I think there's a healthy symbiosis between light "state harassment" of Ai and Ai's notoriety as a dissident. Ai has been told by the security service that his

I think there's a healthy symbiosis between light "state harassment" of Ai and Ai's notoriety as a dissident. Ai has been told by the security service that his existence is very important to the state. I think this is because his existence / story demonstrates two things: the state does express its disagreement and can detain / punish, the state allows provides an environment open to criticism and does allow people to express themselves. Ai is high profile and so the allowance of continued activity of a high profile dissident by a state which is in many cases criticized as getting rid of critics is an important counter narrative that the state wants, I believe. But I think it's more than that also. Ai is very Chinese and represents something very Chinese: a native cultural ideal, a person who is globally recognized as excelling in his field. His work is not just critical of his homeland, it comments on control in many places. So I think Ai's case, on the whole, functions more as positive rather than negative propaganda for China. One further and more controversial point I'll make is that Ai is in the same business as Chinese PR, shaping / playing with perceptions. I think Ai has realized for a long time that art coupled with subtly sensational criticism of his homeland gets him more traction in the global art scene, than just art. This is another aspect to the symbiosis. Ai's criticism of China, permitted by China, also gives China a larger profile in the cultural world through Ai. I admire the cleverness of these instances where the Chinese use Western cultural biases against us cleverly for their own benefit. Meaning that often in the West people are looking to fill in a narrative about the Chinese state being bad, and Ai, by supplying that demand in a satisfying way for us, enhances his career, and actually, I believe, subtly promotes / enhances China's image, using the very narrative demand the West has against the West's intention with it. In other words, the West, by elevating Ai, also elevates China, probably against their intent to do so, and precisely because, I believe, China knows how the play the demand for narrative bias to its advantage. But even if people in Western civil society organizations understand this, what choice do they have? They want to promote a certain set of values, so they have to use Ai as a persona. So Ai's existence is probably a win-win for all, rather than just the seeming clear win for the anti-China camp that his dissident status on the surface suggests. There's probably instances of the West using this kind of "appetite for bias" to its own advantage as well but I have not reflected as much about it.