Abstract: As the doctrines of the two largest and most influential professional sociological groups in the world, the social morphology of the Durkheim School and the human ecology of the Chicago School are connected in intellectual genealogy. Habwach's visit to Chicago and the subsequent interaction of the two theoretical schools across the continents bore witness to the basic development pattern of sociology in Europe and America at the time. The social morphology of Mauss, Halbwachs, and Granet exerted a significant influence on sociological and anthropological research in Europe, including a series of important works produced in conjunction with human ecology by French urban sociology. In comparison, such influences were much lesser on American sociology as it was dominated by the tradition of human ecology. The development of modern Chinese sociology followed a similar pattern. The ideas and researches of Wu Wenzao, Yang Kun and others, each with different academic traditions, influenced the path choice of the Chinese adaptation of sociology in the 1930s-40s, and ultimately helped shape the research style of the "Chinese School of Sociology". This is most evident in a series of achievements in community studies. However, due to its potential shortcomings, community research attracted critical scrutinies from Leach, Friedman and others. In his later years, influenced to some extent by the Durkheim School, Fei Xiaotong reflected on the criticism and brought changes in Chinese contemporary community research. A number of excellent works emerged, focusing on totality and cross community boundaries, emphasizing historical dimensions and event processes, and centering on local issues. In a sense, this can be regarded as a confluence of social morphology and human ecology in a Chinese context occurred a century later.

Key words: social morphology, human ecology, localization of Chinese sociology, community studies