Dignity in Red Envelopes: Disreputable Exchange and Cultural Reproduction of Inequality in Informal Medical Payment

IF 2.1 2区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
W. Guo, Bin Xu
{"title":"Dignity in Red Envelopes: Disreputable Exchange and Cultural Reproduction of Inequality in Informal Medical Payment","authors":"W. Guo, Bin Xu","doi":"10.1177/01902725211044815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Disreputable exchanges are morally disapproved and often legally prohibited exchanges that exacerbate and reproduce social inequality but remain ubiquitous. Although previous literature explains the phenomenon by material interests and structural relations, we propose a cultural approach based on three major conceptions of culture: culture in relations, culture in interactions, and culture in inequality. We illustrate this approach by a case study of China’s hongbao (the red envelope) exchange, a typical disreputable exchange through informal medical payment. Drawing on interviews with doctors and patients, we find that participants of the exchange mobilize items from their cultural repertoires, such as professional ethics, face, power, fairness, and affection, to redefine different situations of interactions and project positive self–images to render their problematic exchanges morally acceptable to each other. Moreover, as the participants’ responses to our vignettes show, they negatively evaluate the exchanges in general moral terms, such as equality and fairness, but culturally justify their own involvement. This discrepancy between saying and doing tends to legitimize the disreputable exchange amid enduring public outrage and institutional prohibition. These cultural processes contribute to the reproduction of unequal access to scarce health care resources. Findings of this research not only offer insights into understanding disreputable exchanges but also contribute to research on other cases of social problems in which deviant behaviors are morally and culturally justified.","PeriodicalId":48201,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychology Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychology Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725211044815","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Disreputable exchanges are morally disapproved and often legally prohibited exchanges that exacerbate and reproduce social inequality but remain ubiquitous. Although previous literature explains the phenomenon by material interests and structural relations, we propose a cultural approach based on three major conceptions of culture: culture in relations, culture in interactions, and culture in inequality. We illustrate this approach by a case study of China’s hongbao (the red envelope) exchange, a typical disreputable exchange through informal medical payment. Drawing on interviews with doctors and patients, we find that participants of the exchange mobilize items from their cultural repertoires, such as professional ethics, face, power, fairness, and affection, to redefine different situations of interactions and project positive self–images to render their problematic exchanges morally acceptable to each other. Moreover, as the participants’ responses to our vignettes show, they negatively evaluate the exchanges in general moral terms, such as equality and fairness, but culturally justify their own involvement. This discrepancy between saying and doing tends to legitimize the disreputable exchange amid enduring public outrage and institutional prohibition. These cultural processes contribute to the reproduction of unequal access to scarce health care resources. Findings of this research not only offer insights into understanding disreputable exchanges but also contribute to research on other cases of social problems in which deviant behaviors are morally and culturally justified.
红包中的尊严:不名誉的交换与非正规医疗支付不平等的文化再生产
声名狼藉的交易在道德上是不被认可的,通常在法律上是被禁止的,它们加剧和再现了社会不平等,但仍然无处不在。虽然以前的文献通过物质利益和结构关系来解释这一现象,但我们提出了一种基于三个主要文化概念的文化方法:关系中的文化、互动中的文化和不平等中的文化。我们通过中国的红包交换案例来说明这种方法,这是一种典型的通过非正式医疗支付进行的不光彩的交换。通过对医生和患者的访谈,我们发现交流的参与者从他们的文化储备中调动诸如职业道德、面子、权力、公平和情感等项目来重新定义不同的互动情境,并投射积极的自我形象,使他们有问题的交流在道德上被彼此接受。此外,正如参与者对我们的小插曲的反应所显示的那样,他们在一般的道德方面(如平等和公平)对交流持负面评价,但在文化上为自己的参与辩护。这种说与做之间的差异,往往使这种不体面的交换在持久的公愤和制度禁止中合法化。这些文化进程助长了获得稀缺保健资源的机会不平等现象的再现。这项研究的结果不仅为理解不体面的交流提供了见解,而且有助于研究其他社会问题的案例,在这些案例中,越轨行为在道德和文化上是合理的。
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
Social Psychology Quarterly
Social Psychology Quarterly PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: SPPS is a unique short reports journal in social and personality psychology. Its aim is to publish cutting-edge, short reports of single studies, or very succinct reports of multiple studies, and will be geared toward a speedy review and publication process to allow groundbreaking research to be quickly available to the field. Preferences will be given to articles that •have theoretical and practical significance •represent an advance to social psychological or personality science •will be of broad interest both within and outside of social and personality psychology •are written to be intelligible to a wide range of readers including science writers for the popular press
×
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