Are Asian Sociologies Possible? Universalism versus Particularism

Transcription

1 192 Are Asian Sociologies Possible? Universalism versus Particularism, Tohoku University, Japan The concept of social capital has been attracting social scientists as well as politicians, policy makers, and social practitioners for several decades. This is partly because social capital is expected to solve social problems not solved by individualistic approaches. For example, based on his thorough comparison of northern and southern Italy, Putnam (1993) argues that northern Italy is more vibrant in civic, political, and economic activities because it has more social capital than southern Italy. This understanding of social capital is not confined to developed countries such as Italy. The World Bank, a major financial support for developing countries, uses the concept of social capital to increase the efficiency of their investments in these countries (Grootaert and van Bastelaer 2002). SOCIAL CAPITAL AND ASIAN SOCIETIES Japanese sociologists are not exempt from the invasion of the concept of social capital. Important books in the field, such as Lin (2001a) and Burt (1992), have been translated into Japanese, and many Japanese sociologists publish books on this concept. This situation, however, raises an interesting question. Japanese society is rich with social relations. Stable human relations provide communities and their inhabitants with security and assurance; dense social networks of workers in companies strengthen Japan Inc.; and long-term relationships between large companies and their subcontractors establish production networks sensitive to rapid changes in the market. As I describe in detail in the next section, Japanese sociologists explain these relations using the concepts aidagara and en. Here we get a puzzle: even while living in a society rich in aidagara and en, Japanese sociologists do not make aidagara and en universal sociological concepts to describe and explain social relations. This puzzle applies to sociologists in other Asian societies as well. China, for example, is also a society where social relations are prevalent and necessary for survival. The Chinese use their social networks for various purposes such as getting a job, getting promoted, and doing business. A

2 Are Asian Sociologies Possible? 193 business person who wants to do business in China, for example, has to first find the right person a person who can connect him or her to other important figures. These relations are conceptualized as guanxi in Chinese, as explained in the third section. Chinese sociologists, however, do not elaborate guanxi as a universal sociological concept. Why not? The main question in this paper, which is based on these observations, is why is social capital, not aidagara, en, or guanxi, the universal sociological concept that describes social relations? This question is broken down into the following two sub-questions about the supply and demand side of sociological concepts. On the supply side, why have Asian sociologists not elaborated their local concepts as universal sociological concepts? On the demand side, why do Western sociologists not accept these Asian-born concepts? As described in the next two sections, Hamaguchi (1985) and Lin (2001b) define aidagara and en, and guanxi, respectively, as general concepts, yet Western sociologists have not paid much attention to their endeavors. Why not? I will try to answer these questions in this paper. This paper is organized as follows. In the second and third sections I explain the way Hamaguchi (1985) and Lin (2001b) expand their local concepts into more general sociological concepts. In the fourth section I point to the ambivalent status of Asian sociologists to answer the two questions stated above. In the fifth section I propose a strategy to combine particularism and universalism in sociology, using social capital as an example. I finish the paper with some concluding remarks. EN AND AIDAGARA IN JAPANESE SOCIETY En is a word most frequently used when Japanese people talk about social relations. En describes a momentum that makes two persons encounter. If a person happens to get acquainted with another person, for example, he or she would say, We got to know each other due to some en, so why don t we keep a good relationship? While many specialists in Japanese studies think that en and related concepts are unique to Japanese society, Esyun Hamaguchi (1985) uses en as a general theoretical framework of action. Hamaguchi argues that methodological individualism, which originated in Western sociology and emphasizes autonomous individuals, cannot properly explain action and social networking in Japanese society. Methodological individualists assume that individuals form social ties based on the principle of mutual benefits. Once an individual thinks that keeping a social tie is not beneficial, he or she cuts it. In other words, autonomy and independence

3 194 are more important for individuals than social relations. Japanese people, in contrast, do not distinguish between their existence and their social ties. They believe their existence is inextricably embedded in the social context around them. Hamaguchi argues that this relationship between a person and the social context is found in other Asian societies as well. Hamaguchi proposes methodological contextualism in contrast to methodological individualism. For methodological contextualists contextuals, rather than individuals, are the building blocks of the social world. Unlike individuals, contextuals, which represent actors in methodological contextualism, do not give priority to autonomy and independence but are dependent on other contextuals. In other words, social ties are not just a tool used to benefit contextuals but are an integral part of the contextual's ego. To express this Japanese form of social relations Hamaguchi proposes the concept of aidagara. Aidagara, which means social relations in Japanese, has a deeper meaning in methodological contextualism than social relations have in methodological individualism. En, as pointed out above, is the momentum that materializes aidagara between contextuals. Thus, as mentioned in the beginning of this section, the Japanese often say, Our encounter must be caused by some en, so why don t we keep our relation forever? Hamaguchi intends to build an alternative theory of action that assumes contextuals as actors. His intention comes from his desire to explain the Japanese way of action and networking using indigenous concepts and theories, forging these concepts into a general theory of action that contrasts the Western theory of action. A few questions emerge from this analysis, both related to the demand side sub-question raised in the first section. Why is Hamaguchi's theory not accepted in Western sociology? Why is social capital, rather than aidagara and en, popular among sociologists worldwide, even though the terms are similar? Before returning to these questions in Section 4 I will explore social networking in China. GUANXI IN CHINESE SOCIETY Guanxi is a Chinese word that expresses social relations. However, like aidagara and en in Japanese, guanxi has a deeper meaning in Chinese than social relations have for methodological individualists. Contrary to the conventional view that guanxi is a type of social relationship peculiar to Chinese society during and following the Cultural Revolution, Lin (2001b) argues that it is found in other societies and at other time periods.

4 Are Asian Sociologies Possible? 195 Lin defines guanxi as follows: In short, guanxi are enduring, sentimentally based instrumental relations that invoke private transactions of favors and public recognition of asymmetric exchanges. Guanxi takes on significance in a society where social standing (e.g., social relations themselves and social recognition of one s placement in the web of social networks) is deemed valuable for actions. (159, emphasis in original) Thus, guanxi is not the simple social relation assumed in methodological individualism. It is, at its base, an instrumental relation, but it is also enduring, it is based on sentiments, and is asymmetric, meaning guanxi is not a directly reciprocal relationship. For example, person A may ask a favor of person B. If B succeeds in doing A the favor, A does not need to return the favor to B directly as might happen in a symmetrical relationship. Rather, A would announce that B successfully did something good for A, which enhances B s reputation. In addition, A enhances his or her own reputation by showing that he or she has guanxi with B. Because [guanxi] has been so pervasive and dominant in the entire society [China] throughout much of its historical, political, and economic contexts (Lin 2001b: 159), guanxi is thought to be peculiar to Chinese society. Using the definition of guanxi stated above, Lin argues that it actually exists in societies other than China and in time periods other than the Cultural Revolution. If guanxi is a universal social phenomenon that can be found in societies other than China, we face questions similar to those related to aidagara and en. Why have Chinese sociologists not proposed the concept of guanxi as a universal sociological concept for the study of social relations? Why has guanxi not achieved the same status as social capital? I explore possible answers to these questions in the next section. UNIVERSALISM VERSUS PARTICULARISM I will use my exploration of the works of Hamaguchi and Lin to answer the following two questions, questions based on the research questions posed in the first section. First, why have sociologists in Japan and China, except a few scholars such as Hamaguchi (1985) and Lin (2001b), not invented general sociological concepts based on the concepts of aidagara, en, and guanxi to explain social relations? Second, why have Western scholars not accepted aidagara, en, and guanxi as general concepts for social relations, even though Hamaguchi and Lin attempt to persuade

