Families flock to Meilan Lake Park in Shanghai for springtime outings and leisure camping during the Qingming Festival holiday (Apr. 4-6). Photo: IC PHOTO

In 2021, the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China formally came into effect, defining the family as the basic legal-rights unit of social governance. Structured around the three relational axes of “family–person,” “family–career,” and “family–state,” the Civil Code traces the cultural genes and national spirit of traditional state governance, providing both value guidance and institutional support for the Chinese path of social governance.

Family as most fundamental unit of Chinese society

Why has the family become the basic unit of social governance in Chinese society? First, the family is a form of social existence. The concept of family originates in natural law and kinship ethics. Even though contemporary families are becoming increasingly smaller, the family has remained a remarkably resilient social form. It is not merely a physical space but also a social network—an interpersonal system of relationships and interactions built on blood and affinal ties. Together with its derivative ethical networks and social exchanges, the family also constitutes a framework for resource sharing and interest negotiation based on specific identities.

Second, the family is a form of value existence. It is not merely an instrumental or technical division of legal subjects within a juridical framework, but rather a value community that integrates a specific national spirit with the needs of the times.

Third, the family is a form of institutional existence. It is not only an ethical community but also a unit for the production and reproduction of rules. To realize identity recognition and internal governance and to resist external risks, the family constructs a shared living and community-property social space and mode of existence. Through rules, traditions, genealogies, and ancestral halls, it forms a powerful normative system and world of meaning.

In China, families have long served as both the foundational social unit and a primary locus of social governance. From the perspective of long-term governance patterns, Chinese state governance has formed a stable demand-support system in terms of identity authority, elite governance, and relatively democratic procedures. Between family and state, a dual governance structure characterized by harmony, symbiosis, mutual interaction, and mutual reinforcement has emerged, progressing from the family community to the social community and ultimately to the national community. Scholars commonly refer to this arrangement as the structural isomorphism and co-governance of family and state.

Between ‘family’ and ‘person:’ Ethical community

The family–person relationship determines the constituent elements and structural choices of the human dimension of social governance.

The codified position of the family: The Civil Code highlights the family’s status as an ethical community and, on the basis of identity recognition, establishes a corresponding system of obligations. While recognizing and guaranteeing the independence and freedom of personal property, the Civil Code also upholds fundamental ethical demands, emphasizing that subjects linked by identity and ethical relations must bear specific moral and legal obligations. At a higher level, the Civil Code also articulates a form of ethical justice: even when identity ties are dissolved, original ethical obligations may persist. For example, Article 1118 stipulates that “After dissolution of an adoptive relationship, an adoptee who has been raised up by the adoptive parents and now become an adult shall provide living expenses to his adoptive parents who lack both the capacity to work and the means to support themselves.”

The bidirectional definition of the “person:” The Civil Code conceptualizes the “person” in two distinct senses. One draws on the value principles of Western civil codes, with Article 4 stipulating that “All persons of the civil law are equal in legal status when conducting civil activities,” affirming the equal status of persons as actors endowed with freedom of action. Article 14 provides that “All natural persons are equal in their capacity for enjoying civil-law rights,” affirming the absolute equality of legal personality. The other refers to the specific subject within the Chinese ethical context—an effective node within the ethical network of the family. Thus, the “person” in the Civil Code is both a legal person and a moral person; both an independent singular subject and a plural unit embedded within an ethical grid.

The return and evolution of parental authority: Parental authority lies at the core of family autonomy, representing both the value expression and institutional embodiment of Confucian ethical philosophy. Although the Civil Code does not explicitly stipulate parental authority, it continues to exist as an implicit institutional presence, albeit modernized. Parental authority has accordingly incorporated two key elements from Western civil codes. First, both spouses enjoy equal rights of discipline over their children, transforming parental authority from a husband-centered system to one based on gender equality. Second, the exercise of parental authority must respect the basic personal rights of minor children, shifting from a parent-centered model to one centered on the maximization of children’s best interests.

Between ‘family’ and ‘career:’ Social community

The internal connection between the family–career relationship and social governance is that the fair redistribution of resources directly determines internal harmony within both the collective and the family. Externally, the allocation of responsibilities and the bearing of risks arising from economic interactions directly affect social stability.

