Breaking the Myth of “Cultural Determinism”: Institutions are the Core Force Shaping Social Quality 打破“文化决定论”迷思：制度才是塑造社会素质的核心力量
文化决定论的回潮与政治功能
近期，中文互联网再次掀起有关“文化决定论”的讨论。许多观点声称，中国社会在规则意识、公权监督、公共秩序等领域的问题，源于“几千年未变的文化传统”、“儒家文化造成的国民性弱点”，或某种与生俱来的“文化基因”。这种说法表面上似乎提供了一个宏大的解释框架，但实际作用却是将制度责任巧妙地移出视野，使所有治理缺陷与结构问题，被归咎于无法改革的文化本身。
在当下中国政治语境中，这种论述已经具备明确的功能性。它通过抽象化和宿命化的方式，使中国党和政府在面对制度失灵、治理不足和改革需求时，可以轻松地将责任转嫁给“文化”。一旦问题被定义为文化造成的，就等于说明制度无错、改革无用、问责无意义，民众只能接受现实，因为“文化”无法改变。文化在这种叙述中成为替罪羊，制度的缺陷则被悉数隐藏。
制度速度与文化速度：哪个真正塑造社会？
从历史经验来看，文化本身的变化极其缓慢，而制度却可以在短短几十年里彻底改变一群人的行为模式。中国大陆、台湾、香港与新加坡同源文化，儒家传统、家庭结构与价值观延续千年，从未有过根本断裂，但这些地区在过去半个世纪却展现出完全不同的治理结构、社会秩序和公共行为模式。如果文化是决定因素，那么这些差异根本无法解释。
真正能够塑造这种急速分化的，是制度环境的不同。制度通过其权力结构、执法方式、司法独立程度、公民监督机制等关键元素，直接影响个体在社会中的行为选择。当制度可靠、透明、稳定，人们自然倾向遵守规则并投入公共生活；当制度不透明、权力不受监督、特权能随意绕开规则，社会便会迅速滑向失序。文化在这里并非主因，只是制度影响行为后生成的一层次级现象。
制度如何塑造规则意识与社会行为？
制度之所以能够深刻影响社会，是因为它决定了人们的行为成本与收益。一个公平、可预期且普遍适用的法治体系，会让守规矩成为理性的选择，而并非道德上的牺牲；违规不仅遭遇明确的惩罚，而且无法通过权力、关系或金钱逃避，因此守规则的行为在社会中自然积累为常态。而在缺乏制度约束的环境中，行为者会发现规则常常是“软的”，违规不但不受惩罚，甚至可换取现实利益；权力者可以凌驾于制度之上，民众因而很快意识到遵守规则不再值得。
在这样的制度激励结构下，社会规范也会随之发生变化。人们并不会因为文化传统中的“礼仪”“道德”而保持公共秩序，而是因为制度让这种秩序具有现实意义。相反，一个制度若缺乏有效的监督机制，再深厚的文化传统也无法抵抗权力的任意扩张。媒体自由、司法独立、公共监督权利等现代制度的基础性要素，远比文化中的价值偏好更能塑造社会行为。
文化决定论为何成为制度问题的遮羞布？
文化决定论在中国之所以经常出现，不是因为它解释力强，而是因为它提供了便利的逃避路径。将制度性问题解释为文化问题，意味着不必进行制度改革，因为文化“难以改变”；不必追究权力责任，因为文化“根深蒂固”；不必建立透明治理结构，因为文化“几千年如此”。从城市管理、官僚体系、基层治理，到腐败问题、公共秩序与法治建设，只要披上一层文化外衣，制度便能免除所有问责。
这类叙事最深层的危害，在于它制造了一种人为的宿命感，让人们相信改变无望，制度改革无意义，唯一能做的只有“提升国民素质”。但历史与现实不断证明，所谓“素质”不是文化注定，而是制度塑造的产物。当制度公平透明、惩罚有效、公权受限、监督存在，人们自然会形成规则意识与公共精神；而当制度奖励违规、纵容特权、缺乏问责，即便文化再深厚，也无法拯救社会秩序。
结语：制度决定行为，行为塑造素质
文化固然影响社会，但它从来不是决定性的。真正能够塑造社会面貌的，是制度。要改善公共行为、提升规则意识、建立健康的社会规范，关键不在于反复指责文化“有问题”，而在于建设一个公平、透明、可信、可监督的制度结构。
一旦制度能够让违规成为高成本行为，让规则成为可靠的公共资源，让权力受到真正的约束，人们的行为自然会随之改变，而所谓的“高素质”也将随之成长。文化从不是中国社会问题的根源，但制度改革永远是其解决路径。
The Resurgence of Cultural Determinism and Its Political Function
Recently, discussions of “cultural determinism” have resurfaced on the Chinese internet. Many arguments claim that problems in Chinese society—such as weak rule consciousness, insufficient oversight of public power, and poor public order—stem from “unchanged cultural traditions spanning thousands of years,” “national character flaws produced by Confucian culture,” or some innate “cultural gene.” On the surface, this line of reasoning appears to offer a grand explanatory framework. In practice, however, it subtly removes institutional responsibility from view, shifting all governance failures and structural problems onto culture itself—something portrayed as unreformable.
In today’s Chinese political context, this narrative serves a clear functional purpose. By abstracting and fatalizing social problems, it allows the Party and the government to deflect responsibility when facing institutional breakdowns, governance failures, and demands for reform. Once a problem is defined as cultural, institutions are declared blameless, reform is deemed futile, accountability becomes meaningless, and the public is told to accept reality because “culture cannot be changed.” Culture thus becomes a scapegoat, while institutional defects are systematically concealed.
Institutional Speed vs. Cultural Speed: What Truly Shapes Society?
Historical experience shows that culture changes extremely slowly, whereas institutions can fundamentally transform patterns of behavior within just a few decades. Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore share a common cultural origin: Confucian traditions, family structures, and core values that have persisted for centuries without a fundamental rupture. Yet over the past half-century, these societies have developed radically different systems of governance, social order, and public behavior. If culture were the decisive factor, such divergence would be impossible to explain.
What truly drives this rapid differentiation is the institutional environment. Institutions—through power structures, enforcement practices, degrees of judicial independence, and mechanisms of civic oversight—directly shape the choices individuals make in society. Where institutions are reliable, transparent, and stable, people naturally tend to follow rules and engage in public life. Where institutions are opaque, power goes unchecked, and privilege can bypass rules at will, society quickly descends into disorder. Culture is not the primary cause here; it is a secondary phenomenon that emerges after institutions shape behavior.
How Institutions Shape Rule Consciousness and Social Behavior
Institutions exert deep influence because they determine the costs and benefits of behavior. A fair, predictable, and universally applied legal system makes rule-following a rational choice rather than a moral sacrifice. Violations face clear penalties that cannot be evaded through power, connections, or money, allowing compliance to accumulate into a social norm. By contrast, in environments lacking institutional constraints, actors soon discover that rules are “soft”: violations go unpunished or even yield tangible benefits. When those in power can stand above the rules, ordinary people quickly realize that compliance is no longer worthwhile.
Under such incentive structures, social norms inevitably shift. People do not maintain public order because of cultural notions of “ritual” or “morality,” but because institutions give that order real, practical meaning. Conversely, when institutions lack effective oversight, even the richest cultural traditions cannot resist the arbitrary expansion of power. Core elements of modern institutions—such as media freedom, judicial independence, and public oversight—shape social behavior far more decisively than value preferences embedded in culture.
Why Cultural Determinism Becomes a Fig Leaf for Institutional Failure
Cultural determinism appears so frequently in China not because it explains reality well, but because it offers a convenient escape route. Explaining institutional problems as cultural ones means there is no need for institutional reform, since culture is “hard to change”; no need to hold power accountable, since culture is “deeply rooted”; and no need to build transparent governance, since “it has always been this way for thousands of years.” From urban management and bureaucratic systems to grassroots governance, corruption, public order, and the rule of law, once a cultural label is applied, institutions are absolved of responsibility.
The deepest harm of this narrative lies in the manufactured sense of fatalism it creates. People are led to believe that change is impossible, institutional reform is meaningless, and the only option is to “raise the quality of the populace.” Yet history and reality repeatedly show that so-called “quality” is not culturally predetermined—it is produced by institutions. When institutions are fair and transparent, punishments are effective, public power is constrained, and oversight exists, people naturally develop rule consciousness and civic spirit. When institutions reward violations, tolerate privilege, and lack accountability, no amount of cultural depth can save social order.
Conclusion: Institutions Determine Behavior, and Behavior Shapes Social Quality
Culture does influence society, but it is never the decisive factor. What truly shapes a society is its institutional structure. Improving public behavior, strengthening respect for rules, and building healthy social norms do not depend on endlessly blaming culture for being “flawed,” but on constructing institutions that are fair, transparent, credible, and subject to oversight.
Once institutions make violations costly, turn rules into reliable public goods, and place real constraints on power, behavior will change accordingly—and the so-called “high quality” of society will follow. Culture has never been the root cause of China’s social problems. Institutional reform has always been the path to their solution.