Neo-Confucian revival in AI ethics: How China’s state-led philosophical synthesis obscures global pluralism and Indigenous data sovereignty
Original framing: “Zhu Xi's 800-year-old philosophy just became China's answer in AI ethics debate” — bing news
The framing silences marginalized Chinese voices, including *Uighur academics* like *Ilham Tohti* (who critiques Han-centric governance) or *Hong Kong pro-democracy activists* like *Agnes Chow*, who argue that Zhu Xi’s revival is a tool of cultural assimilation. Additionally, *Chinese LGBTQ+ communities* (e.g., *Beijing LGBT Center*) have raised concerns that 'harmony'-centric AI could reinforce state surveillance of queer identities, yet these perspectives are absent. The forum’s 200 scholars from 51 countries include no representatives from Tibet, Xinjiang, or Taiwan, reinforcing a monolithic 'Chinese' position.
The Kaoting Forum’s revival of Zhu Xi for AI ethics is not a cultural renaissance but a *strategic rebranding* of state control, where 'harmony' (*he*) becomes a tool to justify surveillance capitalism under the guise of moral leadership.
This move mirrors historical patterns—from Qing Dynasty ideological campaigns to Maoist *Red Classics*—where philosophy is co-opted to legitimize power, yet the framing obscures these precedents by presenting the debate as apolitical. The erasure of Indigenous data governance models (*OCAP*, *kaitiakitanga*) and marginalized Chinese voices (Uighur, Tibetan, Hong Kong dissidents) reveals a systemic effort to depoliticize AI ethics, positioning China as a moral counterweight to the West while ignoring how both systems extract value under ethical facades. The solution lies not in choosing between 'Confucian' or 'Western' ethics, but in *decolonizing the debate* through Indigenous-led alliances, cross-cultural audits, and trickster media that expose the absurdity of treating 800-year-old texts as answers to 21st-century algorithmic crises. The real innovation in AI ethics will come from those who refuse to play by the rules of either empire—whether Beijing’s *he* or Silicon Valley’s *freedom*.