From American pragmatic social sciences to social sciences with Chinese characteristics: an ontological and epistemological reflection

ZHAO Dingxin1,2

(1.Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University)
(2.Department of Sociology, University of Chicago)

【Abstract】This article starts with an analysis of the rise and development of pragmatic social science paradigm in the United States and the world, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. Based on the analysis, the article argues that the key to develop a new social science paradigm is to construct new ontologies, not new research questions, concepts or methods. The article then goes on to propose, with illustrated examples from my own works, four criteria of building a quality social science paradigm. (1) The paradigm’s basic ontological statements are mutually independent ideal-types of self-evident nominal social categories. (2) All other relevant ontological statements are either direct inferences or the combinations of the basic ontological statements (completeness). (3) The new social science paradigm has a high capacity to incorporate other social sciences paradigms as its sub-paradigms (inclusiveness). (4) Each of the ontological statements in the paradigm is directly linked to important social mechanisms. This article ends with a discussion of the four widely existed pitfalls in the understandings of time and temporality in Western social sciences, and how the Daoist understanding of time and temporality can help us to develop a social sciences paradigm with distinctive Chinese characteristics.

【Keywords】 pragmatism; innovation of ontology; social science paradigm; Chinese characteristics; Daoist understanding of time and temporality;


Download this article


    [1]. ① In this context, mechanism refers to a set of causal relationships that can be observed or inferred such as the relationship between supply and demand and price that forms the price mechanism. [^Back]

    [2]. ② Sociology of pragmatism in the United States and British realism of sociology are quite different. Realism sociology not only pays attention to the social mechanism, but also pays attention to a particular social mechanism under the condition of different macroscopic structures of the importance of change. Realists focus on macro-micro linkages, while the pragmatist focus only on micro ones. It should be pointed out that, American scholars who pay attention to the combination of macro and micro are often functionalists or neo-functionalists, (such as Alexander et al., 1987). [^Back]

    [3]. ① This is similar to the “field” of Bourdieu and to the concept of “governmentality” of Foucault. [^Back]

    [4]. ① For example, religion refers to a kind of ideology which pursues the transcendental meaning of life. However, specific religious thoughts are various and have complicated relations with secular ideas. Historically, some religious groups did business, others controlled large armies and even controlled large areas of territory. Specific religion is never an ideology that only pursues transcendence, and specific religious organizations are never pure ideological organizations. [^Back]

    [5]. ② For example, working class refers to a group of workers who do not possess the means of production. However, there is a huge gap between the economic status and interests within such a group, and class identity is often only one of the multiple identities of a specific worker. Therefore, using this concept alone to understand, analyze and predict the political behavior of workers is bound to lead to great misunderstanding. [^Back]

    [6]. ① “Benign,” “neutral” and “malignant” form a size order, and therefore they are not nominal variables without size order. [^Back]

    [7]. ① Banach space, for example, in the analysis of function is a very important space. If the Euclidean space is subspace of linear space, a large number of mathematical spaces including linear space are all subspaces of Banach space. Banach (Stefan Banach, 1892–1945) a polish, was one of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century, the founder of modern functional analysis. [^Back]

    [8]. ① See Van Den Berg’s (Van Den Berg, 1998) similar criticism of Bourdieu, Giddens, Habermas and Alexander’s theory. Zheng Hangsheng’s theory of social operation can also be regarded as a social theory, because he did not build a bridge between ontology and social mechanism. [^Back]

    [9]. ② Interstitial development, that is, historical change is often the unexpected result of the development of social actors and social forces existing in the interstitium of the old power structure. [^Back]

    [10]. ① Western scholars generally think that this problem is easy to solve. Their logic is: if someone uses Theory (A) to explain his Question a, others can ask Question b, pointing out that my Theory (B) can explain both a and b. Thus, as the number of questions raised increases, the interpretation of the new theory will continue to increase. This way of thinking will encounter two problems. First, in most cases it is difficult to find multiple comparable questions in several natural cases (see Zhao, 2015: 25–26 for reasons and examples). Second, and more importantly, if the starting point of a certain question is wrong, we cannot go down this path and find a better theory by asking and answering more questions. [^Back]

    [11]. ① The core of Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is to use and retreat, to obtain trait inheritance. This principle is used to explain the great mistakes of biological evolution, but it is a good principle to understand the cultural and institutional development of human society. To survive, organisms must achieve self-stability in a changing environment, so almost all biological mechanisms are negative feedback mechanisms. However, what people pursue in the society is not only stability, but also power and various success, and the model of success will be copied and strengthened as “acquisition traits.” This means that the human culture and social development have positive feedback, that is, in line with the Lamarckism. [^Back]


    Bian, Y. Sociological Study (社会学研究), (5) (2017).

    Cheng, B. Jianghai Academic Journal (江海学刊), (5) (2015)

    Feng, S. Sociological Study (社会学研究), (4) (2012).

    Jian, Z. & Ma, R. Administration Construction and Ethnic Relations in Western Frontiers During the Republic of China (民国时期西部边疆的政权建立与族群关系). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press (China), (2003).

    Li, P. Sociological Study (社会学研究), (5) (2016).

    Li, Y. Sociological Study (社会学研究), (5) (2016).

    Qu, J. Chinese Journal of Sociology (社会), (2) (2016)

    Song, L. Sociological Study (社会学研究), (5) (2016).

    Sun, Y. Academia Bimestris (学海), (2) (2014).

    Wang, N. Sociological Study (社会学研究), (5) (2017).

    People’s Daily (人民日报), (2016-5-19).

    Beijing Daily (北京日报), (2015-11-23).

    Yang, H. & Zhao, D. Academia Bimestris (学海), (3) (2013).

    Ying, X. Chinese Journal of Sociology (社会), (4) (2016).

    Zhao, D. Social and Political Movements (社会与政治运动讲义). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press (China), (2006).

    Zhao, D. Academic Monthly (学术月刊), (7) (2014).

    Zhao, D. 社会学评论, (4) (2015).

    Zhao, D. Academia Bimestris (学海), (2) (2016a).

    Zhao, D. Academic Monthly (学术月刊), (8) (2016b).

    Zhao, D. Open Times (开放时代), (5) (2016c).

    Zhao, D. Academia Bimestris (学海), (3) (2017).

    Zheng, H. 社会学对象问题新探. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, (1987).

    Zheng, H. Social Sciences in China (中国社会科学), (2) (2011).

    Zheng, H. & Li, Q. et al. 社会运行导论——有中国特色的社会学基本理论的一种探索. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, (1993).

    Zheng, H. & Yang, M. Theory of Social Mutual-Construction: A New Exploration of Sociological Theory with Chinese Characteristics from Global Perspective—A Research on Relationship between Individual and Society of China Today (社会互构论:世界眼光下的中国特色社会学理论的新探索—当代中国“个人与社会关系研究”). Beijing: China Renmin University Press, (2010).

    Zhou, F. Chinese Journal of Sociology (社会), (1) (2015).

    Zhou, F. Jianghai Academic Journal (江海学刊), (1) (2016).

    Abbott, Andrew 2001, Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Abbott, Andrew 2005, “Linked Ecologies: States and Universities as Environments for Professions.” Sociological Theory 23 (3).

    Alexander, Jeffrey C., Bernhard Giesen, Richard Munch & Neil J. Smelser (eds.) 1987, The Micro-Macro Link. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Anderson, Perry 1974, Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: Verso.

    Archer, Margaret 2015, The Relational Subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Ball, Richard A. 1979, “The Dialectical Method: Its Application to Social Theory.” Social Forces 57 (3).

    Bhaskar, Roy 1975, A Realist Theory of Science. London, UK: Verso.

    Bhaskar, Roy 1986, Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London, UK: Verso.

    Bhaskar, Roy 1993, Dialectic:The Pulse of Freedom. London, UK: Verso.

    Bhaskar, Roy 2012, The Philosophy of Metarealism:Creativity, Love and Freedom. New York: Routledge.

