Building an independent knowledge system of Chinese sociology Photo: TUCHONG

On the walls of the Minzu University of China’s history museum hang portraits of 20 renowned scholars—many of whom laid the foundations for sociology, anthropology, and ethnology in China. Among them are Wu Wenzao, Pan Guangdan, Fei Xiaotong, and Lin Yaohua. These figures not only pioneered entire disciplines but also helped establish enduring research traditions. Thirty years ago, I was a graduate student in law, yet deeply drawn to the fields of sociology and anthropology. At that time, sociology and anthropology already possessed a rich legacy of modern scholarly accumulation. Coupled with a major academic debate on the standardization and localization of social science research in China, these disciplines held a powerful intellectual allure for students eager to engage in serious inquiry. Their influence extended well beyond their own domains—shaping, for instance, social history within historiography and political sociology within political science. Both my master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation were grounded in legal sociology, and I grew intellectually through reading sociological and anthropological works. Although I later turned to issues of constitutionalism, politics, and even international affairs, the perspectives and methodologies of sociology and anthropology left an indelible mark on my subsequent research. 

More than three decades ago, the discussion on the standardization and localization of Chinese social sciences was already underway. Standardization began with technical conventions—such as citation formats and annotation practices—but quickly evolved into deeper discussions around academic traditions and theoretical paradigms. These in turn raised more fundamental questions about research methodology and the autonomy of scholarly inquiry. Naturally, such debates gave rise to the issue of academic localization: How to transcend theories and concepts rooted in Western historical experience and instead focus on solving practical, local problems in China—thereby fostering the development of homegrown theories. In truth, the early sociological and anthropological works of scholars like Wu Wenzao and Fei Xiaotong had already exemplified this trajectory. They improved on the Western anthropological research that focused on foreign ethnic groups based on colonial empires and redirected attention to primary-level Chinese communities. In doing so, they established a tradition of “community research” that encouraged interdisciplinary engagement—linking anthropology, ethnology, and sociology with history, linguistics, and archaeology. Ultimately, the standardization and localization of Chinese social sciences are about constructing a disciplinary, academic, and discursive system based on China’s position. Today, in the effort to build an independent knowledge system of Chinese sociology, anthropology, and ethnology, we should inherit and build upon the achievements of over a century of these localization efforts. On this foundation, we should continue to advance. I would like to offer three reflections on this issue. 

Modernization & AI: Redefining sociological frontiers

How can Chinese sociological research, grounded in the historical experience of Chinese modernization and the rise of the intelligent society, generate new social theories? How can it critically draw on Western theories to develop social theorists who belong both to China and to the world? We often say, “Only what is national can become global.” The term “national” emphasizes that pressing social issues are always embedded in particular historical contexts; “global,” meanwhile, highlights their potential universal significance. Western sociology arose in response to the West’s own historical circumstances—namely, the emergence of new social forms organized around urban commercial flows and industrial modes of production. These developments prompted questions about how such modern societies differed from traditional agrarian ones, and what implications this transformation held for human history. This became the core concern of modern Western social theory. Although classical theorists offered different answers, all grappled with the challenge of constructing new forms of social organization—distinct from the traditional—on the foundation of atomized individualism via abstract mechanisms of integration. This is where the concept of “society” itself took shape. This new social form, once it emerged, immediately entered into a dialectic with the traditional order—a process marked by “disembedding” and “re-embedding,” which became a key issue of modernization theory. In this sense, a sociologist who pays no attention to the abstract mechanisms of integration—such as law and capital—or who disregards the rational thought processes and social trust that underpin modernity, or the modernization process itself, cannot be considered a serious sociologist. However, classical Western sociological theory was fundamentally rooted in the industrial era. With the advent of the post-industrial age in the West, a proliferation of postmodern social theories emerged. But these theories tended more toward critique than construction of a social form. This is because the contours of a truly post-industrial society have yet to fully take shape. Today, with the exponential growth of internet data and the widespread application of artificial intelligence, a new type of society—an intelligent society—is coming into view. If China once fell behind due to missing the Industrial Revolution, then in this new phase, it is clearly emerging as a global forerunner in the development of the intelligent society. Chinese modernization is fundamentally driven by technology, and for China, the intelligent society plays a role analogous to that of the industrial society for the West. This reality demands that our sociologists remain alert to the dawn of this new societal form and begin to ask: What makes an intelligent society possible? How should its social order be conceived and constructed? 