The Chinese logic of community ownership: Unlike the modern Western logic of “independent personality–private property–free market,” China’s Civil Code follows the logic of “identity relations–community property–equitable distribution.” The predominant system of public ownership does not affirm each individual’s ownership of specific resources; rather, it defines rights and obligations within the community based on membership identity. The tradition of community ownership within the Chinese family is rooted more deeply in indigenous communitarian ethical norms than in the theological or rationalist foundations of Western modernity. Externally, this tradition takes the form of cohabitation and shared property; internally, it strengthens members’ sense of belonging and responsibility.

The Dynamic mechanism of community ownership: The purpose of retaining community property alongside individual ownership in the Civil Code is to preserve the integrative and regulatory capacities of the family. First, the primary function of family co-ownership is not to maximize property profits but to minimize loss, thereby maintaining the basic conditions of survival for vulnerable households, avoiding internal risks, and preventing family disintegration. Second, through rational planning and unified allocation, the family co-ownership system can cover the costs of public and welfare affairs such as ancestor worship, elder care, poverty relief, family administration, and external relations. Third, the family co-ownership system not only safeguards the public good but also embodies the value of ethical mutual assistance.

The Embedding of identity ethics and economic ethics: Since modern times, Western societies have separated “family” from the “person,” a shift that in turn detached “family” from “career.” In China, by contrast, the continued unity of family and career reflects a close integration of identity ethics and economic ethics, forming the material foundation for governance by both family and state. For example, within the Chinese context, the land-use system is not merely a construction of property rights but also a political and moral commitment, serving as the material basis for social governance and fairness maintained by the state, the collective, and the family. This is clearly reflected in Article 246 of the Civil Code, which states that “Where a property is provided by law to be owned by the State, the property belongs to the State, namely, to the whole people,” and Article 261, which provides that “The immovable and movable property of a farmer collective are collectively owned by the members of this collective.”

Between ‘family’ and ‘state:’ Political community

Since modern times, Western societies have drawn a clearer line between family and state, fostering voluntary associations among individuals and contractual relations between citizens and the state. This shift gave rise to the dual governance structure of “citizen–state.” In China, however, influenced by ethical culture and legal traditions, the Civil Code emphasizes the foundational role of the family in constructing the state, continuing the traditional dual governance structure of family–state.

Within the Civil Code, the family–state relationship carries at least two implications for social governance: the family remains the most important unit of governance in Chinese society, and the family is not only a direct object of governance but also a powerful actor and interlocutor. Due to certain cultural traditions and institutional inertia, the status and functions of the modern Chinese family have not fundamentally changed from those in traditional society, and the state cannot replace family functions in the short term. Through value inheritance and institutional continuity, the family–state relationship achieves both mutual benefit and structural alignment.

A close reading of the Civil Code reveals that the family–state relationship manifests as three dynamic forms of strategic interaction that shape the future orientation and model of Chinese social governance. First, power–rights interaction determines governance objectives. The Civil Code affirms the independent personality and free will of civil subjects while preserving the family’s communal role as a pool of resources for individual survival and development and as a source of spiritual and emotional refuge.

Second, the balance between family and state plays a significant role in the positioning of governance subjects and the shaping of governance structures. Unlike the Western “citizen–state” binary structure, the core interacting subjects in traditional Chinese governance are family and state. Although tensions exist—such as state restrictions on family judicial authority—the family generally demonstrates cooperation with, identification with, and obedience to the state. As a form of compensation, the state in turn maintains balance by devolving authority or recognizing family autonomy, tending toward harmonious coexistence.

Third, the interaction between market logic and ethical logic shapes governance methods and outcomes. Unlike the purely individualistic and market-centered logic of Western governance, the Civil Code strengthens identity-based obligations and reinforces public ownership and the family co-ownership system. In doing so, it avoids the dominance of market logic in public life while continuing the tradition of combining rule of law with rule of virtue, thereby enhancing governance effectiveness.

Liu Yunsheng is a professor from the Law School at Guangzhou University. This article has been edited and excerpted from the Academic Journal of Zhongzhou, Issue 9, 2025.