‘Global China’ has emerged as a shorthand for China's relationship to the global, but its axiomatic uses disguise considerable complexity. This article troubles self-evident uses and tidy categorizations of Global China by approaching it as an emergent, pluralistic geographical imaginary warranting critical analysis. Employing a genealogical approach that privileges indeterminacy and inconsistency over linearity and singularity, we draw on wide-ranging sources to reveal the contested, contextual, and contradictory uses of Global China in the contemporary moment. Our analysis identifies six ‘paths’ of Global China: Other, Integration, Bridge, Status, Threat, and Alternative . Each path facilitates distinct yet interlinked claims about the relationship between China and the global, creating a web of interrelations that enables ‘Global China’ to encompass a range of world-making and meaning-making projects – from south-south solidarity and people-to-people connections to superpower rivalry and geoeconomic competition. The fluidity and open-endedness of Global China make it a site of contestation where competing visions clash and coalesce – but also a site of possibility. We conclude by discussing how scholars can use and build on the identified paths to engage Global China s in practice – and perhaps to envision and enact additional paths of Global China as well.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DiCarlo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: