective Narcissism: A Psychosocial Analysis of National Identity and Behaviour

An exploratory essay using collective narcissism as a lens, alongside nationalism, authoritarianism, and historical memory.

China’s rise has sparked debate about the forces shaping its political behaviour and national identity. While most explanations focus on economics, security, nationalism, or ideology, social psychology offers another possible lens: collective narcissism. This article explores whether certain aspects of modern Chinese state narratives and policies resemble patterns associated with collective narcissism, while also examining competing explanations and the limitations of the theory.

The rise of China has generated significant debate regarding the psychological and ideological foundations of contemporary Chinese state behaviour. One framework that may offer insight into certain recurring patterns is collective narcissism, a concept in social psychology describing a group’s belief in its exceptional importance combined with a perceived lack of external recognition. This article explores whether aspects of modern Chinese state narratives and policies can be interpreted through this framework while considering alternative explanations rooted in nationalism, historical memory, security concerns, and authoritarian governance.

This article treats collective narcissism as an interpretive framework rather than a definitive explanation of Chinese state behaviour. The discussion is exploratory and seeks to examine possible similarities while also considering alternative explanations rooted in nationalism, historical memory, security concerns, and authoritarian governance.

Understanding Collective Narcissism

Collective narcissism is a concept in social and political psychology that refers to an exaggerated emotional investment in the greatness, superiority, or importance of one’s own group combined with a constant need for external recognition and validation. Unlike ordinary patriotism or national pride, collective narcissism is often characterised by insecurity beneath the surface confidence. Members of the group strongly believe that their nation, culture, religion, or identity is exceptional, yet they also feel that this greatness is insufficiently recognised, disrespected, threatened, or humiliated by outsiders. [1][2]

Psychologists studying collective narcissism often associate it with hypersensitivity to criticism, exaggerated reactions to perceived insults, strong hostility toward internal and external enemies, victimhood narratives, and the belief that the group deserves special treatment or dominance. The group’s image becomes emotionally sacred, and criticism of the group may be interpreted not merely as disagreement but as an attack on its dignity or existence. [1][3]

Importantly, collective narcissism is not the same as healthy national pride. Patriotism can involve appreciation for one’s country while still allowing self-criticism, tolerance of dissent, and recognition of other nations as equals. Collective narcissism, however, tends to make identity more defensive, emotionally reactive, and dependent on constant validation. [4]

Note: Collective narcissism refers to patterns that emerge at the level of a group, nation, or collective identity. It does not imply that every individual member of the group is narcissistic or shares the same attitudes. Different members may contribute to the pattern in different ways, while many may not exhibit such tendencies at all.

Core Traits Commonly Associated with Collective Narcissism

One of the most important features of collective narcissism is a strong historical grievance narrative. The group often sees itself as once great but unfairly weakened, humiliated, betrayed, or oppressed by outside forces and internal enemies. Historical suffering becomes central to national identity, not simply as a tragedy to remember, but as proof that the group deserves restoration, revenge, recognition, or renewed greatness. [2][5] This creates a strong emotional attachment to past humiliation and can encourage constant suspicion toward outsiders.

Another major trait is hypersensitivity to criticism. Collective narcissistic groups often struggle to separate criticism of the state, government, ideology, or leadership from attacks on the nation itself. Dissent may therefore be interpreted as betrayal rather than disagreement. Critics, journalists, activists, minorities, or political opponents can be labelled enemies, traitors, foreign agents, or threats to unity. In such systems, censorship and image-control become highly important because maintaining the idealised image of the group is treated as necessary for stability and legitimacy. [1][3]

Collective narcissism also tends to involve an existential fear of internal division. Diversity, separatism, or alternative identities may be viewed not as natural aspects of society but as dangers to national unity. The group may pressure minorities to conform culturally, politically, or linguistically in order to preserve a single approved identity. Groups that resist assimilation can become targets of surveillance, repression, exclusion, or forced “re-education.”[1][3]

Another common characteristic is the tendency to frame conflicts in emotional and moralistic terms rather than purely strategic ones. Rival states or opposing movements may be seen not merely as competitors but as humiliators, disrespectful actors, or existential threats. Compromise becomes difficult because backing down may feel emotionally intolerable or dishonourable. As a result, territorial disputes, sovereignty issues, or symbolic political questions can take on exaggerated emotional importance. [3]

