Thesis examines nationalism's impact on ethnic identity in urban Mongolians, suggesting pragmatic compromise for stability.
Based on first-hand data from fieldwork conducted between 2022 and 2023, this thesis examines China's ethnic issues concerning Mongolians in Inner Mongolia and argues that local urban Mongolians have adopted a strategy of "pragmatic compromise" to negotiate their ethnic identity within contemporary Chinese state nationalism. Since the 1990s, the People's Republic of China (PRC) central government, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has increasingly relied on nationalism as a key source of political legitimacy. However, the Han-centric orientation embedded in state-led nationalism and national identity building has generated structural tensions within China's ethnic governance. Against this backdrop, pragmatic compromise has emerged from the interaction between state ethnic policies and local social realities in Inner Mongolia. This strategy enables urban Mongolians to navigate the opportunities and constraints produced by nationalist ethnic strategies, leading to the region's relative stability. However, the 2020 ethnic policy reforms somewhat disturbed this delicate balance in the short term, and their long-term impact remains uncertain. Specifically, the thesis unfolds as follows. Chapter Two provides historical background by reviewing the relationship between Mongolia and China before 1990. Chapter Three identifies the Han-centric elements in the official construction of Chinese nationalism after 1990. Chapters Four and Five examine how state ethnic strategies seek to construct national and ethnic identities, as well as the opportunities and constraints they present. Chapter Six explores the local Mongolian population's response strategies, a pragmatic compromise approach, which is key to understanding the region's relative stability. Chapter Seven evaluates the 2020 ethnic policy reforms as a potential variable of the previous delicate balance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yannan Li (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: