It has been the argument here that the "animating principle," the soul, of China is survival; that of the fundamental human emotions fear and pain are more important to understanding Chinese than, say, Americans; and that China's characteristic centralism is one of the "behavioral consequences" of these.
The Chinese state relentlessly and ruthlessly imposed its authority on the people and once its authority was established it guarded it in the same manner. Fear was the emotional basis and survival of the dominant ethnicity, the Han, was the focus. Thus the Chinese state built walls, not only to keep invaders out, but to keep the Han in. China has not been as imperial or as exploratory as Western states. The Chinese focus was on extending its writ over people; the Western focus was on land.
The Chinese state's unprecedented success in extending its authority over its people and consolidating its control through an unprecedented degree of centralism is owed significantly to geography. Until the modern era the state's writ ran only as far as the land was flat. Mountains dissipated authority as they do hurricanes and tornadoes. Geography effects agriculture too; Chinese geography, as that of much of Asia, favored the cultivation of rice as the basic foodstuff. This was maybe the key factor in the success of the Chinese state.
Rice cultivation is almost uniquely suited to state building. It requires a settled people; it requires population density. This made for easier state control; the seat of state power could be near the rice fields. Rice facilitated the state's ability to police its people, to tax them, and to defend against outside aggression.
This post draws heavily on Professor James C. Scott's book, The Art of Not Being Governed. However that book is not about China; I have applied, perhaps misapplied, what I learned there to China. What Professor Scott wrote in the introduction to his book therefore is applicable here: This post is all my fault.