Collective narcissism is also associated with the inability to acknowledge wrongdoing within the group. Since the group’s image must remain morally superior, failures, abuses, or historical crimes may be denied, minimised, censored, or reframed as necessary defensive actions. The group often portrays itself primarily as either a victim defending itself or a heroic protector acting against enemies, while rarely accepting the role of aggressor or wrongdoer. [5]

Finally, collective narcissistic thinking can produce a hierarchical worldview. The group may believe it deserves greater respect, influence, or authority than others due to its history, civilisation, suffering, or achievements. Respect from others can gradually become confused with obedience or submission, while resistance from smaller groups or neighbouring states may be interpreted as disrespectful defiance. [2]

Potential Dangers of Collective Narcissism

If collective narcissistic tendencies become deeply embedded within a society or political system, they may create significant risks both internally and internationally. [3][6]

Internally, one danger is the suppression of criticism and dissent. When the image of the nation or ruling authority becomes emotionally sacred, disagreement may be treated as disloyalty. Governments influenced by this mindset may justify censorship, surveillance, punishment of dissidents, or restrictions on free expression in the name of protecting national unity. Over time, this can weaken civil society, intellectual freedom, and public trust while increasing fear and political conformity. [3][6]

Another danger is the treatment of minorities or culturally distinct groups as threats to national identity. Collective narcissism often relies on maintaining a rigid and idealised vision of the nation. Groups that appear culturally, religiously, or politically different may therefore be pressured to assimilate or may face suspicion, exclusion, or persecution. [6] Policies justified as protecting unity can gradually become systems of repression and social control.

Collective narcissism may also increase the risk of emotionally driven nationalism. States operating under this mentality can become extremely reactive to perceived humiliation or disrespect. Territorial disputes, foreign criticism, diplomatic disagreements, or symbolic political issues may escalate rapidly because leaders fear appearing weak before domestic audiences. National identity becomes tied to constant demonstrations of strength and resistance. [3]

Internationally, this mindset can make diplomacy more difficult. Criticism from foreign governments or international organisations may be interpreted as hostile attacks rather than ordinary political disagreement. The state may increasingly frame itself as either a victim surrounded by enemies or a heroic defender against foreign aggression. This can create cycles of distrust, military escalation, and mutual hostility with other countries. [3]

Another danger is the inability to engage in honest self-reflection. Collective narcissism often discourages acknowledgment of mistakes because admitting wrongdoing threatens the idealised image of the group. Without self-criticism or accountability, policy failures and abuses may continue unchecked, while historical events become heavily censored or politically manipulated. [5]

In extreme cases, collective narcissism can trap both governments and populations inside emotionally charged narratives of humiliation, restoration, and national destiny. Leaders may then feel pressured to act aggressively in order to preserve legitimacy, making compromise appear weak or dishonourable even when peaceful alternatives exist. [6]

Limits and Criticisms of the Theory

Although collective narcissism can be a useful framework for analysing political behaviour, applying psychological concepts to entire countries or civilisations remains highly controversial and requires caution. [4]

One major criticism is that many behaviours associated with collective narcissism can also be explained through ordinary nationalism, security concerns, historical experience, or authoritarian governance. States throughout history have censored dissent, defended territorial claims, promoted national pride, or reacted aggressively to perceived threats without necessarily being psychologically “narcissistic.” [4]

Historical trauma can also produce strong nationalism without implying pathology. Countries that experienced invasion, colonisation, humiliation, civil war, or foreign domination may naturally become highly sensitive about sovereignty and national unity. In such cases, defensive nationalism may reflect historical memory and strategic caution rather than narcissism. [5]

Another criticism is that societies are not psychologically uniform. Large nations contain millions of individuals with different beliefs, values, identities, and political opinions. Applying a psychological label to an entire country risks oversimplifying a highly complex society and ignoring internal diversity. [4]

There is also the danger of confirmation bias. Once the theory of collective narcissism is adopted, nearly every action may begin to appear as supporting evidence while contradictory evidence is ignored. National pride, sensitivity to criticism, geopolitical ambition, and political repression exist in many countries across history and are not unique to any one civilisation or political system. [3][4]

Finally, collective narcissism should not be confused with legitimate patriotism or cultural pride. A society may celebrate its history, seek international respect, or pursue national interests without necessarily believing itself superior to others or reacting with narcissistic hostility. [1][4] Pride in national achievement does not automatically equal collective narcissism.

For these reasons, collective narcissism should be treated as an interpretive lens rather than a definitive explanation for the behaviour of any state. It can highlight certain emotional and political patterns, but it cannot fully explain the complexity of national behaviour on its own.

