Constructing concepts with Chinese characteristics, style, and ethos requires deeply engaging with China’s social fabric and cultural traditions. Photo: TUCHONG

---

Concepts are the cornerstone of theories, and successful concept construction is the prerequisite for the formation of a knowledge system. “Successful concept construction” mainly refers to the creation of concepts that gain recognition and acceptance within the academic community, thereby expanding existing knowledge systems or giving rise to new ones. Since modern times, China has extensively adopted Western concepts but has paid insufficient attention to developing indigenous concepts. Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong consistently maintained a critical stance toward this tendency, actively advocated for and practiced the sinicization of the social sciences, and proposed numerous influential and interrelated indigenous concepts. At a time when discussions on establishing an independent Chinese knowledge system are flourishing, revisiting Fei’s work can provide valuable insights into the logic and strategies underlying concept construction.

Boundary setting of concepts

In the social sciences, the construction of concepts involves the summarization, abstraction, and naming of empirical phenomena based on specific methodological principles. A concept’s connotative clarity and denotative precision largely depend on how scholars define its referents’ boundaries. It is well known that the era in which Fei lived was a time of profound social changes, when both traditional Chinese and newly imported Western concepts often failed to accurately explain China’s evolving society. Observing the “disconnection between naming and reality”—between concepts and facts—he recognized the need for Chinese social sciences to move beyond following, imitating or transplanting the West. Instead, he argued for the reconstruction of a conceptual system reflective of the reality in China, attuned to the needs of China, and manifesting Chinese characteristics based on Chinese social life. Given China’s vast geographical expanse, large population, and diverse ecological environments, significant regional variations exist in how social life is structured and experienced. Consequently, the construction of new concepts necessitates a careful and precise delineation of their applicability to different contexts.

To establish clear conceptual boundaries, Fei concentrated his empirical research on representative communities. He defined communities as spatial and temporal units of social organization, which could range from small villages to towns, cities, regions, and nations, extending even to the global scale. Acknowledging the variations within communities situated at the same spatial level, he employed a comparative methodology rooted in typological classification. This classification system was based on the principle of cultural homogeneity within communities and cultural differentiation between them. His comparative analyses operated along two major dimensions: China-West comparisons and intra-China regional comparisons. The China-West comparison aims at refining conceptual tools to understand China through revealing differences between two social forms and civilizational systems. This approach led to the formulation of key concepts such as “differential mode of association” versus “organizational mode of association,” “society governed by etiquette” versus “society governed by law,” “acquaintance society” versus “stranger society,” and “relay model” versus “feedback model.” Meanwhile, his intra-China regional comparisons focused on capturing the rich diversity of Chinese society, resulting in concepts such as the “South Jiangsu model,” [a government-led model featuring the dominance of the collective ownership, with the support of the market-oriented development] “Wenzhou model,” [a model relying on small commodities and a vast market, fostering non-agricultural growth through household industries and specialized markets] “Pearl River model,” [a government-led model featuring an export-oriented economy with a growing private sector and the interplay of domestic and international markets buttressing the growth] “Gengche model” [a model promoting multi-layered industrial collaborative development through adaption to local conditions, yielding both ecological and economical benefits through transformation].

Cultural awareness & conceptual naming

The process of naming is a critical step in concept construction. The choice of vocabulary not only determines how a concept is understood and disseminated but also influences whether it can be effectively integrated into or update an existing knowledge system. In the transitional period, when tradition and modernity were in conflict and China and the West were in competition, Fei found himself operating within a highly complex linguistic environment. This environment included elements of classical Chinese, vernacular Chinese, and contemporary colloquial speech. Vernacular Chinese, in particular, encompasses both everyday expressions and specialized academic terminology shaped by translations of foreign theoretical works. The selection of conceptual vocabulary is undoubtedly a projection of cultural psychology. In an era when Western-centric perspectives dominated scholarly discourse, Fei deliberately chose terminologies that were aligned with the everyday experiences, linguistic patterns, and cognitive frameworks of ordinary Chinese people. He believed that conceptual terms “should be expressed in ordinary language so that others can understand and reach a consensus.” However, this “ordinary language” was not a mere replication of common speech. Rather, it functioned as a bridge, linking familiar everyday expressions with more abstract academic discourse. This is evident in the way he constructed concepts such as “homeland + China,” “acquaintance + society,” “grassroots + industry,” “ethnic + corridors.”

