“What Is a Nation? What Is a Home?—On the Tension Between State, Identity, and Individual Rights”

When asked, “If China is not your country, then where is?”, one often overlooks a fundamental truth: no one is born inherently belonging to any country. In the early history of humankind, concepts like nations, citizens, or national identity simply did not exist. Where, then, does this sense of belonging come from? Is there truly an inherent relationship between individuals and the state? Where does one consider their country to be? The answer is simple: where my beliefs are respected, where I can find the life I need, where my rights are protected—that is my country. In modern society, the relationship between individuals and the state is not innate but a constructed contract: the state provides security, rights, and order, while citizens fulfill their obligations. If this contract fails, the sense of national belonging inevitably breaks down.

Attributes such as gender, bloodline, and life itself are natural and immutable, inherent to every individual. In contrast, concepts like “nation,” “citizenship,” and “identity” are man-made constructs, designed to maintain social order and governance. These constructs are not absolute, nor are they immutable; they rely on individual consent and recognition. Yet when these attributes are forcibly imposed on individuals, demanding unconditional acceptance, the relationship between people and the state begins to fracture. Can we choose our nation? Can we question the relationship we have with it? Faced with these questions, it becomes clear that a state’s legitimacy cannot rely on forcibly binding identity to its citizens. Instead, it must be founded on protecting the rights and dignity of individuals.

Modern states are collective entities formed by their citizens, built on shared histories, institutions, and power structures. At their core, these states are contractual communities governed by rules, with the ultimate purpose of safeguarding life, liberty, and rights. However, in the case of China, this contractual relationship seems noticeably absent. Are our rights truly protected? Do we have the freedom to choose or question our national identity? Does our sense of belonging to the state arise from genuine recognition or mere passive imposition? On the surface, we are all Chinese—that is an undeniable fact—but this was not our choice. We were born into this identity, but that does not mean we automatically possess a sense of “home.” This lack of genuine recognition reveals the vast gap between individuals and the state: a state, as a constructed entity, must respond to and fulfill the needs of its people.

When discussing national identity, we must return to the core of rights protection. The legitimacy of a true rule-of-law state lies in its ability to safeguard the rights of its citizens, not in forcibly imposing collective identity. What is justice? Justice rests on equality of rights, and procedural justice is an essential safeguard in any legal society. Without procedural justice—without the protection of due process and fairness—any individual could become the victim of power. In an imperfect world where we cannot ensure that every criminal is punished and every innocent person is protected, we must understand that the true purpose of law and the state is to protect the majority from persecution and guarantee the rights of individuals. A state’s legitimacy thus depends on its respect for and protection of individual rights.

For any ordinary person, whether a billionaire or a powerful official is convicted may seem important, but if achieving this comes at the expense of our own rights, such justice becomes meaningless. What we need is not a state-imposed national identity, but a state that protects our rights, responds to our needs, and earns our recognition. We cannot choose where we are born, but we have the right to pursue where we belong. Whether it is China or elsewhere, a true nation is one that protects our rights, respects our dignity, and provides us with a sense of belonging.

A “home” should not be an identity imposed upon us but something that resonates from within. In the end, both nation and home must return to their essence: the happiness and rights of individuals. That is the future truly worth striving for.