Possible similarities with China (in favour of the hypothesis)

The strongest connection between China and the concept of collective narcissism may be found in the role of the “Century of Humiliation” within official historical narratives. Chinese state narratives frequently emphasize the period from the mid-19th to mid-20th century during which foreign powers and domestic instability weakened China’s political position and international standing. These narratives commonly reference colonial intervention, unequal treaties, Japanese occupation, and internal fragmentation. [7][8]

The suffering experienced during this period is historically well documented and remains an important part of Chinese national memory. However, if the collective narcissism framework is applied to this case, one possible interpretation is that official narratives place particular emphasis on the restoration of China’s status and recognition in the international system. Under this interpretation, the central lesson of the period becomes not only that China suffered, but that a historically important civilization was denied the respect and influence it believes it deserves. Similar narratives of decline, humiliation, and national restoration have appeared in many societies throughout history, although the political and cultural contexts differ significantly. [8]

Another possible similarity concerns the Chinese state’s response to criticism. Public criticism of state institutions, particularly the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is subject to substantial legal and political restrictions. Researchers, journalists, and human rights organizations have documented extensive censorship and information-control mechanisms within China. Critics of the government are sometimes portrayed as misinformed, disloyal, or influenced by foreign interests. [9]

Viewed through the lens of collective narcissism, these practices could be interpreted as reflecting a heightened concern with protecting the nation’s image and maintaining a particular narrative of national unity. In this interpretation, criticism is treated not merely as disagreement but as a challenge to the legitimacy and reputation of the nation itself. Critics of the Chinese government have also argued that official responses to international criticism frequently invoke themes of foreign interference and historical humiliation. Under the present hypothesis, such responses could be interpreted as a sensitivity to perceived disrespect or external judgment. However, alternative explanations are also possible, including concerns about political stability, sovereignty, regime security, and national cohesion. [9][10]

The issue of Taiwan is often discussed in a similar context. The Chinese government views Taiwan as part of China and strongly opposes moves toward formal Taiwanese independence. Chinese officials frequently respond forcefully to statements or policies that appear to support Taiwanese sovereignty, particularly when foreign governments become involved. [11]

If the collective narcissism framework is applied, these reactions could be interpreted as reflecting the importance of territorial unity to China’s national self-image. Under this interpretation, challenges to Beijing’s position on Taiwan are viewed not simply as policy disagreements but as threats to an important symbol of national integrity and historical restoration. The fact that Chinese officials continue to reserve the option of using force for unification may further reinforce this interpretation. However, such policies can also be understood through more conventional frameworks such as nationalism, territorial sovereignty, security concerns, and great-power politics. [11][12]

Under this hypothesis, events such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests may be interpreted as examples of the same pattern. The protests were largely student-led and raised concerns about corruption, political reform, economic conditions, and freedom of expression. The government’s decision to deploy military force resulted in significant violence and casualties. [13]

Under the hypothesis proposed in this article, the state’s response could be interpreted as prioritizing political control, unity, and stability over public criticism and reform. From a collective narcissism perspective, large-scale dissent may be viewed as a challenge to the legitimacy and image of the state that must be suppressed rather than accommodated. However, this interpretation remains speculative and competes with other explanations, including the dynamics of authoritarian governance and concerns about maintaining political power. [13]

Questions surrounding ethnic and cultural minorities may also be relevant. The Chinese state places strong emphasis on national unity and social cohesion. Critics argue that some policies toward Uyghurs in Xinjiang and Tibetans in Tibet place pressure on minority communities to conform to state-approved cultural, linguistic, and political norms. [14]

Human rights organizations have documented extensive surveillance, restrictions on religious practices, detention programs in Xinjiang, and longstanding tensions regarding cultural and religious freedoms in Tibet. If viewed through the lens of collective narcissism, these policies could be interpreted as attempts to maintain a singular and unified national identity while reducing perceived challenges to that identity. Such an interpretation would suggest that cultural differences are treated not merely as diversity but as potential threats to social cohesion. However, Chinese authorities generally describe these policies as necessary for national security, economic development, and social stability. Whether they are better explained by collective narcissism, authoritarian governance, security concerns, or other factors remains unclear. [14]

Finally, some observers point to China’s growing military capabilities and increasingly assertive foreign policy as another potential area of similarity. Official narratives frequently emphasize China’s historical experiences of foreign domination while also stressing the country’s return to a position of global influence and respect. [15]