Tradition & Nationhood: Reconstructing indigenous systems

How can Chinese sociological research uphold the “two integrations” (integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and fine traditional culture)—especially the “second integration”—by grounding itself in China’s historical and cultural traditions and drawing on the practical experience of building a community for the Chinese nation, to develop new sociological and ethnological theories? Following the rise of the West, a global dual structure emerged: one based on the Westphalian system of industrialized, civilized societies, and the other on colonial empires imposed on barbaric societies. Of course, this global order also included vast traditional empires in the East. In this sense, modernity was shaped by three types of political orders: the nation-state, the traditional empire, and the uncivilized society. Based on this tripartite civilizational hierarchy—civilized, semi-civilized, and barbaric—the West constructed a corresponding academic system. Western modern civilization was studied through a specialized division of disciplines, with sociology as the designated field for examining civilized societies. In contrast, uncivilized societies were approached through the holistic methods of anthropology and ethnology, while traditional Eastern empires were treated under the framework of Oriental studies. When these three disciplinary paradigms were introduced to China, they merged in practice, resulting in a hybrid academic approach that applied elements of Oriental studies, anthropology, and ethnology to the study of primary-level Chinese society. The seminal contribution of scholars such as Wu Wenzao and Fei Xiaotong lies precisely in this methodological transformation: They applied anthropological techniques originally developed for the study of North American indigenous groups and Pacific Island societies to the far more complex and advanced primary-level society of China. This marked the birth of Chinese sociology. It not only addressed a blind spot in Western anthropological research but also earned Chinese anthropology international academic recognition. The “community studies” that emerged from this approach were, at their core, studies of “community” rather than “society.” When community research became the dominant paradigm in Chinese sociology, it signaled a “counter-sociological” turn: using anthropological and ethnological tools to analyze the intricate realities of Chinese society. From the outset, then, Chinese sociology broke free of the binary distinctions embedded in Western theory. It extended the cultural lens typically reserved for the study of “community” to the broader investigation of “society,” uncovering the deeper cultural meanings embedded within the Chinese society. In doing so, it also suggests that a community for the Chinese nation transcends both the ethnic categories defined by Western anthropology and the national categories of political science. Whether the focus is on the urban-industrial “system of unit” or the emerging dynamics of an intelligent society, the concept of “society” advanced by Chinese sociology is destined to surpass the West’s notion of an “abstract society,” evolving instead into a historically grounded “cultural life.” 

Knowledge Power: Innovation beyond institutional barriers

Third, how can Chinese sociology apply its own research methods to investigate the process of knowledge production and explore ways to break through the institutional constraints that currently hinder it, thereby creating a social and cultural environment conducive to genuine theoretical innovation? When I was a graduate student, the social theories of thinkers like Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault were widely influential. Yet these theories often engaged in scholarship for scholarship’s sake, lacking a strong connection to real-world issues. Today, academic norms in the field of knowledge production increasingly emphasize speed and early output. While the volume of publications continues to grow, many works are refined in form but mediocre in substance. In this context, concepts such as “field,” “cultural capital,” “habitus,” and “knowledge-power” can serve as analytical tools to help us make sense of the challenges we now face. In a global landscape where competition is increasingly defined by talent and knowledge, education and research have become critical to national development. This shift should undoubtedly make the study of knowledge production a key domain of sociological inquiry—one that probes the complex relationships among knowledge and society, knowledge and power, theory and practice, and seeks viable paths forward. Addressing this issue, however, requires more than focusing solely on social structures. Sociological research should also examine the individuals who constitute society, especially the scholars who produce knowledge, and the personal qualities required to become a true scholar. Max Weber, for instance, emphasized the vocation and ethical commitment to academic life when responding to the disillusionment of German scholars caught in the constraints of their academic field. This sense of vocation mirrors the traditional Chinese intellectual ideal of “devotion to the Way (Dao)” and remains the moral foundation of scholarly self-cultivation. Power relations within society can shape individuals, but individuals also have the capacity to reshape those same power relations. As long as each of us remains committed to the integrity of scholarly inquiry, it is possible to foster a clean and upright academic climate—one that nurtures genuine intellectual innovation and cultivates a more constructive and open knowledge field. 

Qiang Shigong is the president of the Minzu University of China. 

Edited by ZHAO YUAN