Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Session Type
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Access for All
Exhibit Hall
Hotels
WiFi
Search Tips
Ideological education and censorship are central mechanisms through which authoritarian regimes maintain legitimacy and stability. But how do state-imposed ideologies shape citizens’ actions and thinking in the long term? Drawing on a one-year ethnographic study in a Chinese Christian church located in Northeastern America, I use Chinese international students’ perceptions and evaluations of Christianity as a prism to examine the long-term effects of state-led ideological inculcation. My findings reveal that state censorship of religion in China fosters negative first impressions of Christianity and its followers among Chinese international students in the U.S. However, after sustained engagement with the Chinese Christian church—which is almost the only local Chinese community available—this negative impression diminishes. Yet, despite their indifference toward ideological education in China, Chinese international students still unconsciously apply Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideological frameworks in their talk of religion, which shows how their ways of perceiving and evaluating Christianity are influenced by political ideology inculcated in ideological education. This ideological lens leads many of them to resist religious conversion, even as they form positive social ties within the church. Furthermore, some Chinese Christians actively reinterpret and incorporate Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology into their understanding of Christianity, using it as a tool for religious engagement and evangelism. This study extends Swidler’s (1986) classical framework on how culture influences action. While Swidler posits that actors in unsettled periods rely on ideology as a direct guideline for action, my findings suggest a different mechanism: rather than dictating behavior, ideological inculcation constrains the range of available interpretative frameworks. Specifically, rather than explicitly guiding action, ideological training constrains actors’ available strategies of action—much like culture does in settled periods—thus shaping their responses to new ideological encounters.