China’s Pandemic Biopolitics and State Knowledge Control

This thesis examines how China's handling of HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 reflected a tension between state intentions of control and the lived experiences of those affected. Using mixed methods, the researcher analyzed media, policy documents, interviews, and ethnographic material to trace how public narratives shifted from denial to assertive management. Drawing on a Foucauldian framework, the work argues that the government used control over knowledge production to strengthen population governance. Interviews with affected communities revealed resistance to official claims of acting for the collective, suggesting a distinctive, authoritarian form of biopolitics in China.

What the study examined

This research looks at how China managed two major public health crises: HIV/AIDS and COVID-19. The focus is on how official messages, policies and practices shaped public understanding and the everyday experiences of people living with or affected by these infections.

The author gathered several types of evidence, including media coverage, published government and policy documents, interviews with individuals, and both online and offline ethnographic observations. A theoretical lens influenced by Michel Foucault is used to consider how power operates through public health measures and information.

Key findings

The study finds a clear narrative arc in official responses, moving from early denial to increasingly assertive and interventionist management of both epidemics. This shift was accompanied by efforts to shape what counts as legitimate knowledge about the infections.

Analysis shows that the state sought to control not only medical responses but also the production and circulation of information. By steering public narratives and policy debates, the government reinforced mechanisms of governance that prioritize collective goals as framed by authorities.

• Interviews and ethnographic material indicate that people affected by HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 experienced these policies in ways that sometimes contradicted official accounts.
• Those living with or touched by the infections expressed resistance to the claim that measures were solely in the interest of the collective, revealing tensions between lived realities and state rhetoric.
• The study argues that the manipulation of knowledge functioned as an instrument of rule, limiting alternative interpretations and dissenting voices.

Rather than positioning this approach as simply the opposite of liberal or neoliberal governance, the author proposes that it represents a particular form of biopolitical practice adapted to the country’s political system. This form blends a focus on securing life with techniques of control that tighten state authority.

Why it matters

The thesis sheds light on how public health crises can become sites where information, power and governance intersect. It highlights that public health action does not operate only at the level of medical intervention, but also through narratives and institutional practices that shape what people know and how they respond.

By foregrounding the perspectives of affected communities, the research surfaces the uneven effects of state strategies and the presence of social pushback. Framing epidemic response in terms of knowledge control helps explain how public health can be mobilized to reinforce political authority while claiming to protect the population.

The work invites further reflection on the diversity of governance approaches across different political systems and on the consequences of conflating life protection with mechanisms that limit debate and dissent.