Applying Harris and Smith to China's Social Credit System

Harris identifies that whiteness is property. She writes, “White identity and whiteness were sources of privilege and protection; their absence meant being the object of property” (Harris 1721). Whiteness gave people the right to control their life and liberty as well as greater access. Blackness on the other hand left man’s life and liberty in a precarious state and excluded him from segregated institutions. Whiteness in itself is not property. Once a society grants white people a superior degree of rights and excludes black people from those rights, whiteness becomes property. As Harris says, “whiteness and property share a common premise… a right to exclude” (Harris 1714).

In China, the government has instituted a social credit system. In short, each individual is assigned a numerical score. If one acts in a way that the government considers favorable, his score increases. If one acts in an unfavorable way, his score decreases. People with good social credit scores are able to move freely, buy plane tickets, spend their leisure time freely, and apply for better jobs, etc. People with bad scores are excluded from the aforementioned activities. Thus, Harris would consider a good social credit score to be property.

This is a powerful tool for the Chinese government as they determine what constitutes favorable and unfavorable activity. Smith establishes authority and utility as the two reasons why people are obedient (Smith 401). In the past, authoritarian regimes have primarily used their authority to scare their people into submission. They used the threats of imprisonment and physical punishment to scare people into submission. Now, the Chinese government is offering utility-based incentives for obedience. If one is obedient, he will be afforded greater access, which will help him maximize his utility. If one is disobedient, he will be excluded, which will hurt his utility.