The purpose of this article is to distinguish between "old" (i.e., modern) academic
professionals and contemporary (postmodern) academic practitioners— "the new cultural specialists,"
as we shall call them. In this essay, we use the sociology of Max Weber and T. Parsons to account
for the activities of the relatively autonomous "old professionals" and to contrast their conduct
and social location with the newer specialists. We then turn to Friedrich Nietzsche and Michel
Foucault to help explain the dynamics of the new professionals. Finally, we trace connections
between these new specialists, globalization and neoMarxist analysis of the "spectacular"
commodity consumption of signs and leisure (G. Debord). This paper is to connect "cultural
theory" with historical materialism.
Abstract： Drawing on past research， the author has advocated the following propositions： （1） the inequality in China has been severely impacted by some collective mechanisms， such as regions and work units； （2） traditional Chinese political ideology has promoted meritbased inequality， with merit being perceived as functional in improving the collective welfare for the masses； and （3） many Chinese people today regard inequality as an inevitable consequence of economic development． Thus， it seems unlikely that social inequality alone would lead to political and social unrest in today’s China．
This paper discusses in great detail from the perspective of power and power relations about the fashion reproduction theory—one of the cores in Bourdieu’s cultural consumption theory. The fashion reproduction theory is based on Bourdieu’s political science concerning symbolic power. The political science of symbolic power insists that we combine the power struggle with the social field structure and its operational mechanism when we think holistically. Bourdieu argues that modern society is highly differentiated, consisting of a large number of fields full of power struggles. Fields adjust, evolve, or reconstruct in response to the changes in the power balance between classes. Bourdieu’s fashion reproduction theory is based on the following two claims: 1, Fashion is the result of the common "collaboration" between the two independent fields: the production field and the consumption field; 2, Power relations exist throughout every aspect of fashion reproduction. Clearly, Bourdieu’s theory of fashion reproduction is consistent with his position over the past years. In his view, whether the production field or the consumption field, each is a battlefield where all participants will engage in fierce competition for legitimacy and distinction. The field of fashion production, with its relative autonomy, is not a place for power struggle to be explicitly expressed as interclass antagonism but to function in an implicit way. In this, the competition usually occurs between the dominating senior designers and the dominated cuttingedge designers. The two camps produce fashion through distinguishing traditional from modern, highpriced tags from lowpriced tags, conventional from avantgarde, etc. But it must be noted that the autonomy of the fashion production field is a relative term; it is inevitably influenced by the power field. Likewise, the power relations in the production field are rooted in the social hierarchy. Fashion producers participate in a roundabout way to legitimize and to engage in the struggle for reproduction. On the other hand, the consumption field refers to the class field or the dominant class field. Here, consumers take part in an endless struggle of classification (class struggle). Power relations directly reflect class relations. And only the dominant class has the right to participate in the reproduction of fashion and vogue. The middle and lower classes are not able to join in such a distinctive game; they are present at most only as a contrast. Fashion, as an expression of the legitimate taste of the ruling class, has been widely used as the implementation of symbolic violence over the lower classes. Bourdieu’s cultural consumption theory provides us with a unique perspective to comprehensively understand the consuming phenomenon and its characteristics in the era with the richpoor divide.
From the theoretical perspective of state corporatism, many of the state-sponsored social organizations in the People’s Republic of China obtain from the powerful government its approval; hence their corresponding authorized monopoly position, by adopting the survival tactics via initiative attachment. This may be a unique Chinese feature, indicating a gradual expansion of social organizations in the country. However, the progression is from integration to differentiation, a sign of the existence of the unique state-society relationship in China.
Causeeffect relationships are the core area in sociological analysis． However，
sociological analysis based on survey data is confronted by the endogeneity problem which plagues
causal inferences． Many existing studies aiming at providing explanations for social phenomena
either merely describes the statistical associations among variables or arrives at problematic
causal conclusions． Focusing on the social interaction studies， this paper addresses the major
sources of potential endogeneity biases， namely， the omitted variable bias， selfselection bias
， sampleselection bias and the simultaneity bias． Useful model identification strategies for
correcting these problems are reviewed． Based on CGSS2003， this paper also discusses how to
partially correct for the endogeneity problem through augmenting the volume of survey data．
Perception of distributive justice, or people’s perception of the distribution status of valued resources, is particularly important in a society under transition. Since the implementation of Reform and Opening Policy, China has followed her transitional strategy of “economic development being the center” and the basic principle of “giving priority to efficiency with due consideration to fairness” in the distribution system. However, this strategy for transition has led to unequal growth in China. How people perceive the distribution status in transitional society not only determines the legitimacy of the reform but also affects the design of basic economic and social systems in the country. Considering the multidimensional nature of distributive justice, this paper attempts to explore the public perception of outcome justice and opportunity justice. To be specific, the paper empirically examines the national survey data in 2009 regarding the Chinese people’s perception of outcome justice and opportunity justice, and further analyzes the relationship between the two. Next, the paper provides some explanations from the perspectives of social structure and relative deprivation. Most Chinese people have acknowledged the descriptions of both outcome justice (58.18%) and opportunity justice (59.07%) as expressed. However, it is worth noting that there is still a considerable proportion of the population who perceive the injustice in both types of justice in current China. Public perception of opportunity justice is better than that of outcome justice but their positive correlation is quite weak. Statistical results show some interesting findings. Firstly, perception of both types of justice is affected by social structure, but their causal mechanisms differ. Pertaining to the perception of outcome justice, it is positively correlated with income, the most significant factor in social structure. Those with higher education are relatively less likely to express perception of outcome justice. Regarding the perception of opportunity justice, it is independent of income but is strongly correlated with education level in the positive direction. Urban lower middle level employed groups, like non-skilled workers, service workers, and self-employed entrepreneurs, are more critical of both outcome justice and opportunity justice. Danwei differences are not related to the perception of outcome justice but to the perception of opportunity justice. Employees of foreign and private owned units are more likely to express opportunity justice than their counterparts in state and collective owned units. In short, perception of outcome justice is determined by income, but perception of opportunity justice is mainly affected by education. Secondly, the paper affirms the importance of relative deprivation explanation. According to the theory of relative deprivation, the effects of four different kinds of relative deprivation along the “individual-group” and “vertical-horizontal” dimensions on perception of outcome justice and opportunity justice are discussed. Generally, the stronger the relative deprivation people feel, the more injustice they perceive in outcome and opportunity distributions. It is the perceived individual relative deprivation, but not group relative deprivation, that has the decisive influence. Horizontal individual relative deprivation is the only significant variable that affects the perceived outcome justice; whereas opportunity justice is associated with both horizontal and vertical individual relative deprivation.
Online Submission
Manuscript Tracking
Editor Work
Office Work
Editor-in-Chief
