Towards an Indigenous Guanxi Theory under the "Field" Context: Double meanings between culture and institution

本土“关系”研究的深化在根本上涉及到对“差序格局”这一本土概念的深入理解,其“义”“利”混合的文化特征及“公”“私”不分的制度意涵并不适合运用“强关系一弱关系”的社会网络理论框架加以分析。从“场域”的理论脉络出发,在传统的官场、乡土、商场等不同组织场域中,差序私人“关系”分别主要表现为“主从关系”、“人缘关系”、“朋友关系”的不同“关系”形态,特别是在组织领导的个人“关系”实践中尤为明显,其各自蕴含着法家“权谋”传统、道家“隐忍”传统以及儒家“仁义”传统的差别。此三种“关系”形态的共性均可归为某种个人关系或私人关系,从而均构成了系统制度或组织科层制的对立面,这就成为本土“关系”理论拓展区别于社会资本理论的重要依据。由此,组织“场域”脉络下的本土“关系社会学”拓展所须揭示的文化传统特征与去制度化意涵,可能也比较适合运用诸如个案调查、叙事分析等质性研究方法加以探析。

The progress of indigenous guanxi research essentially depends on the in- depth understanding of the indigenous concept of "the differential mode of association". The cultural character of guanxi manifests a mixture between lightness and profit, while the institutional meaning illustrates the indivisibility between public and private. Both the cultural character and institutional meaning can't be interpreted by the social network theory. From the "field" theoretical perspective, the author argues that the differential private guanxi evolves into patron-client relationship, popularity-oriented relationship or friendship-oriented relationship in the different organizational fields of officialdom, rural villages or business, which are respectively originated from three cultural traditions of Machiavellian Legalism, forbearing Daoism and benevolence Confucianism. The commonness of the three guanxi configuration is that all of them could be categorized as a kind of personal relationship or private relationship, which works as the substitute for systematic institutions or organizational bureaucracy. Finally, the author argues that the cultural character and institutional meaning of indigenous relational sociology in organizational "field" context are suitable to be explored by qualitative research methods such as case study or narrative analysis.

沈毅

欢迎阅读《社会学研究》！您是该文第3134位读者！