In his classic work Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong explains the nature of Chinese rural
society based on his own original field work. According to the author the key
concept in understanding Chinese culture is chaxugeju,
which means “differential mode of association.” He contrasts chaxugeju with what he calls the Western
mode of “organizational mode of association.” The Chinese form of social
organization is bases on concentric rings of association that spread out from
the individual at the center. These rings of association flow out in an ever
widening circle from family, to kinship group, to village, to province, to
nation. Loyalty also flows out in the same direction at an ever diminishing
rate. All Chinese are born into unchosen associations that are sanctified by
the concept of ritual.
The author observes that chazugeju has many ramifications.
Perhaps the most important of these is that it leads to a society animated by
situational ethics. This is because all social relationships are based on
hierarchies that are defined and sanctioned by traditional Confucian tenets. In
other words, standards of behavior and interaction depend on who is doing what
to whom. According to the author, there are apparently no absolute standards of
conduct in Chinese rural life. Xiaotong cites the Book of Rites “ten relationships,” which are fundamental rules for
proper human relationships. The relationships are defined by hierarchies of
social standing and power, such are fathers over sons, and husbands over wives:
“Everyone should stay in his place” (65). Therefore, an action can only be
correctly judged on the basis of not
what was done, but rather on who did it and why.
Chaxugeju
means that at the village level both government and law have little use in
daily life. The concept helps explain why a powerful empire had little actual
control over or influence upon the daily lives of farmers and village artisans.
Rural people had no need of laws or courts. Their tradition of proper ritual
and hierarchies based on patrilineages defines both right action and provided
means of dealing with those who broke the social code. State magistrates had no
role in daily village life. In a way, the “rule of ritual” operated as a social
superego: “it is as if there were ten eyes watching you and ten fingers
pointing at you all the time” (99). Although the author denies that Chinese
society is unchanging, he does state that its system is static in nature:
“Generally speaking, consanguineous societies are stable and static” (120). In
fact, he adds that stability is the purpose of the system. He quotes Confucius,
“Nothing should be changed until three years after your father dies” (130).
This
book was a deceptively easy read. However after sitting down and attempting to
write a short review of it, it is clear that it is far from a simple
description of Chinese village life. Xiaotong makes fascinating, and at times
profound, observations on nearly every page. His chapters on sex roles
in Chinese life and “separating names from reality” were particularly
insightful.
No comments:
Post a Comment