In Nanxiong, a county-level city in Guangdong Province, Chinese New Year homecoming reunions and holiday tourism boost the local economy. Photo: IC PHOTO

---

In recent years, the notion of employing specific analytical units “as a method” has surged in popularity within academic circles. Since the turn of the 21st century, social science research has increasingly embraced terms like “region as method,” “locality as method,” and “watershed area as method.” The scope of analytical units is no longer confined to geographical categories. The idea of “region as method” emphasizes using specific regions within a country as analytical units. A wealth of research has emerged around narratives focusing on ethnic mobility, cultural exchange, and regional development in areas such as South China, Southwest China, Northwest China, and Northeast China. 

New development 

Since 2020, both research objects and methodologies in social sciences have taken on new meanings under the “as a method” framework. Examples include Xiang Biao and Wu Qi’s “taking oneself as method,” Zhou Xiaohong’s “oral history as method,” and Huang Yingying’s “story sociology as method.” Following this “as a method” approach, this article aims to elucidate the critical nature of “county-level society” as an analytical unit and its sensitivity to empirical social structures. It will further explore the emergence of “county-level society as method” and its significance in academic discourse. 

Against the backdrop of socioeconomic and policy changes, there has been a noticeable shift in Chinese social science research from focusing on villages and towns to counties as the primary analytical unit. The county-level region is increasingly becoming a key focal point in domestic social science studies. Among scholars working in this field, the research of Wang Chunguang and Wu Chongqing has been particularly influential. 

In 2020, Wang Chunguang systematically expounded on the academic value and practical significance of county-level research. He introduced the concept of county modernization within the framework of Chinese modernization and sought to localize it. Wang emphasized the local academic relevance of using the county as an analytical unit, arguing that Western-originated disciplines such as sociology and anthropology rarely employ analytical units akin to the counties of China. Due to their unique characteristics, counties can serve not only as research subjects but also as methodological tools. 

Unlike many studies that focus solely on county-level administrative governance, Wang rejected a one-dimensional administrative perspective and systematically proposed the concept of “the county as a method” while offering methodological recommendations for county-level research. 

Building on nearly 30 years of continuous fieldwork in the counties of Taicang in Jiangsu Province and Jinjiang in Fujian Province, Wang further explored pathways and models of county modernization. He introduced a localized perspective into county social studies, arguing that the four dimensions of locality—rurality, nativism, urbanity, and modernity—can facilitate the realization of county-level modernization. 

When making his county-level observations, Wu Chongqing also rejected a simplistic administrative analysis of county governance. Unlike many scholars who use the county as an analytical unit while discarding the village level, Wu’s concept of “the county as a method” advocates studying rural development from a county-wide perspective while maintaining a dual focus on both counties and villages. However, his research ultimately centers on rural development and rural vitalization. 

Wu highlights that the urban-rural migration within Chinese counties today is driven by uneven distributions of education, healthcare, labor, and housing resources, creating a new landscape of urban-rural inequality. Addressing this issue requires an integrated county-level approach that leverages endogenous production factors, balances agricultural and non-agricultural employment, and fosters a more equitable industrial structure. 

Wu takes China’s agricultural counties as his primary analytical unit, with a particular focus on borderland areas where counties intersect—what he terms “narrow lands,” “interstitial lands,” and “borderlands.” His research integrates county-based methodologies, extending discussions on endogenous rural development into a more multidimensional and layered analytical framework. 

Basic consensus 

At present, nearly all studies focusing on county-level society converge on a fundamental consensus: counties are recognized as key analytical units for understanding China. This acknowledges that counties function as both administrative and social units, serving as the central or foundational structures in the country’s economy, politics, society, and culture. 

However, in their analyses and conclusions, most studies tend to emphasize the social and cultural implications of counties as administrative units, focusing on institutional structures, leadership functions, bureaucratic divisions, and governance effectiveness—thus underscoring the pivotal role of county-level governance. 

