Sociology and Anthropology in the People’s Republic of China Martin Whyte & Burton Pasternak Sociology and anthropology were taught in China as early as 1914 and, by 1949, most major univer­ sities had established sociology departments. The scope of sociology was broad; it often embraced cultural anthropology, demography, and even social work, in addition to sociology. In a few places anthropology moved toward departmental status in its own right, but the American approach - which attempts to integrate cultural anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, and physical antropology - never really took root in China. This is because the main intellectual inspiration for sociology- anthropology in China came from British social anthropology and from the Chicago school of American sociology. Most priminent scholars did some graduate work abroad, and those who identified with anthropology mainly associated themselves with the British structure-functional tradition (social anthropology). As a result, the line between sociology and anthropology was never a sharp one in China. This is still the case in China today, although the reasons may not be quite the same, as we will see shortly. After 1949 sociology and anthropology fell on hard times. Any science of society of culture that deviated from, or challenged, Marxist-Leninist doctrine was considered a threat - the same atti­ tude prevailed in Stalin's Russia at the time, where sociology was termed a "bourgeois pseudo­ science". Chinese sociologists and anthropologists, considered tainted by Western modes of thought, were suspect. In 1952, during the educational re­ organization campaigns, therefore, sociology was officially proscribed as a discipline; university departments were closed and formal instruction in both sociology and anthropology came to an abrupt 289 end. A number of Chinese sociologists and anthro­ pologists shifted into neighboring disciplines like economics, law, or history. Some ended up even further afield, teaching English or working as librarians, for example. But most found shelter at the Central Academy of Nationalities (founded in Beijing in 1951), where the government sane - tioned continuance of a small component of anthro­ pology known as national minority studies. The verdict that sociology and anthropology were bourgeois artifacts, unnecessary or even obstructive in a society building socialism, was not lightly accepted by all. During the Hundred Flowers cam­ paign of 1956-57, some leading scholars - like Fei Xiaotong, Wu Jingchao, and Chen Da - dared, with some official encouragement, to openly make a case for the restoration of these disciplines on the grounds that they could provide methods and concepts of use in dealing with China's pressing social problems. But their attempt to revive sociology-anthropology in China was shortlived; during the Anti-Rightist campaign of 1957 those who had espoused this cause dropped from public view after being assailed and branded as rightists. China would have to wait more than two decades before conditions would once again be suitable for an attempt to revive these fields. It is a painful irony that the current effort to do so involves most of the same arguments and many of the spokes­ men prominent during the ill-fated attempt of 1957. Since the death of Mao Zedong and the fall of the Gang of Four in 19 76, China's leadership has come to accept the view that academic knowledge may indeed be useful and perhaps even necessary in identifying, analyzing, and dealing with China's problems, and this conviction has made it possible for sociology to begin a modest, tentative re- emergence. The first formal step in that direction took place in March 19 79, when the Chinese Socio­ logical Research Association was established under the presidency of Fei Xiaotong. This nationwide professional society (centered in Beijing) is intended to foster contacts among sociologists, anthropologists, and others with interests in these fields. We were told that some sixty individuals 290 attended the first meeting of this association and that the number of members has grown rapidly since. Two or three months before our visit to China a chapter of this association was formally estab­ lished in Shanghai. That chapter reportedly now has attracted over 140 members. The formation of this association is only the first step in a more ambitious disciplinary rebuilding effort. It is expected to provide both inspiration and direction for developments elsewhere and in other areas. It is hoped, for example, that the activities of the association will create an interest in the establishment of university depart­ ments, research institutes, specialized journals, and the other normal accoutrements of any recog­ nized academic and research discipline. A theme commonly heard in China now is that truth is to be derived from facts rather than from political dogma, and the old argument that Marxism- Leninism-Maoism makes a field like sociology- anthropology unnecessary has been abandoned. Still, sociology-anthropology is officially constrained to develop in a clearly indigenous form, one suited to current Chinese conditions and designed to solve officially designated problems. It is required that this new Chinese discipline serve the "Four Modern­ izations" and provide tools of clear practical use in solving pressing social problems. Chinese authorities openly admit that their society suffers from a number of serious social problems - over­ population, juvenile delinquency, unemployment, family and marital conflicts, and housing problems, in particular - and that Chinese Marxism does not provide a clear understanding of, or solution to, these problems. It is hoped (and expected) that the emerging sociology-anthropology will provide a set of methods for analyzing these problems systematically and scientifically, and will produce information and proposals that will aid in their resolution. While sociology-anthropology finds new life in terms of this mandate there are also strictures involded - it is still maintained that China must avoid simply importing the "bourgeois" versions of these disciplines from the West. But how an indigenous form of sociology-anthropology 291 will develop where none has been allowed to breathe for a generation is unclear. Many of the scholars we spoke to indicated that they would draw selec­ tively upon foreign concepts, methodologies, and experiences, and that they would look for these inputs not only to the West, but also to Japan, Eastern Europe, and even to the Soviet Union. But ultimately it must be their decision as to which problems will be studied and how. The effort to construct a new sociology-anthro- pology in China is being spearheaded by officers of the Chinese Sociological Research Association, many of whom are also affiliated with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. Particularly active in this regard are Fei Xiaotong, Chen Dao (Deputy Chief of the planning section of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences), and Wang Kang (Administrative Secretary of the Chinese Socio­ logical Research Association). Within the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences a new Institute of Sociology is being organized; it probably will be established formally in 1980, with Fei as its head. At present, however, this incipient Institute is preparing for its own inauguration on the basis of very meager resources. About ten staff members work out of a borrowed apartment without the benefit of a library, secretarial support, or other office facilities. We were told that it was still premature to formulate concrete research tasks and objectives for this Institute, since its most immediate mission will be organizational - to see to the creation of a new, Chinese version of sociology-anthropology throughout the country. While priority is clearly being given to problems of organization at the national level, neither the new Institute of Sociology nor the Chinese Sociological Research Association, with headquar­ ters in Beijing, can actually exert any direct control over developments in provincial social science academies or in China's universities (the former come under provincial government and party control, while the latter fall under the Ministry of Education). How these two fledgling organizations will fulfill their organizational objectives is therefore unclear. It is our impression that their 292 influence is informally exerted - by cultivating support within the national political leadership on the one hand, and by using personal relation­ ships to urge developments in the provinces. The staff of the soon to be established Institute of Sociology may be augmented as a result of a nationwide research worker selection examination scheduled for spring of 1980. This examination is intended to uncover a core of individuals who, by virtue of their prior training or practical experience, will be capable of quickly acquiring the skills essential for social science research. There is no way to anticipate when the Institute of Sociology might begin to train new graduate students, however, given the extreme scarcity of space and skills under which they must labor. Another Institute of Sociology has recently been established in Shanghai, under the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. This group is very new indeed - we were told that it had been established only two or three months before our arrival. The Sociol­ ogy Institute in Shanghai reportedly has about twenty staff members, its resources are meager, and its members have formulated no clear