How have the Chinese identities changed in the past 60 years?

What will be an ideal response?

During the Mao era, from the mid?1950s onwards, some aspects of China's
political system could be described as totalitarian. First, in this era there was little, if
any, societal or political pluralism outside of state control and monitoring. Since the
Communist Revolution, opposition parties have been banned (except as window
dressing), and in the early decades the government brutally repressed real and imagined
opposition movements. Party leadership would target the suspected demographic
group or class by mobilizing a majority of citizens who were often motivated by fear of
being—and relief at not having been—similarly identified as an enemy of the state. But
most state control was far more benign: society was organized into "work units"
(danwei) which were an extension of the workplace (factory, ministry, etc.) and which
provided the "iron rice bowl": "womb to tomb" welfare benefits ranging from schooling,
medical care, housing, and food. The work unit's permission was required for travel,
marriage, and even family planning. Thus, although one can argue that Chinese citizens'
lives were more strictly controlled than those of their counterparts in the Soviet Union,
China never had a secret police force like Russia's KGB.
In contrast, in China today there are genuine—albeit limited—opportunities for
individuals and groups outside the formal state apparatus to help shape policy. The
state has receded from the day?to?day lives of ordinary citizens, just as the work unit
itself has largely withered away. In ordinary conversations, in print, and even in blogs,
discussion of formerly taboo subjects has increased, in no small part because the state
lacks the ability to monitor all such discussions. Although citizens clearly do protest
government decisions publicly, the rules and regulations governing freedom of assembly
have changed little over time, and enforcement of these laws has remained strict. That
is, although Chinese authorities are now somewhat more lenient towards
"spontaneous" protesters, the state permits no organized political protest. The
government remains vigilant against any type of organized event that the authorities do
not control. This limit on political pluralism is characteristic of authoritarian regimes.
Second, under Mao the government frequently coercively mobilized citizens to support
its policy goals. Fearing the repressive power of the state, citizens rarely sought to
oppose such programs. Such government campaigns are largely a thing of the past. They
do occur from time to time, but they are no longer coercive in terms of punishments
meted out for non?compliance.
Finally, under Mao, the government engaged in extensive efforts at ideological
indoctrination. The government's efforts were so extreme that citizens could be
imprisoned and even executed for "improper thought." Indoctrination began early in
school and was frequently reinforced. Even if people saw the lie behind these
ideological exhortations, they realized that they had to appear to believe them. Today,
the government has abandoned most—but by no means all—efforts at ideological
indoctrination (ideology does remain an important part of party members' lives).