Reciprocity in Chinese Traditions

Chapter 3 explores the possibility of locating principles underlying guanxi in classical Chinese traditions. First, the basis and nature of ‘reciprocity’ in Chinese culture is examined through analysis of the notions of bao and shu, and also renqing. It is shown that the concept of bao, drawn from different literary and institutional settings, is not source to a singular notion of reciprocity. It is also shown that the concept of shu relates to cognitive, affective, and imaginative practices, of role-taking, rather than to the more concrete enactments of exchange. The concept of renqing, widely regarded as both derived from the Confucian tradition and centrally important for guanxi, is shown to relate to everyday practices about which Confucius was uninterested, and which do not require traditional sanction. In positive terms, the chapter clears the ground in order to establish a distinctive account of the secular and self-generating practices of guanxi.

Guanxi, Three Forms or One

A consensus holds that guanxi has three forms—family, friendship and acquaintance guanxi—distinguished by the strength of obligation. It is also assumed that through fictive kinship, friendship and family guanxi may merge. The chapter shows that kinship obligations and guanxi obligations are fundamentally dissimilar, thus the notion of family guanxi is redundant, and that pseudo-family ties do not provide access to kin relations but affirm the distinction between family and friendship ties. Because guanxi is cultivated by its participants, friendship guanxi and acquaintance guanxi are not distinct forms but rather different stages of guanxi formation. In considering the sources of these confusions the chapter goes on to discuss problems arising from employment of common-language terms in sociological analysis, untested assumptions concerning Chinese culture, and methodological commitments which privilege latent structures of strong ties. It is shown that the strength of guanxi ties, strategically pursued by participants, fluctuate through agentic practices.

Conclusion

In concluding the analysis of guanxi, the image is invoked of Chinese reticulated carved balls, in which one hollow sphere sits inside another, with as many as a dozen—each smaller than the other—interlocked in a descending nested order. The suggestion is that this is a metaphor for guanxi in today’s China, in which guanxi determines relations between businesses, and between entrepreneurs and officials; additionally, popular mobilizations against official corruption draw on the guanxi between protestors, and state repression of protest draws on the guanxi between state workers and protestors, and so on, in continuing descending interlockings of guanxi. It is shown that guanxi is sufficiently versatile to access quite different resources, and sufficiently flexible to enter new areas of relations and engagement. Reliance on guanxi is not confined to the elderly, but used by young people in China, and the educated. The future of guanxi seems assured.

Making Guanxi

This chapter explores how guanxi is made by the people who participate in it. First there is recognition of a common identity, a guanxi base; then, if the relation is to endure, commitment between the persons and especially to their connection is required. How this is achieved is examined in the chapter. Emotional involvement of the participants in their relationship is explored. Typically neglected aspects of the making of guanxi are then considered, including the nature of debt between a favour giver and recipient, and the persistence of debt, so that guanxi exchanges are not exhausted or concluded. Finally, acknowledging the costs as well as the benefits of guanxi, the chapter goes on to theorize the ‘efficiency’ of guanxi, which relates to the societal persistence of guanxi and its changing form. Finally, the association of guanxi and corruption is explored.

Introduction

The Introduction situates the theme of guanxi in the particular treatment developed in the book. Guanxi is described in terms of its features, the highly personalized connection between those who participate in a guanxi, and its application for acquisition of social and material goods. It is also noted that as a social relation guanxi generates expectations of the participants which have characteristic emotional and ethical dimensions. As well as mentioning the broader literature on guanxi the Introduction indicates the nature of a sociological apprehension of guanxi, provided in this book, through a brief overview of the critical nature of sociology, in which social relations are subject to systematic investigation, historical contextualization, and in which the cultural framework through which interpretive orientations and sensibilities are conveyed is acknowledged. The introduction goes on to lay out a comprehensive summary of the six chapters which follow.

Renqing as Guanxi and in Guanxi

This chapter considers guanxi-like practices in a number of historical and social contexts, from the 1880s to the 1980s, when the term guanxi is first used. By doing so, many aspects of instrumental particularism typically ignored become evident. In late imperial literati circles, and in rural China up to the present time, gift-giving occurs without expectation of reciprocation but in order to acquire ‘protection’, to be let alone. The use of money in renqing, thought by many theorists today as problematic for guanxi, was routine in these circumstances. Reciprocal gift exchange in rural China begins with Communist collectivization in the 1950s. It is shown that the vast increase in the numbers of officials from this time, and the relative empowerment of peasants, extended the incidence of guanxi-like practices. Concurrently, a number of distinctive terms were used to describe these practices, until guanxi gained widespread usage in the 1980s.

Traditional Rural Society

A constant source in academic discussion of guanxi is a book, universally regarded as a template for understanding guanxi, first published in 1947 by Fei Xiaotong. The relevance of Fei’s model is critically assessed in the chapter. It demonstrates that Fei’s account of Chinese social relationships draws upon an idealized Confucianism rather than empirically-grounded social analysis. The discussion shows that Fei ignores non-kin relations in rural society, and an account of their importance is provided. A problem with Fei’s account of social obligation is identified. A proposed solution distinguishes between obligations generated through role compliance and obligations arising from exchange relations. Finally, it is shown that guanxi requires a notion of instrumental self-interest, absent in Fei’s account, and that interested action in guanxi operates through enhancing social standing or face, about which Fei has nothing to say. In this way the chapter clears the ground for discussion in subsequent chapters.

Trust in Guanxi

Trust is widely considered a core element of guanxi. What are less frequently appreciated, though, are the culturally distinctive differences regarding the notion of trust in English-language and Chinese-language accounts, and the consequences of these differences for analysis of guanxi. In English, the default notion of trust is trustfulness, whereas in Chinese it is trustworthiness. This latter notion introduces an element of public assessment in the meaning of the term, with significant consequences for the Chinese notion of trust, which the chapter goes on to explore. The relevance of trust for networks, including guanxi networks, and the significance of influence and information in network ties and their relations with trust are considerations which run through the chapter. It is shown that, while social solidarity may arise through trust, this is an inadequate basis on which to explain guanxi solidarity.