A consensus holds that guanxi, understood as dyadic connections consolidated affectively and mobilized to achieve the purposes of members, exists in three forms (family guanxi, friendship guanxi, and acquaintance guanxi) distinguished by the strength of felt obligation between participants. It is also held that through practices of fictive kinship friendship guanxi may merge with family guanxi. This article challenges these propositions and the assumptions underlying them. Obligations of kinship and guanxi obligations are fundamentally dissimilar and the term “family guanxi” is (...) redundant. Pseudo-family ties do not provide access to kin relations and their resources but instead affirm the distinction between family- and friendship-ties. Finally, because guanxi is cultivated by its participants, friendship guanxi and acquaintance guanxi are not distinct forms but rather are different possible stages of guanxi formation. The article goes on to consider the sources of these confusions, namely, common-language terms employed in sociological analysis, certain assumptions concerning Chinese culture, and finally methodological commitments that privilege latent structures of strong ties. The strength of guanxi ties, on the other hand, volitionally cultivated and indifferent to structural determination, fluctuates through agentic practices. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis article discusses dialectics as a method of critique which takes concepts it primal object of inquiry. Through a reading of Theodor W. Adorno’s lecture course Introduction to Dialectics, it argues that for dialectical critique concepts are living organs of social reality whose work must observed in terms of constellations of experiences and practices, and through specific historical sites and social processes. The article reconstructs three moments in Adorno’s thinking of critique’s relation to conceptuality: the “pedagogical effect” of concepts on (...) our habits of thought, the socio-historical formation of concepts as “fields of force”, and the need of a “micrological method” of engagement with social reality. Within this framework, the article shows that the movement of dialectical critique is prompted by the cognitive utopia of using concepts to reach material reality, as well as by the ethical demand of making justice to what is not grasped by the existing conceptual order of society. By combining both moments, the goal of dialectical critique is not to identify the correct meaning of concepts, but to work through them as to unlock the normative imagination of society. (shrink)