Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:55:55.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Traditional Chinese Corporations: Beyond Kinship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

P. Steven Sangren
Get access

Abstract

Emphasis on descent and kinship in analysis of traditional Chinese corporations, a legacy of structural-functional theory, mistakes the analyst's theoretical categories for native culture. In this paper, the author attempts to sort out some of the resulting conceptual muddles, and he proposes a more rigorous analytical framework for discussing the range of organizational variation in traditional Chinese corporations. Analysis of ten representative cases from Ta-ch'i, Taiwan, reveals greater flexibility of corporate form and function than structural-functional theories would predict. Close attention to the cases also reveals the absence of any compelling reason to treat the “Chinese lineage” as analytically or culturally distinct from the entire range of Chinese formal associations (hui). To understand what is uniquely Chinese in Chinese corporations, past emphasis on differences in formal group-membership requirements must be complemented by attention to the cultural values and norms of operation that transcend such differences.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 391 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Jimyōkai daichō [Register of deity cults] (JKD). ca. 1935. Unpublished records of Ta-ch'i township government.Google Scholar
Ahern, Emily M. 1973. The Cult of the Dead in a Chinese Village. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ahern, Emily M. 1976. “Segmentation in Chinese Lineages: A View Through Written Genealogies.” American Ethnologist 3: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Eugene N. Jr, 1970. “Lineage Atrophy in Chinese Society.” American Anthropologist 72: 363–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Hugh D. R. 1977. “Extended Kinship in the Traditional City.” In William Skinner, G., ed., The City in Late Imperial China, 499–520. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Hugh D. R. 1979. Chinese Family and Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, John A. 1962. ‘African Models in the New Guinea Highlands.” Man 62: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of the Mind. New York: Ballentine.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1979. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: E. P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Trans. Nice, Richard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Myron L. 1969. ‘Agnatic Kinship in South Taiwan.” Ethnology 8: 167–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Myron L. 1970. “Developmental Process in Chinese Domestic Groups.” In Freedman, Maurice, ed., Family and Kinship in Chinese Society, 21–36. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Myron L. 1976. House United, House Divided: The Chinese Family in Taiwan. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Crissman, Lawrence W. 1967. “The Segmentary Structure of Urban Overseas Chinese Communities.” Man 2: 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dardess, John W. 1983. Confucianism and Autocracy: Professional Elites in the Founding of the Ming Dynasty. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davenport, William. 1959. “Nonunilinear Descent and Descent Groups.” American Anthropologist 61: 557–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGlopper, Donald R. 1971. “Temple, Faction and Loan Club: Voluntary Associations in a Taiwanese Town.” Paper prepared for the 23rd Annual Meeting, Association for Asian Studies, Washington, D.C., March 1971.Google Scholar
DeGlopper, Donald R. 1977. “Social Structure in a Nineteenth-Century Taiwanese Port City.” In William Skinner, G., ed., The City in Late Imperial China, 633–50. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1929. “The Study of Kinship in Primitive Societies.” Man 29: 190–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1932. “The Nature of Kinship Extensions.” Man 32: 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1950. “Kinship and the Local Community among the Nuer.” In Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., ed., African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, 360–91. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1951. Kinship and Marriage Among the Nuer. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1945. The Dynamics of Clanship Among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1949. The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1950. “Kinship and Marriage Among the Ashanti.” In Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., ed., African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, 252–84. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1953. “The Structure of Unilineal Kin Groups.” American Anthropologist 55: 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1958. “Introduction.” In Goody, Jack, ed., The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1959. “Descent, Filiation, and Affinity: A Rejoinder to Dr. Leach.” Man 59: 193–97, 206–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Maurice. 1958. Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, no. 18. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Freedman, Maurice. 1959. “The Handling of Money: A Note on the Background to the Economic Sophistication of the Overseas Chinese.” Man 59: 64–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Maurice. 1966. Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung. London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, no. 33. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Freedman, Maurice. 1970. “Ritual Aspects of Chinese Kinship and Marriage.” In Freedman, Maurice, ed., Family and Kinship in Chinese Society, 163–88. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Freedman, Maurice. 1974. “The Politics of an Old State: A View from the Chinese Lineage.” In Davis, John, ed., Choice and Change: Essays in Honour of Lucy Mair, 68–88. London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, no. 50. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
Fried, Morton H. 1966. “Some Political Aspects of Clanship in a Modern Chinese City.” In Swartz, Marc Jerome, Turner, Victor W., and Tuden, Arthur, eds., Political Anthropology, 285–300. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Fried, Morton H. 1970. “Clans and Lineages: How to Tell Them Apart and Why, with Special Reference to Chinese Society.” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica 29: 11–36.Google Scholar
Gallin, Bernard. 1966. Hsin Hsing, Taiwan: A Chinese Village in Change. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Golas, Peter J. 1977. “Early Ch'ing Guilds.” In William Skinner, G., ed., The City in Late Imperial China, 555–80. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1955. “A Problem in Malayo-Polynesian Social Organization.” American Anthropologist 57: 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, Kathleen. 1971. “Nuer Kinship: A Reexamination.” In Beidelman, T., ed., The Translation of Culture, 79–121. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Grootaers, Willem A. 1951. “Rural Temples around Hsiian-hua (South Chahar), Their Iconography and Their History.” Folklore Studies (Museum of Oriental Ethnology, The Catholic University of Peking) 10: 1–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Stevan C. 1981. “Social Organization in Hai-shan.” In Ahern, Emily M. and Gates, Hill, eds., The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society, 125–47. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Holy, Ladislav. 1976. “Kin Groups: Structural Analysis and the Study of Behavior.” In Siegel, Bernard, ed., Annual Review of Anthropology, 107–31. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. Bruce. 1979. “A Preliminary Model of Particularistic Ties in Chinese Political Alliances: Kan-ch'ing and Kuan-hsi in a Rural Taiwanese Township.” China Quarterly 78: 237–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keesing, Roger M. 1968. “Non-unilineal Descent and Contextual Definition of Status: The Kwaio Evidence.” American Anthropologist 70: 82–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keesing, Roger M. 1970. “Shrines, Ancestors, and Cognatic Descent: The Kwaio and Tallensi.” American Anthropologist 72: 755–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, Ronald G. 1976. “Chinese Frontier Settlement in Taiwan.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 66: 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, I. M. 1965. “Problems in the Comparative Study of Unilineal Descent.” In Banton, Michael, ed., The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, 87–112. Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth Monograph, no. 1. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Myers, Ramon H. 1972a. “Taiwan Under Ch'ing Rule, 1684–1895: The Traditional Economy.” Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 5: 373–409.Google Scholar
Myers, Ramon H. 1972b. “Taiwan under Ch'ing Rule, 1684–1895: The Traditional Society.” Journal of the Institute of Chinese Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong 5: 413–51.Google Scholar
Pasternak, Burton. 1968. “Review of Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung, by Maurice Freedman.” American Anthropologist 70: 597–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternak, Burton. 1969. “The Role of the Frontier in Chinese Lineage Development.” Journal of Asian Studies 28: 551–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasternak, Burton. 1972. Kinship and Community in Two Chinese Villages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jack M. 1968. Capitalism and the Chinese Peasant: Social and Economic Change in a Hong Kong Village. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jack M. 1970. “Land and Lineage in Traditional China.” In Freedman, Maurice, ed., Family and Kinship in Chinese Society, 121–38. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1924. “The Mother's Brother in South Africa.” South African Journal of Science 21: 1–24.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1930. “The Social Organization of Australian Tribes.” Oceania 1: 34–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1935. “On the Concept of Function in Social Science.” American Anthropologist 37: 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1940. “On Social Structure.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 70: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1950. “Introduction.” In Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., ed., African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, 1–85. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1953. “Dravidian Kinship Terminology.” Man 53: 112.Google Scholar
