The United States adopts a notably absolutist interpretation of certain civil liberties, particularly the right to free speech, compared with many other democracies. While other nations often balance individual rights against considerations such as public order, human dignity, or social harmony—for example, Germany prohibits Nazi propaganda—the U.S. approach largely rejects such restrictions.
This model rests on the belief that the best response to harmful or offensive speech is not censorship but more speech. By prioritizing the broadest possible protection for expression, the U.S. has earned a reputation for a uniquely absolutist stance on human rights.
Ideological, Absolutist Approach in the U.S.
The ideological foundations of the United States’ approach to human rights are deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian dualistic values, which traditionally frame the world in stark moral absolutes: right and wrong, winners and losers, heaven and hell. This cultural and philosophical backdrop has profoundly shaped the nation’s political and legal thought, fostering an absolutist view of human rights as inherent, inalienable, and universal. Within this framework, rights are not contingent on circumstance or cultural context; they are seen as moral imperatives that must be defended and upheld universally.
This absolutist vision was embedded in the country’s founding legal structures, most notably through the Bill of Rights, which enshrines core freedoms such as speech, religion, and assembly as non-negotiable. These principles are central to U.S. political discourse and are treated as universal values that transcend national borders. In practice, this perspective has significantly shaped foreign policy: countries perceived as violating fundamental human rights are often subject to public criticism, diplomatic pressure, or economic sanctions. While this global advocacy has inspired democratic movements and strengthened human rights norms worldwide, it has also generated friction with nations that emphasize collective welfare or social stability over individual liberties.
Domestically, however, the absolutist ideal often encounters the practical complexities of federalism. Although the federal government articulates broad human rights protections, enforcement frequently depends on state-level governance, producing uneven application across the country. Historical examples abound — from women’s suffrage and civil rights to voting rights and LGBTQ protections — where legal recognition preceded consistent implementation. This enduring gap between principle and practice reflects a central paradox of the U.S. system: rights are universally enshrined, yet their realization is contingent on local political will, social movements, and judicial interpretation.
Geography and history have also contributed to this ideological orientation. The United States developed in a context of secure borders, abundant natural resources, and relatively low population density. These favorable conditions allowed its citizens to prioritize civil and political rights earlier and more fully than societies facing existential threats or resource scarcity. With basic needs for food, shelter, and security largely met, the nation was well positioned to adopt and sustain an absolutist human rights ethos. This historical trajectory continues to shape both domestic policy and America’s self-perception as a global defender of universal human rights.
Expansive Global Role: Promoting Democracy and Human Rights
Since its emergence as a dominant global power in the 20th century, the United States has assumed a self-appointed role as a promoter of democracy and human rights worldwide. This expansive mission became particularly visible during major historical turning points such as World War II and the Cold War, when American leadership was framed as essential to the defense and spread of liberal democratic values. Beyond direct military engagements, this role has been institutionalized through key international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, all of which reflect and extend U.S. influence on the global stage.
In addition to its hard power, the United States wields substantial soft power, using its culture, media, and technological innovations to shape global norms and ideals. American films, music, digital platforms, and consumer brands serve as powerful conduits for projecting democratic values and liberal ideals, often making these concepts aspirational around the world. Yet, this missionary impulse is not universally embraced. Many states—most notably China—interpret such actions as interference in their internal affairs or as a form of cultural imperialism. This tension underscores a fundamental clash between differing philosophical and historical perspectives on governance, sovereignty, and the nature of international leadership.
related articles:
U.S. Oversight of China’s Rise: From Industrial Power to Finance Era
Complacency’s Cost: How Western Assumptions Fueled Vulnerability
Misread: Western Bias, China’s Adaptive Political Economy
Pragmatic, Relativistic Approach in China
China’s approach to human rights is fundamentally pragmatic and relativistic, rooted in a collective worldview that places the wellbeing of the family and society above individual interests. This perspective diverges sharply from the absolutist orientation of the United States, where individual freedoms are treated as universal and non-negotiable. In China, human rights are not seen as fixed, universal principles but as context-dependent, evolving in accordance with national priorities and developmental stages. This orientation has deep cultural and philosophical roots in traditional oriental thought, which emphasizes harmony, balance, and practical outcomes over rigid dichotomies.
Historically, China faced a unique set of developmental challenges: insecure borders, chronic food scarcity, and the immense burden of supporting the world’s largest population with limited arable land. In response, the state adopted an approach inspired by the logic of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs—prioritizing the satisfaction of basic survival requirements such as food, water, clothing, and shelter before advancing more formalized human rights. This sequencing reflected a belief that stability and basic welfare are prerequisites for political and civil liberties, not parallel or competing goals.
This pragmatic strategy has produced significant achievements in basic welfare. Over 850 million people have been lifted out of extreme poverty, life expectancy has increased dramatically, adult literacy has expanded nationwide, and infant mortality has declined sharply. These outcomes illustrate the state’s emphasis on tangible improvements in living standards as the primary measure of progress. Rather than aligning policy with a universal human rights doctrine, China evaluates success through its effectiveness in enhancing collective welfare and maintaining social stability.