If collective narcissism is used as an interpretive framework, this combination of historical grievance and demands for recognition may resemble characteristics associated with collective narcissism. In particular, the theory suggests that a group may simultaneously view itself as historically wronged and uniquely deserving of respect and acknowledgment. Critics of Chinese foreign policy argue that appeals to sovereignty and historical injustice are sometimes used to justify policies that neighbouring countries view as assertive or coercive. Under this hypothesis, such behaviour could be interpreted as reflecting sensitivity to perceived disrespect and a strong desire for external recognition. However, alternative explanations rooted in strategic interests, security concerns, economic competition, nationalism, and great-power rivalry remain equally plausible. [15]

Taken together, these observations do not demonstrate that China is collectively narcissistic. Rather, they suggest that certain aspects of Chinese state narratives and policies may resemble characteristics associated with collective narcissism when viewed through that theoretical lens. Whether these similarities reflect collective narcissism itself, or are better explained by nationalism, historical memory, authoritarian governance, and geopolitical competition, remains an open question.

Potential dangers if the hypothesis is true

If China does exhibit traits associated with collective narcissism, the consequences could extend beyond ordinary authoritarianism or geopolitical rivalry. This remains a hypothesis rather than a psychological diagnosis, but the concept may help illuminate certain political patterns and risks. [16]

A central danger is extreme sensitivity to criticism. States influenced by collective narcissistic thinking often interpret disagreement as humiliation and criticism as hostility. This can make diplomacy more confrontational, as perceived insults to national prestige become matters of political importance rather than issues for negotiation. [17]

Such mindsets can also encourage the concentration of power and suppression of dissent. When the state or ruling party becomes closely identified with the nation’s identity, critics may be portrayed as traitors rather than political opponents. Censorship, surveillance, and repression can then be justified as necessary for protecting national unity, gradually weakening civil society and reducing opportunities for self-correction. [18]

The Taiwan issue illustrates another potential risk. If Taiwan is viewed primarily as a symbolic test of national pride and legitimacy, compromise becomes increasingly difficult. Decisions may be driven by concerns about prestige and humiliation rather than strategic calculation, increasing the danger of military escalation with regional and global consequences. [19]

Collective narcissism may also create pressure for cultural conformity. Ethnic, religious, or regional minorities can be treated as threats to a unified national identity, making policies of assimilation, surveillance, or cultural suppression easier to justify. In the long term, such measures often deepen social divisions rather than resolve them. [20]

Perhaps the greatest danger is the inability to acknowledge mistakes. Collective narcissistic narratives depend on preserving an image of national greatness and moral superiority. As a result, policy failures, historical injustices, and human rights abuses may be denied or minimised, reducing accountability and increasing the likelihood of repeating harmful errors. [21]

History suggests that states built around exaggerated collective self-importance and grievance can become increasingly dysfunctional. By suppressing criticism and prioritising prestige over reality, they often undermine their own long-term stability. In extreme cases, such systems have contributed to large-scale repression, mass atrocities, and destructive conflicts that inflict suffering on both their own populations and others beyond their borders. [22]

At the same time, it is important to avoid oversimplification. China is a highly complex civilisation-state with multiple political, historical, economic, and cultural influences. Many of its actions can also be explained through realism, security concerns, historical experiences, economic interests, or ordinary authoritarian governance rather than collective narcissism alone. Therefore, the concept should be treated as one interpretive framework among many, not as a complete explanation of China’s behaviour. [23]

Against the idea of China being narcissistic (against the hypothesis)

Although there are certain similarities between China’s behaviour and aspects of collective narcissism, there are also strong arguments against applying the concept too broadly to China. Many of China’s actions can be explained through historical experience, security concerns, economic goals, and authoritarian governance without necessarily concluding that the country itself behaves in a collectively narcissistic manner. [24]

One important counterargument is that internal criticism does exist within Chinese society. Despite restrictions on political expression and censorship, Chinese citizens frequently discuss domestic issues such as housing prices, education pressure, unemployment, corruption, environmental pollution, healthcare, and economic inequality. Online discussions, local complaints, and public dissatisfaction with certain policies continue to appear even under state control. A truly collective narcissistic society would likely reject acknowledgment of internal flaws altogether. The existence of substantial self-criticism suggests that many Chinese citizens are capable of recognising weaknesses within their own system rather than blindly believing in national perfection. [25]

