"If children were brought up to become non-conformists it would only ruin their lives. So parents all over China who loved their children told them to do as Chairman Mao said. It was not possible to tell them anything else"

Jung Chang's words reflect the profound social and political pressures faced by families in Maoist China. Her observation draws attention to the powerful force of state ideology in shaping personal lives and decisions. When she notes that raising children to be non-conformists would ruin their lives, she acknowledges the risks associated with dissent and individualism in a system that demanded unwavering loyalty to the collective and the leader, Chairman Mao. The consequences of nonconformity in this context were not merely social disapproval but could include persecution, ostracism, imprisonment, or even death.

Parents, motivated by love and the instinct to protect, found themselves in an impossible ethical dilemma. Even if they valued independent thought or personal integrity, the reality of the time forced their hand. The state’s demands infiltrated every aspect of daily existence; to deviate from the prescribed doctrine was to endanger not only oneself but also one’s family. Telling children to follow Chairman Mao was an act of parental care, a means of ensuring their survival and prospects in a society where political reliability was the key determinant of safety and opportunity.

The statement further underscores the limited space for alternative narratives or beliefs. There was no viable option for quietly teaching children different values at home, as the threat of exposure was omnipresent, extending even to classmates and neighbors. The power of state propaganda was such that it shaped not only public discourse but also the innermost dynamics of family life. Love became entwined with conformity; safeguarding a child’s future meant shaping them into a model citizen according to the Party’s definition.

This dynamic elucidates why entire generations internalized official ideology so deeply. The pressure to conform was not only governmental but also familial and emotional, closing off any other path. In such a climate, resistance was a luxury very few could afford.