Edwina
I subscribe to the contemporary definitions of terms used by cultural anthropologists. Clan: a group that claims unilineal descent from the same ancestor, though the actual genealogical path to that ancestor need not be specified/specifiable. The ancestor often is thought of as a mythical being called a totem. Tribe: nonstratified, cultural distinctive kin-based society note: yes, kin-relations include biological descent and perceived descent. Though this degree of subjectivity is not flexible enough to accommodate your doctor on the basis of giving him a gift. A combination of clans is a phratry. In the case that a tribe is composed of two clans each clan is termed a moiety. Segments of clans are termed lineages. Clans are not forms or units of political organization. They exist in a variety of forms of political organization, such as bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states. Tribes are a form of political organization often based upon clan lineage though they may be based upon cognatic descent groups as well. There is no doubt that contemporary China is a state. The fact that there are networks of reciprocity does not entail the society is tribal, as the form of political organization is not based on a kinship or marriage. Giving gifts cements social interaction. period. the interaction need not be ‘familial.’ Again, a Hongbao is not a dowry. Over 680 million people live in China’s cities, which is over half of the entire Chinese population and over double the population of the United States. So I do not know what your claim that ‘China is still strongly in the grip of its old agricultural mode of life’ is supposed to mean. I suppose I agree insofar as what you mean is that China has a cultural history with some continuities. Frankly, I do not see guanxi networks as a carry-over from agrarian life as much as I see it as an adaptation on part of local agnatic cadres to “civic” life under maoist dictatorship/managerial corporatism. If you wish to judge local cadres for attempting to reduce the severity of life under maoist communism by forming relationships with state bureaucrats there is likely nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. The reduction of guanxi to bribery is very common western reaction. While there indeed is overlap between guanxi gifts and bribery, guanxi can operate within bureaucratic norms. In any case ‘bribery’ —as well as unilinear conceptions of cultural evolution— are highly morally inflected categories to impose on a culture. I do not see any scientific or analytical benefit to imposing moralizing categorizes on any subject of research, especially on other cultures with different moral frameworks than your own. But all-in-all I agree that the article is fatally flawed in its attempt to link the teaching of American Pragmatism in Chinese universities to colloquially ‘pragmatic’ justifications for guanxi and hongbao. ---Ulysses On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Phyllis, > > Oh, I think I grokked the spirit with which you posted that, but it caught > me headed off to bed and I couldn't manage any response more articulate > than what I did. On third thought, I'll leave any public protest to those > who have the energy and/or haven't already tilted with the ever-indominable > windmills of mainscream press and popular understanding, whether it be > about pragmatism or anything else more complex than hockey scores. > > Regards, > > Jon > > Phyllis Chiasson wrote: > >> Jon & List, >> >> I didn't mean it was worth reading because it was a great treatise of >> pragmatism, Peirce's or >> otherwise, but because it wasn't and it was in the NY Times. I wonder if >> there is a message here >> for us-something like taking control of the way pragmatism is defined. I >> think a piece like this >> needs careful, objective analysis and refutation. I thought the comments >> about social Darwinism >> were especially important, considering how long it has held on as a >> justification for the sort of >> economic and social specialness we're encountering today. Gospel of greed >> might be a good place >> to start. Maybe we need to form a PAC for effectively communicating >> Peirce's concepts the >> masses. >> >> Regards, Phyllis >> >> Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yes, thankfully a few of them saved me from total despair. >>> >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:05 AM, Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Did you read the comments following the piece? >>>> >>>> Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> good grief, what tripe ... >>>>> >>>> > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > -- Ulysses
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