5 196 readers that the concepts are not peculiar to Japan and China? There are several possible answers to these questions. One possible answer is that the dominance of Western sociology prevents the diffusion of sociological concepts originating in Asian societies. This kind of rough criticism of Western sociology might be able to answer the second question but cannot answer the first question. I argue that these questions are two sides of the same coin both of them should be answered simultaneously. To do that, we need to consider the ambivalent status of Asian sociology and sociologists. Asian sociologists often face discrepancies between Western-born sociological concepts and theories and social reality in their societies. Some Asian sociologists are able to explain local social phenomena using Western-born concepts and theories. However, if these concepts and theories are not adequate, Asian sociologists have three alternatives. First, they can modify the Western concepts and theories to explain the target phenomena. Second, they can add new assumptions, particular to their local societies, to these Western concepts and theories without modifying them. Third, they can create new concepts and theories that can explain the local social phenomena. The first and second alternatives require less time and energy from Asian sociologists, making them easier to adopt than the third alternative. Additionally, because the original concepts and theories are only slightly modified, research based on the first and second alternatives is acceptable to Western sociologists. In contrast, the third alternative is more costly than the first and second ones and research based on this alternative is not acceptable to Western sociologists, as I will explain later. Asian sociologists, who are under the same pressure to publish as their Western counterparts, will thus more likely choose the first or second alternative. Hamaguchi (1985) and Lin (2001b), however, choose the third alternative. To explain the Japanese type of social relations properly, Hamaguchi proposes an entirely different theory of social relations with new concepts such as aidagara, en, and contextuals. Similarly, Lin proposes a general theory of social action using the Chinese concept guanxi, arguing against its peculiarity. The third alternative, however, is the most difficult for Western sociologists to accept, as new concepts and theories proposed by Asian sociologists tend to have little commonality with Western-born concepts and theories. Hamaguchi, for example, emphasizes sharply the differences between individuals and contextuals, making it difficult for Western sociologists, who rely on the concept of individuals, to figure out the relationship between the two terms.

6 Are Asian Sociologies Possible? 197 I turn now to the second sub-question about the demand side raised in the first section. Why has the concept of social capital, a concept that emphasizes the importance of social relations, gained popularity among Western sociologists who, as Hamaguchi argues, base their sociological inquiries on individuals? I would argue that the concept has two advantages for its diffusion in sociology: it is a thin concept, and it is a type of capital, which is a familiar concept to sociologists. A thin concept is one that is not loaded with meanings related to local history and culture. Hamaguchi (1985) argues that [t]he structure of aidagara cannot be analyzed in the same way that social relations can be explained, that is in terms of exchange processes (interactions) between individuals (311). Lin (2001b) also maintains that guanxi carries a much deeper meaning and significance than the simple English translations of relations or connections would indicate (153). These quotes imply that aidagara and guanxi carry more meanings than social capital. Although Hamaguchi and Lin logically clarify the meanings entailed in these concepts, the multiple meanings might prevent Western sociologists from understanding the concepts. Social capital, on the other hand, is a thin concept because it is related to social relations and/or social structures, other thin concepts. Coleman (1988), a founder of the concept of social capital, defines it as follows: Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors whether persons or corporate actors within the structure. (S98) There is no more or deeper in this definition. The definition of the concept by Lin (2001a) is also thin: social capital may be defined operationally as the resource embedded in social networks accessed and used by actors for actions (24-25, emphasis in original). I would argue that thin concepts spread faster among sociologists than thick concepts, which are loaded with local meanings. This is because when individuals are exposed to a concept and try to understand it, a thin concept has lighter cognitive burdens on its receivers than a thick concept. There is a second advantage to the concept of social capital. Social capital is a type of capital, a concept familiar to sociologists. Lin s abovementioned definition clearly shows that social capital is a resource used by actors for actions. Coleman continues, after the above-mentioned definition, saying that, [l]ike other forms of capital, social capital is