Another argument is that Chinese national pride may not necessarily be pathological or narcissistic, but historically understandable and in some ways legitimate. China was historically one of the world’s largest economies and centres of civilisation for centuries before experiencing foreign invasions, internal instability, colonial pressure, and economic decline during the so-called Century of Humiliation. In that context, modern Chinese nationalism can also be interpreted as an attempt to restore stability, prosperity, and international respect after a prolonged period of weakness rather than a desire for superiority over others. Pride in national recovery does not automatically equal collective narcissism. [26]

China’s emphasis on development and self-improvement also challenges the hypothesis. Much of modern Chinese political messaging focuses on poverty reduction, technological advancement, infrastructure development, scientific progress, education, and economic growth. Rather than relying purely on symbolic claims of greatness, the Chinese state has invested heavily in measurable national development. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty and major investments have been made in transportation, manufacturing, and research. This focus on practical achievement differs from the empty grandiosity often associated with narcissistic behaviour. [27]

Another factor against the hypothesis is China’s participation in international institutions and global economic systems. China is deeply involved in international trade, diplomacy, the United Nations, global manufacturing networks, climate agreements, and multilateral organisations. While participation alone does not disprove collective narcissism, it demonstrates a willingness to operate within international frameworks rather than completely rejecting them. A purely narcissistic state might isolate itself entirely or refuse cooperation with institutions that constrain its behaviour. China instead often seeks influence within existing systems rather than abandoning them outright. [28]

Pragmatism has also been a recurring feature of modern Chinese governance. Since the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping, Chinese leadership has frequently prioritised practical outcomes over strict ideological purity. Policies have often changed when leaders believed reforms would improve economic performance or social stability. For example, China moved away from many Mao-era economic policies in favour of market-oriented reforms because previous approaches were not producing the desired results. This willingness to adapt and compromise can be seen as inconsistent with rigid narcissistic thinking, which often resists admitting failure or changing direction. [29]

China’s behaviour may also be better explained through realism and security concerns rather than psychology. Many powerful countries throughout history, including Western powers, have acted aggressively when they believed their strategic interests or territorial integrity were threatened. Territorial disputes, military build-up, censorship, and nationalism are not unique to China. They can emerge from ordinary power politics, authoritarian state structures, or fears of instability rather than collective narcissism specifically. Applying psychological labels too broadly risks oversimplifying international relations and reducing complex geopolitical behaviour to personality traits. [30]

Finally, there is the danger of confirmation bias when analysing China through the lens of collective narcissism. Once the framework is adopted, almost every action can begin to appear as evidence supporting the theory, while contradictory evidence may be ignored. National pride, sensitivity to sovereignty, censorship, or geopolitical ambition are not exclusive to narcissistic societies and have existed in many states throughout history. Therefore, caution is necessary before drawing direct psychological conclusions about an entire civilisation or political system. [31]

For these reasons, while the theory of collective narcissism may provide an interesting lens for interpreting certain aspects of China’s behaviour, it should not be treated as a definitive explanation. China’s actions are likely shaped by a combination of history, nationalism, authoritarian governance, economic ambition, security concerns, and global power competition rather than any single psychological framework. [32]

Conclusion

The idea that China may display traits similar to collective narcissism remains a hypothesis rather than a definitive conclusion. Throughout this discussion, there appear to be certain patterns that, when viewed through the lens of collective narcissism, may resemble characteristics associated with that concept: a strong attachment to historical humiliation, sensitivity to criticism, the treatment of dissent as a threat to national unity, strong emphasis on national identity, and narratives that frequently frame China as either responding to past injustices or defending itself against perceived threats. These patterns can make the framework of collective narcissism appear relevant when analysing aspects of modern Chinese political behaviour. [33]

At the same time, caution is necessary before reducing an entire civilisation-state of more than a billion people to a single psychological concept. China is an extremely large, historically complex, and internally diverse society with multiple political, cultural, economic, and ideological influences. The attitudes of the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, and ordinary Chinese citizens are not always identical. Many Chinese citizens are capable of self-criticism, debate, pragmatism, and recognition of domestic problems. In addition, many actions associated with collective narcissism can also be explained through nationalism, authoritarian governance, security concerns, historical trauma, geopolitical competition, or ordinary power politics rather than psychology alone. [34]

The purpose of this analysis is therefore not to label China or its people as “narcissistic” in a simplistic or insulting sense. Rather, it is to examine whether the theory of collective narcissism may help explain certain recurring emotional and political patterns visible in modern Chinese state behaviour. Like all interpretive frameworks, it highlights some aspects while potentially overlooking others. [35]

Even if the hypothesis cannot be fully proven, the possibility itself deserves attention. If a state increasingly ties its legitimacy and identity to historical grievance, national pride, emotional sensitivity, and fear of humiliation, the risks can become significant both domestically and internationally. Such tendencies may encourage censorship, reduce tolerance for dissent, intensify hostility toward perceived enemies, and make compromise more difficult during geopolitical disputes. Over time, emotionally driven nationalism can create cycles of fear, aggression, and mutual distrust between nations.

