Research on the Chinese Family

Lee, Rose Hum

doi:10.1086/220413

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presentation of the Chinese family briefly indicated above was subject to significant sociological critique during the late-Republican period (Cheng 1939;Hsu 1943;Lee 1949). Indeed, on the basis of fieldwork in Sichuan in the late 1940s Skinner (1964, p. 32) shows that "anthropological work on Chinese society, by focusing attention almost exclusively on the village, has with few exceptions distorted the reality of rural social structure," a limitation for which Fei has been criticized (Chun 2012, p. 264;Freedman 1979, pp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tripartite guanxi: resolving kin and non-kin discontinuities in Chinese connections

Barbalet

2020

Theor Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A consensus holds that guanxi, understood as dyadic connections consolidated affectively and mobilized to achieve the purposes of members, exists in three forms (family guanxi, friendship guanxi, and acquaintance guanxi) distinguished by the strength of felt obligation between participants. It is also held that through practices of fictive kinship friendship guanxi may merge with family guanxi. This article challenges these propositions and the assumptions underlying them. Obligations of kinship and guanxi obligations are fundamentally dissimilar and the term "family guanxi" is redundant. Pseudo-family ties do not provide access to kin relations and their resources but instead affirm the distinction between family-and friendship-ties. Finally, because guanxi is cultivated by its participants, friendship guanxi and acquaintance guanxi are not distinct forms but rather are different possible stages of guanxi formation. The article goes on to consider the sources of these confusions, namely, common-language terms employed in sociological analysis, certain assumptions concerning Chinese culture, and finally methodological commitments that privilege latent structures of strong ties. The strength of guanxi ties, on the other hand, volitionally cultivated and indifferent to structural determination, fluctuates through agentic practices.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tripartite guanxi: resolving kin and non-kin discontinuities in Chinese connections

Barbalet

2020

Theor Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The significance to peasant households of the social space beyond their village in marketplaces is demonstrated in fieldwork in Sichuan in the late 1940s. In his report of this research, William Skinner (1964: 32) shows that “anthropological work on Chinese society, by focusing attention almost exclusively on the village, has with few exceptions distorted the reality of rural social structure.” This is a limitation for which Fei has been frequently criticized (Chun, 2012: 264; Freedman, 1979: 389–90; Wang, 2012: 180), and which was discussed by contemporary sources (Cheng, 1939; Lee, 1949). Skinner (1964: 32) writes that “insofar as the Chinese peasant can be said to live in a self-contained world, that world is not the village but the standard marketing community.…”

Section: A Village-centric Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Analysis of Chinese Rural Society: Fei Xiaotong Revisited

Barbalet

2020

Modern China

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

China’s best-known sociologist, Fei Xiaotong, is widely credited with providing a general statement of guanxi relations underlying Chinese society. Examination of Fei’s celebrated From the Soil and associated publications, as well as the work of contemporary researchers, reveals Fei’s neglected Confucianism and the derivative nature of his conceptualization of “the differential mode of association.” Additionally, limitations of village-centric perspectives and the importance of nonkin relations in rural society are identified and erstwhile neglected aspects of guanxi highlighted. The article contributes to the study of guanxi and Chinese society in general by developing a sociological account of the variety and nature of social connections.

show abstract

Comment

Goode

1961

Comp Stud Soc Hist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sociologist's apparent bias against historical data is founded in the main on the restricted definition of a “fact” which he has come to accept during the past generation. Having found by tedious and pedestrian work that many popular impressions about social relations in our own time are incorrect, he has become sceptical of the possibility of ascertaining the facts about historical populations whose members can no longer be interviewed or observed. But I sense among my fellow sociologists a diminishing parochialism and for this reason I welcome Lawrence Stone's work on marriage patterns among the English nobility in the 16th and 17th centuries. I should like to weigh his conclusions by reference both to general social science principles and to cross-cultural data.

show abstract

Research on the Chinese Family

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Tripartite guanxi: resolving kin and non-kin discontinuities in Chinese connections

Tripartite guanxi: resolving kin and non-kin discontinuities in Chinese connections

The Analysis of Chinese Rural Society: Fei Xiaotong Revisited

Comment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About