Rivers, W H. R. 1910. “The Genealogical Method of Anthropological Inquiry.” The Sociological Review 3: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangren, P Steven. 1980. “A Chinese Marketing Community: An Historical Ethnography of Ta-ch'i, Taiwan.” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Schefflet, H. W. 1963. “Choiseul Island Descent Groups.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 72: 177–87.Google Scholar
Schefflet, H. W. 1966. ‘Ancestor Worship in Anthropology: Or, Observations on Descent and Descent Groups.” Current Anthropology 7: 541–51.Google Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1965a. “Some Muddles in Models: Or, How the System Really Works.” In Banton, Michael, ed., The Relevance of Models of Social Anthropology, 25–85. Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth Monograph, no 1. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1965b. “Kinship and Biology.” In Coale, Ansley J. et al., eds., Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure, 83–101. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1969. “Kinship, Nationality, and Religion in American Culture: Toward a Definition of Kinship.” In Turner, Victor, ed., Forms of Symbolic Action, 116–25. New Orleans: Tulane University, American Ethnological Society.Google Scholar
Schneider, David M. 1972. “What Is Kinship All About?” In Reining, Priscilla, ed., Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centennial Year, 32–63. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Silin, Robert H. 1976. Leadership and Values: The Organization of Large-Scale Taiwanese Enterprises. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, East Asian Research Center.Google Scholar
Skinner, G. William. 1958. Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, G. William. 1964. “Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China, Part I.” Journal of Asian Studies 24: 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, G. William. 1977. “Introduction: Urban Social Structure in Ch'ing China.” In William Skinner, G., ed., The City in Late Imperial China, 521–53. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, G. William. 1979. “Introduction.” In The Study of Chinese Society: Essays by Maurice Freedman, xi–xxiv. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Strathern, Andrew. 1973. “Kinship, Descent and Locality: Some New Guinea Examples.” In Goody, Jack, ed., The Character of Kinship, 21–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sen-yen, Sun. 1969. “Shen-ming-hui.” In T'ai-wan Min-shih Hsi-kuan Tiao-ch'a Pao-kao [Report on investigation of customs of Taiwan's people], 605–92. Department of Justice [Ssu-fa Hsing-cheng Pu], Taipei, Republic of China.Google Scholar
Lung-sheng, Sung. 1981. “Property and Family Division.” In Ahem, Emily Martin and Gates, Hill, eds., The Anthropology of Taiwanese Society, 361–96. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheng-feng, Tuan. 1969. “Chi-ssu-kung-yeh.” In T'ai-wan Min-shih Hsi-kuan Tiao-ch'a Pao-kao [Report on investigation of customs of Taiwan's people], 693–820. Department of Justice [Ssu-fa Hsing-cheng Pu], Taipei, Republic of China.Google Scholar
Twitchett, Denis. 1959. “The Fan Clan's Charitable Estate, 1050–1760.” In Nivison, David S. and Wright, Arthur E., eds., Confucianism in Action, 97–133. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, James L. 1982. “Chinese Kinship Reconsidered: Anthropological Perspectives on Historical Research.” China Quarterly (Dec.): 589–622.Google Scholar
Watson, Rubie S. 1982. “The Creation of a Chinese Lineage: The Teng of Ha Tsuen, 1669–1751.” Modern Asian Studies 16: 69–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Arthur P. 1974. “Gods, Ghosts, and Ancestors.” In Wolf, Arthur R., ed., Religion and Ritual in Chinese Society, 131–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Arthur P., and Huang, Chieh-shan. 1980. Marriage and Adoption in China, 1845–1945. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Worsley, Peter M. 1956. “The Kinship System of the Tallensi: A Reeavaluation.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 86: 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanagisako, Sylvia Junko. 1979. “Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups.” In Siegel, Bernard, ed., Annual Review of Anthropology, 161–205. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar