The Past, Present, and Future of Commercial Associations in China: Reflections on Theory and the Pathways of Practice

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 AREA STUDIES
Shannon Zhao
{"title":"The Past, Present, and Future of Commercial Associations in China: Reflections on Theory and the Pathways of Practice","authors":"Shannon Zhao","doi":"10.1177/00977004231170269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1980s, three paradigms have dominated the historical study of commercial associations—class analysis, modernization, and “public sphere”/“civil society”—but all three are imbued with and insist upon a binary opposition between state and society. These paradigms produce an understanding of commercial associations as part of a Western-style “bourgeois public sphere,” itself part of “civil society,” standing in opposition to the state. These misinterpretations were only strengthened by the complete state-ification of commercial associations in China after 1949. Studies of the history of commercial associations, trapped in this theoretical pitfall, cannot produce convincing historical research, even with abundant empirical data, nor can they provide experiential models for the development of contemporary commercial associations. Instead, if we focus on practice, we discover that modern commercial associations were part of a “third sphere,” an in-between space within the paradoxical institutional framework of China’s highly centralized government and minimalist administrative system. The semiformal governance mechanism operative within the third sphere reflected the close relationship and mutual shaping at work between the state and local society rather than a binary opposition between them. Applying these insights on the history of commercial associations to the practices of contemporary “commercial consultative associations” allows us to see that the semiformal administrative traditions embedded in the “third sphere” continue to quietly operate, which has immense significance for the future development of commercial associations in China.","PeriodicalId":47030,"journal":{"name":"Modern China","volume":"49 1","pages":"408 - 447"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern China","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00977004231170269","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Since the 1980s, three paradigms have dominated the historical study of commercial associations—class analysis, modernization, and “public sphere”/“civil society”—but all three are imbued with and insist upon a binary opposition between state and society. These paradigms produce an understanding of commercial associations as part of a Western-style “bourgeois public sphere,” itself part of “civil society,” standing in opposition to the state. These misinterpretations were only strengthened by the complete state-ification of commercial associations in China after 1949. Studies of the history of commercial associations, trapped in this theoretical pitfall, cannot produce convincing historical research, even with abundant empirical data, nor can they provide experiential models for the development of contemporary commercial associations. Instead, if we focus on practice, we discover that modern commercial associations were part of a “third sphere,” an in-between space within the paradoxical institutional framework of China’s highly centralized government and minimalist administrative system. The semiformal governance mechanism operative within the third sphere reflected the close relationship and mutual shaping at work between the state and local society rather than a binary opposition between them. Applying these insights on the history of commercial associations to the practices of contemporary “commercial consultative associations” allows us to see that the semiformal administrative traditions embedded in the “third sphere” continue to quietly operate, which has immense significance for the future development of commercial associations in China.
中国商业协会的过去、现在与未来:理论思考与实践路径
自20世纪80年代以来,三种范式主导了商业协会的历史研究——阶级分析、现代化和“公共领域”/“公民社会”——但这三种范式都渗透并坚持国家与社会的二元对立。这些范式产生了一种对商业协会的理解,它是西方式“资产阶级公共领域”的一部分,本身就是“公民社会”的一部份,与国家对立。1949年以后,中国商业社团的完全国家化,进一步强化了这些误读。陷入这一理论陷阱的商会史研究,即使有丰富的实证数据,也无法产生令人信服的历史研究,也无法为当代商会的发展提供经验模型。相反,如果我们关注实践,我们会发现现代商业协会是“第三领域”的一部分,这是中国高度集权的政府和最低限度的行政制度的矛盾制度框架中的一个介于两者之间的空间。在第三领域运作的半正式治理机制反映了国家和地方社会之间的密切关系和相互作用,而不是它们之间的二元对立。将这些对商会历史的洞察运用到当代“商咨会”的实践中,我们可以看到嵌入“第三领域”的半正式行政传统仍在悄然运作,这对中国商业协会的未来发展具有巨大意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Modern China
Modern China AREA STUDIES-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Published for over thirty years, Modern China has been an indispensable source of scholarship in history and the social sciences on late-imperial, twentieth-century, and present-day China. Modern China presents scholarship based on new research or research that is devoted to new interpretations, new questions, and new answers to old questions. Spanning the full sweep of Chinese studies of six centuries, Modern China encourages scholarship that crosses over the old "premodern/modern" and "modern/contemporary" divides.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信