Only after securing a baseline of stability and subsistence has China moved toward formalizing human rights through legal and institutional mechanisms. This incremental development stands in contrast to the U.S. experience, where individual rights were codified at the national level early in the country’s history—often preceding effective enforcement on the ground. While the United States places priority on civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly, China emphasizes economic and social rights as the foundation upon which broader freedoms can later be expanded.
This fundamental divergence in philosophy and sequencing gives rise to persistent misunderstandings and tensions in U.S.–China relations. For the U.S., rights are universal and absolute, forming a cornerstone of its national identity and foreign policy. For China, rights are contextual and contingent, to be realized in stages as societal conditions permit. By prioritizing collective welfare and stability over individual expression, China underscores its belief that human rights must be adapted to national circumstances rather than imposed as a singular global standard.
China’s model: Freedom of Speech, Press, and Internet
China maintains a governance model in which the state exercises absolute authority over the boundaries of permissible speech and expression. Freedom of speech, press, and the internet are tightly controlled, with the government determining what constitutes speech or actions that could undermine the ruling party’s authority. Public discussion of politically sensitive subjects—such as critical historical events like the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, or cases such as the imprisonment of Liu Xiaobo—is strictly prohibited. This extensive system of censorship and surveillance ensures that political discourse remains within boundaries defined by the state.
While this model is often criticized in the West for its suppression of dissent, public sentiment within China is notably different. Many citizens display a degree of indifference to political debate, placing greater emphasis on material prosperity, social order, and national stability. This pragmatic outlook reflects a broad perception that the one-party system has successfully delivered sustained economic growth and improved living standards.
From a policy perspective, the state faces little internal pressure to liberalize its control over expression. Unlike areas such as criminal or property law, which evolve to support economic modernization, speech regulations are seen as essential to preserving political stability. This approach does not stem from weak governance capacity but rather from a deliberate strategic choice: maintaining strict control over expression aligns with the country’s long-term priorities and ensures the durability of its political model.
Core Differences Between the US and China
The United States and China approach human rights from fundamentally different philosophical, ideological, and practical perspectives. In the United States, the prevailing view of human rights is ideological and absolutist. Rights are regarded as inherent, inalienable, and existing independently of circumstance or context. This perspective reflects a deeply rooted belief that individual liberties are universal and non-negotiable, forming the moral foundation upon which society is built. China, by contrast, takes a pragmatic and relativistic approach. Human rights are understood within the broader context of societal needs, priorities, and practical outcomes. Rather than treating rights as fixed absolutes, they are viewed as evolving in tandem with material conditions and social development.
These divergent perspectives are shaped by distinct philosophical traditions. The U.S. approach is grounded in Judeo-Christian dualism, which tends to frame issues in terms of clear moral absolutes—right versus wrong, winners versus losers, freedom versus oppression. This dualistic worldview underpins an emphasis on civil and political rights as the bedrock of human dignity. China’s outlook, on the other hand, is informed by Confucian values that prioritize harmony, balance, and social cohesion over rigid dichotomies. Rather than centering individual entitlements, the Chinese perspective places emphasis on collective stability, mutual responsibilities, and the gradual evolution of rights as society develops.[1]
These philosophical foundations lead to contrasting priorities. In the United States, human rights are treated as fundamental regardless of material conditions or social stability; they are expected to be upheld even in the face of uncertainty. China, by contrast, places primary emphasis on securing basic needs such as food, shelter, and social stability. Only once these essential conditions are broadly met does the state focus on formalizing and expanding rights protections. This reflects a sequential understanding of development, in which survival and collective security precede individual entitlements.
Implementation further reflects this divergence. In the U.S., rights are defined at the federal level but enforced largely through local institutions, which often results in uneven application across states and regions. In China, the process is centralized and gradual. Rights are extended in alignment with the state’s capacity to enforce them, ensuring that expansion occurs only after social order and legal structures are firmly in place. These different approaches yield distinct outcomes. The U.S. model places strong emphasis on individual liberties and civil freedoms, even at the risk of inconsistent enforcement. The Chinese model prioritizes collective welfare, stability, and incremental development, with the long-term goal of securing broad societal well-being before codifying expansive formal rights.
Critique Of Western Concepts And Universalization
The modern global discourse on freedom, democracy, human rights, property rights, and the rule of law is often framed as if these concepts are universal and objective. In reality, as many postcolonial critics observe, these ideals have frequently been instrumentalized by Western powers to legitimize interventions, impose conditionalities, or maintain geopolitical dominance. When the interests of Western elites are at stake, these same principles are often applied selectively or sidelined altogether—revealing the gap between proclaimed universality and strategic practice. This tension exposes how normative concepts can function less as neutral values than as tools of power projection.