However, it is equally important to avoid confirmation bias and oversimplification. Not every act of nationalism, censorship, territorial ambition, or state control automatically indicates collective narcissism. Similar behaviour has existed in many countries throughout history under different political systems and historical circumstances. Therefore, collective narcissism should be viewed not as a final judgment on China, but as one possible lens through which certain aspects of its behaviour can be interpreted and debated.

Ultimately, the question may not be whether China is definitively a collective narcissistic society, but whether some collective narcissistic tendencies are becoming more influential within parts of its political culture and state identity. That distinction is important because societies are not fixed psychological entities. They evolve, adapt, and contain competing attitudes within themselves. Whether China moves toward greater openness and self-reflection or toward stronger emotional nationalism and defensiveness will likely shape not only its own future, but also its relationship with the rest of the world.

Author’s Note

This article is meant as an analytical discussion and hypothesis, not a definitive judgment about China or its people. I welcome all perspectives on the topic — whether you agree, disagree, partially agree, or think the framework itself is flawed. Constructive criticism, counterarguments, additional insights, and alternative interpretations are all valuable.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below. I’m interested in hearing both supportive and critical feedback.

References

1.Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., & Bilewicz, M. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

2.Golec de Zavala, A., & Cichocka, A. (2012–2013). Collective narcissism scale development and validation studies.

3.Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009/2013). Research on collective narcissism, intergroup hostility, and retaliation tendencies.

4.Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychology.

5.Cichocka, A. (2016–2017). Research on political psychology of collective narcissism and group defensiveness.

6.Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., & others (2018–2020). Studies linking collective narcissism with conspiracy beliefs, prejudice, and political radicalisation.

7.Dikötter, F. (2013). The Tragedy of Liberation / The Age of Humiliation narratives in modern Chinese history.

8.Wang, Z. (2012). Never Forget National Humiliation: Historical Memory in Chinese Politics and Foreign Relations.

9.King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective action. American Political Science Review.

10.Brady, A.-M. (2008). Marketing Dictatorship: Propaganda and Thought Work in Contemporary China.

11.Bush, R. C. (2016). Uncharted Strait: The Future of China–Taiwan Relations.

12.Fravel, M. T. (2008). Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China’s Territorial Disputes.

13.Zhang, L. (2015). The Tiananmen Papers / interpretations of 1989 protests and state response.

14.Human Rights Watch (2019–2022). Reports on Xinjiang and Tibet governance and rights conditions.

15.Shambaugh, D. (2013). China Goes Global: The Partial Power.

16.Baumeister, R. F. et al. (2001). Ego threats and defensive group identity responses. Social Psychology Review.

17.Campbell, W. K., & Foster, J. D. (2007). Self-esteem and collective defensiveness in group psychology. Journal of Social Behavior.

18.Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

19.Bush, R. C. (2017). Taiwan and the Politics of Cross-Strait Relations. Brookings Institution Press.

20.Hechter, M. (2000). Containing Nationalism. Oxford University Press.

21.Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). Harcourt.

22.Snyder, T. (2017). On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books.

23.Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.

24.Fairbank, J. K. (1992). China: A New History. Harvard University Press.

25.Perry, E. J. (2015). Cultural Governance in Contemporary China. Cambridge University Press.

26.Spence, J. D. (1990). The Search for Modern China. W. W. Norton.

27.Naughton, B. (2007). The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth. MIT Press.

28.Ikenberry, G. J. (2011). Liberal Leviathan. Princeton University Press.

29.Vogel, E. F. (2011). Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China. Harvard University Press.

30.Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Norton.

31.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

32.Johnston, A. I. (2013). Social States: China in International Institutions. Princeton University Press.

33.Rozman, G. (2010). Chinese National Identity in the Age of Globalization. Stanford University Press.

34.Nathan, A. J. (2003). Authoritarian Resilience. Journal of Democracy.

35.Zhao, S. (2014). A Nation-State by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism. Stanford University Press.