7 198 productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible (S98). Compare these quotes to Hamaguchi s explanation of aidagara and en and Lin s characterization of guanxi. As Hamaguchi (1985) puts it, [i]n aidagara relations, preference is given not to reciprocal rewards between two parties but to mutual favors among persons who are connected. Also, effort is extended to maintain and develop the human nexus itself, thus transcending individual interests (311). Thus aidagara can be social capital in some cases, but the purpose of establishing aidagara is not necessarily obtaining resources embedded in it. Lin (2001b) also describes that [g]uanxi is a process that requires building up, nourishment, and reinforcement. Favor-giving and favor-receiving are not reciprocal acts, but expressions of commitment to the social relationship are paramount (161). Although Coleman (1988) emphasizes that social capital is a by-product of social relations, social capital implies actors trying to exploit their relations for benefits (e.g., Burt 1992). In addition, theories of social capital implicitly assume that actors involved are independent agents with the freedom to manipulate social relations. These implications have made social capital more acceptable to social scientists than aidagara, en, and guanxi. FROM PARTICULARISM TO UNIVERSALISM AND BACK TO PARTICULARISM As pointed out above, Asian sociologists have often faced difficulties when they study local social phenomena with Western-born sociological concepts and theories. I focused on social capital as an example to show these difficulties and to explain why Asian sociologists did not coin this concept. As pointed out in the previous section, aidagara, en, and guanxi have deeper meanings than social capital. Thus Asian sociologists such as Hamaguchi (1985) and Lin (2001b) tend to emphasize a sharp contrast between the local concepts and Western-born concepts. Although their intention is to build a general theory that goes beyond Asian societies, they have not yet succeeded. Hamaguchi, for example, argues that his methodological contextualism can be applied to societies other than Japan. However, he has not coined a technical term that could cover both methodological contextualism and methodological individualism. Thus, in my opinion, against his intention to establish a general theory, Hamaguchi ends up emphasizing the peculiarity and particularity of methodological contextualism and, as a result, aidagara and en. How can we solve this problem? Suppose that the concept of social

8 Are Asian Sociologies Possible? 199 capital did not exist in sociology and that a Japanese sociologist wants to create a sociological concept that properly captures the characteristics of the Japanese type of social relations. What should he or she do? There are two possible solutions. The first solution, a practical solution, is to start with a local concept such as aidagara, to elaborate it as a sociological concept, and to show that the Western type of social relations is a variation of aidagara by dropping some local meanings from it. In other words, make aidagara a thin concept. This is a particularism-to-universalism strategy. However, this strategy incurs the risk of losing the rich local meanings embedded in aidagara. In addition, as explained in the previous section, starting with a thick concept such as aidagara will likely prevent its diffusion in sociology because of its cognitive complexity. Thus this strategy seems infeasible. The second strategy is a particularism-to-universalism-to-particularism strategy. Using this strategy, the Japanese sociologist would invent a broad concept that covers both the Japanese and the Western types of social relations, as well as the Chinese type. The Japanese sociologist could then derive local concepts such as aidagara and guanxi from this more general concept. Generally, this is an authentic scientific strategy and is, therefore, preferable. If Hamaguchi had created a more general theory of social relations and used this general theory to derive the concepts of individuals and contextuals from different configurations of variables and parameters, his theory would have been more acceptable. CONCLUSION In this paper I showed the difficulties Asian sociologists face when they use Western-born sociological concepts and theories to study local phenomena in their societies. I then explored reasons local concepts such as aidagara, en, and guanxi have not received the same status as social capital in sociology, even though they are used by Asian sociologists to explain social relations. After this exploration I suggested that the particularism-to-universalism-to-particularism strategy is the preferable way to get Asian-born concepts and theories accepted by a general audience in sociology. Saying and doing are two different things, however. As we saw in the case of Hamaguchi, Japanese sociologists tend to think that the uniqueness of Japanese society requires non-western born concepts and theories to study it. Hamaguchi claims that aidagra and en are general concepts that can be applied to societies other than Japan, but what he creates is an alternative theory of action, not a general theory. Thus,

9 200 our next task is to find obstacles that hinder Asian sociologists from creating general theories in order to realize the particularism-touniversalism-to-particularism strategy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Burt, Ronald S. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Coleman, James S. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-S120. Grootaert, Christiaan and Thierry van Bastelaer, eds. Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multi-Disciplinary Tool for Practitioners. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Hamaguchi, Esyun. A Contextual Model of the Japanese: Toward a Methodological Innovation in Japan Studies. Journal of Japanese Studies 11, no. 2 (1985): Lin, Nan. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001a. Lin, Nan. Guanxi: A Conceptual Analysis. In The Chinese Triangle of Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong: Comparative Institutional Analysis, edited by Alvin Y. So, Nan Lin, and Dudley Poston, pp Westport: Greenwood Press, 2001b. Putnam, Robert D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.