Within this ideological landscape, some economists have advanced counter-national narratives aimed at delegitimizing the economic rise of China. Common interpretations attribute China’s rapid growth to its allegedly “low human rights” environment or insufficient welfare provisions, implying that its success rests on labor exploitation and neglect of social responsibility. Others rely on cultural determinism, reducing the country’s transformation to traits such as diligence, obedience, or entrepreneurial risk-taking. Yet these explanations are analytically weak: human rights and welfare are not easily quantifiable economic variables, and cultural determinism provides little empirical foundation for understanding complex developmental dynamics.
A growing counter-narrative flips this logic by redefining human rights in developmental terms. In many developing societies, the most fundamental rights are the right to life, employment, and basic security—not necessarily political liberties or consumption standards. By this metric, China has achieved notable success: lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, generating vast numbers of jobs, and establishing a baseline of material stability. This approach does not reject human rights but reorients them toward survival and socio-economic security, reflecting the priorities of a society emerging from widespread poverty.
This developmental trajectory has been neither linear nor purely state-driven. China’s wage growth and labor protections have emerged from a complex negotiation among multiple actors: workers demanding better conditions through strikes and protests, domestic media that at times expose abuses, foreign NGOs and consumer pressure within global supply chains, and the state’s efforts to balance competitiveness with social stability. The familiar “sweatshop-to-regulation-to-wage-increase” narrative is thus better understood as an outcome of interacting domestic and international forces rather than a simple evolutionary process.
This framing also underscores a deeper civilizational divergence in how rights are conceptualized. Western discourse tends to emphasize political freedoms, leisure, and individual consumption, whereas the Chinese developmental model foregrounds survival, stability, and employment. Ironically, what Western observers now criticize as “low human rights” mirrors their own industrial past—whether during the mass-production era of Ford in the United States or the high-intensity work culture of Japan’s postwar economic boom. This suggests that notions of human rights evolve alongside economic structures rather than existing as static universals.
The historical record of human and civil rights movements in the West itself reveals a similar tension between procedural achievements and economic outcomes. For example, while the civil rights movement in the United States was crucial in expanding legal and employment rights for Black Americans, insufficient investment in education and skills development limited long-term mobility. Likewise, broader human rights activism, though morally imperative, contributed indirectly to rising labor costs, outsourcing, and industrial decline. These experiences demonstrate that legal or procedural victories alone do not guarantee broad-based prosperity. Economic transformation and rights expansion are intertwined but often uneven processes, shaped by shifting power dynamics, development stages, and societal priorities.
Implications for Human Rights and Governance
Western criticism of China’s human rights record often overlooks the historical and practical context, expecting immediate adherence to ideological absolutism. From this perspective, China’s approach—which emphasizes material welfare and social stability before formalizing individual rights—can be perceived as authoritarian or overly preventive. However, this framework reflects a different set of cultural and historical priorities, where securing broad societal welfare is seen as a prerequisite for sustainable human rights development.
Despite divergent methodologies, both China and the United States share the ultimate goal of improving human welfare and protecting citizens. The key distinction lies in the sequence and emphasis of their approaches. In the U.S., individual rights are prioritized first, with legal enforcement mechanisms established to protect those rights, even if this occasionally comes at the expense of short-term social efficiency. Conversely, China places initial emphasis on economic, social, and educational welfare, with political stability viewed as essential to prevent societal disruption. Formal recognition and expansion of rights follow once the foundations of stability and prosperity are in place.
These differences have significant implications for governance and human rights discourse. The Western approach underscores the moral and legal imperative to safeguard individual freedoms, often valuing rights above immediate social or economic outcomes. In contrast, China’s gradualist model views the expansion of human rights as an evolving process closely linked to material development and social order. Understanding these divergent paths highlights that differing governance models may still converge on similar long-term objectives: the protection and enhancement of citizen welfare, albeit through distinct sequences and strategies.
Broader Takeaway
The governance models of the United States and China are neither inherently superior nor universally applicable; rather, they reflect distinct historical experiences, cultural philosophies, and societal priorities. The U.S. system emphasizes individual freedoms, open debate, and institutional checks, valuing democratic participation even at the cost of inefficiency and occasional gridlock. In contrast, China prioritizes social stability, centralized control, and rapid decision-making, accepting limited transparency as the trade-off for long-term planning and effective execution. Each approach carries inherent strengths and vulnerabilities: the U.S. benefits from resilience rooted in democratic legitimacy, while China demonstrates remarkable capacity for coordinated action, yet faces risks associated with opacity and constrained dissent.
These differences extend to the conceptualization and implementation of human rights. The U.S. frames rights in individualistic and absolutist terms, emphasizing personal freedoms and legal protections, whereas China approaches rights from a collectivist, relativist perspective, focusing on societal stability and development. Consequently, while both nations share the overarching goal of improving citizens’ lives, their methods diverge significantly, shaped by ideology, history, and cultural philosophy. Such contrasts often fuel international debates and tensions over human rights, underscoring the importance of contextual understanding when evaluating policy decisions and governance practices.
References
[1] Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the Misconceptions and Differences Between China and the US. Peter B. Walker, 2019