Nevertheless, regardless of the specific analytical approach, the concept of “the county as a method” has catalyzed a methodological shift, leading to greater academic self-awareness in methodological discussions. At the same time, a series of empirical studies using the county as a framework—such as research on returning migrant workers and the modernization of county-level social class structures—have begun to emerge. 

For example, in county-level studies or returning migrants, while the county as a whole is regarded as an entrepreneurial space for returning youth, the town remains their primary base for entrepreneurship and their preferred space for achieving urbanization goals. 

In the entrepreneurial practices of returning youth, lifestyle orientation shapes their practical decision-making, often resulting in dual urban-rural modes of living and working. This phenomenon is largely shaped by the existing urban-rural structure, which dictates the patterns of county-level youth migration. 

Notably, returning youth—particularly college graduates—leverage their cultural capital and higher occupational status to become key rural elites within county societies, leading to significant shifts in the county’s social class structure. 

Many studies based on county-level empirical data have further expanded the theoretical, historical, and methodological foundations of “the county as a method,” contributing to the development of an applied knowledge system. As a result, the methodological emphasis on county-level analysis, along with its practical significance, empirical sensitivity, and mid-range theoretical perspectives, has gained traction in Chinese academia. It can thus be said that research on “the county as a method” represents an important intellectual endeavor in building China’s independent knowledge system. 

Three assumptions 

The existing research underscores the significance of “the county as a method,” but it is important to distinguish that county governance studies are not equivalent to county society studies. A common trend across county-level research in various disciplines is the implicit acceptance of a governance-centered perspective, which places administrative logic at the forefront. This tendency reflects what can be described as the county governance doctrine, wherein the administrative functions of the county are given precedence in understanding its social structure. 

This inclination leads to the emergence of three main assumptions in county studies. First, there is the belief that county-level social structures have remained stable since the Qin and Han dynasties. Second, the county is a self-contained administrative unit, with governance mechanisms exerting absolute control over the social fabric within its boundaries. This creates an image of the county as an autonomous administrative unit that is not shaped by broader societal dynamics. Finally, there is the idea that county society contains both urban and rural traditions, where the dominant “great tradition” overshadows the “small tradition.” 

Under the weight of these three assumptions, many studies focus primarily on county governance, often neglecting the social phenomena and dynamics within counties. Without a critical reassessment of these assumptions, the theoretical critique and empirical sensitivity of “the county as a method” will remain limited. Consequently, it may struggle to maintain relevance within contemporary methodological discourse. Interestingly, American anthropologist G. William Skinner’s work has already critiqued these assumptions, offering inspiration for current county research. 

First, county society is not a historical continuation of a political structure. The county framework established under the feudal imperial system has not been the decisive factor in shaping modern county structures. Researchers should consider factors like natural geography, market systems, cultural inertia, and other elements that shape contemporary county society. Second, while governance is a key lens through which to examine county society, administrative frameworks and their economic implications are only one part of the picture. These elements exist within a broader socio-cultural system that shapes county life. Third, the view of county society as an urban-rural dichotomy needs to be abandoned. The relationship between urban and rural is an interrelated extension within the overall system. 

Therefore, within county-level societies, there exists a balance between urban and rural areas, as well as a balance between social culture and political economy. This overall characteristic of county-level society, rather than being defined by either urban or rural extremes, can be considered the endogenous quality of county-level society. This judgment is one that current county-level research should prioritize. The distribution of transportation and industrial systems within contemporary Chinese county-level societies has increasingly broken geographic boundaries, and the balance between urban and rural areas has gradually been disrupted by the concentration of human migration, logistics, financial resources, and public services toward county cities. While Skinner’s theories offer valuable critiques, they fall short of explaining these newly emerging dynamics in Chinese county-level societies. His framework’s explanatory power is increasingly limited in the face of contemporary realities. Therefore, we need to revisit and refine “the county as a method” in light of the new experiential world we are facing today. 

Huang Zhihui and Li Leilei are from the School of Ethnology and Sociology at Minzu University of China. 

Edited by WANG YOURAN