 This “everyday language + academic language” approach to conceptual naming diverges significantly from dominant Western methodologies, which often emphasize precision, categorization, and formal logic based on logical positivism. In contrast, Fei’s method of constructing and naming concepts integrated imagery and abstraction through the innovative combination of different terms. Like the ancient Chinese, Fei rarely defined concepts outright but instead employed the strategy of “drawing analogies from nearby things,” explaining the connotation and denotation of concepts through metaphor. Through metaphor, abstract concepts are subtly linked to familiar objects or events, generating vivid and relatable images. For instance, “homeland China” is associated with soil, seeds, fallen leaves, and tree roots; from the image of the countryside, one can infer the abstract concept of China. “Differential mode of association” is linked to water ripples and spider webs; from the image of concentric circles, one can infer the abstract structure. “Grassroots industry” is associated with wildfires and grass; from the image of “wildfires never burn out,” one can envision the resilience and vitality of China’s economy. In summary, Fei’s choice of vocabulary reflects a high degree of cultural awareness, creatively linking traditional Chinese conceptual thinking with modern Western academic language.

Conceptual systems

No isolated concept can have a true academic impact or fulfill its intended role in practice. A successful conceptual framework must be a logically coherent and complete system, composed of both core and peripheral concepts. Within a relatively complete system, the theorist can offer a unique way of understanding the world and propose an ideal plan for transforming it. However, Western social sciences, which often adhere to a value-neutral stance, typically view the explanation of the world and its transformation as opposing poles. Knowledge production aimed at explaining the world seems incompatible with social action aimed at changing it. Though deeply influenced by Western scholarship, Fei continued the Chinese Confucian tradition of “the unity of knowledge and action,” striving to bridge the gap between theory and practice, as well as between knowledge and action, in his conceptual work. Therefore, never content with constructing a single concept, Fei continuously abstracted his empirical observations, ultimately forming a conceptual system with dual functions of explanation and transformation. In this system, the logical connections between concepts carry significant explanatory potential and clear intentions for innovation.

In popular perception, the concept of “agriculture and industry complementing each other” seems to merely describe an objective fact—that traditional rural economies in China have never been purely agricultural but rather a blend of agriculture and handicrafts. However, when linked to concepts like “homeland China,” “differential mode of association,” “a society without litigation,” “a society governed by etiquette,” and “craftsmanship spirit,” one can discern Fei’s deep pursuit of Chinese modernization. The concept of the “differential mode of association” is designed to uncover the relational logic and action orientation of the Chinese people. When connected with concepts like “township enterprises,” “grassroots industry,” “social succession,” “South Jiangsu model,” “Wenzhou model,” “Pearl River model,” and “Gengche model,” it becomes easier to understand the mechanisms driving Chinese modernization, which are rooted in the family and local communities. Similarly, the concept of “a pattern of diversity in unity” of the Chinese nation can only truly reveal Fei’s vision of civilization and his practical concerns when logically associated with concepts such as “border area development,” “ethnic corridors,” “ecological order,” “mental order,” and “cultural awareness.” It is evident that the interconnection and mutual reflection among these concepts fully embody Fei’s philosophy of “the unity of knowledge and action.”

As a son of Chinese civilization, Fei devoted his entire life to weaving together the empirical and intellectual worlds of the Chinese people into a conceptual framework with both explanatory power and practical relevance. This conceptual system has had profound academic and practical impact because it accurately captures the pulse of the times, addresses societal needs, and reflects the rhythms of civilization. Fei’s work demonstrates that constructing concepts with Chinese characteristics, style, and ethos requires deeply engaging with China’s social fabric and cultural traditions. Only through principles like seeking truth from facts, maintaining cultural consciousness, and adhering to the unity of knowledge and action can the construction of an independent Chinese knowledge system be achieved in the future.

Chen Zhanjiang is a professor from the College of International Education and Social Development at Zhejiang Normal University.

Edited by ZHAO YUAN