    Blumer, Herbert 1946, “Elementary Collective Behavior.” In Alfred McClung Lee (ed.), New Outline of the Principles of Sociology. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

    Bull, Hedley 1977, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Bull, Hedley, Benedict Kingsbury & Adam Roberts (eds.) 1990, Hugo Grotius and International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Coleman, James. S. 1990, Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Elster, Jon 1989, Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Elster, Jon 1998, “A Plea for Mechanism.” In Peter Hedstrom & Richard Swedberg (eds.), Social Mechanisms:An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Finke, Roger & Rodney Stark 2005, The Churching of America, 1776–2005:Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Garfinkel, Harold 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Glock, Charles 1964, “The Role of Deprivation in the Origin and Evolution of Religious Groups.” In Robert Lee & Martin Marty (eds.), Religion and Social Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Gorski, Philip S. 2013, “What is Critical Realism? And Why Should You Care?” Contemporary Sociology 42 (5) .

    Gouldner, Alvin W. 1975, “The Dark Side of the Dialectic: Toward a New Objectivity.” Sociological Inquiry 46 (1).

    Hedstrom, Peter & Richard Swedberg 1998, Social Mechanisms:An Analytical Approach to Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Kelley, Dean M. 1972, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing:A Study in Sociology of Religion. New York: Harper & Row.

    Lofland, John & Rodney Stark 1965, “Becoming a World-Saver: A Theory of Conversion to a Deviant Perspective.” American Sociological Review 30 (6).

    McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow & Charles Tilly 2001, Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Mann, Michael 1986, The Sources of Social Power, Vol.1:A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D.1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Mann, Michael 1993, The Sources of Social Power, Vol.2:The Rise of Classes and Nation-states, 1760–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Merton, Robert King 1967, On Theoretical Sociology. New York: Free Press.

    Moore, Barrington 1966, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.

    O’Connor, James 1973, The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Paige, Jeffrey M. 1975, Agrarian Revolution:Social Movements and Export Agriculture in The Underdeveloped World. New York: Free Press.

    Park, Robert E. 1928, “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” American Journal of Sociology 33 (6).

    Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess & R. D. McKenzie (eds.) 1925, The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Perry, Elizabeth J. 2002 “Moving the Masses: Emotion Work in the Chinese Revolution.” Mobilization 7 (2).

    Pye, Lucian 1981, The Dynamics of Chinese Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.

    Pye, Lucian 1988, The Mandarin and the Cadre:China’s Political Cultures. Ann Arbor: Center For Chinese Studies, University of Michigan.

    Schneider, Louis 1971, “Dialectic in Sociology.” American Sociological Review 36 (4).

    Sewell, William H., Jr. 1985, “Ideologies and Social Revolutions: Reflections on the French Case.” Journal of Modern History 57.

    Sewell, William H., Jr. 2005, Logics of History Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Smilde, David 2005, “A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Conversion to Venezuelan Evangelicalism: How Networks Matter.” American Journal of Sociology 111 (3).

    Snow, David A., Louis A. Zurcher & Sheldon Ekland-Olson 1980, “Social Networks and Social Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment.” American Sociological Review 45 (5).

    Stark, Rodney & Roger Finke 2000, Acts of Faith:Explaining the Human Side of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Steinmetz, George 1998, “Critical Realism and Historical Sociology: A Review Article.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 40 (1).

    Stinchombe, Arthur L.1991, “The Conditions of Fruitfulness of Theorizing about Mechanism in Social Science.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 21.

    Sun, Yanfei 2017, “The Rise of Protestantism in Post-Mao China: State and Religion in Historical Perspective.” American Journal of Sociology 122 (6).

    Turner, Ralph H. & Samuel J. Surace 1956, “Zoot-Suiters and Mexicans: Symbols in Crowd Behavior.” American Journal of Sociology 62 (1).

    Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974, The Modern World-System I:Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

    Wasserstrom, Jeffrey N. & Elizabeth J. Perry (eds.) 1992, Popular Protest and Political Culture in Modern China. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

    Wight, Martin 1991, International Theory:The Three Traditions. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

    Van Den Berg, Axel 1998. “Is Sociological Theory Too Grand for Social Mechanisms?” In Peter Hedstrom & Richard Swedberg (eds.), Social Mechanisms: An Analytic Approach to Social Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Zhao, Dingxin 2004, “Spurious Causation in a Historical Process: War and Bureaucratization in Early China.” American Sociological Review 69.

    Zhao, Dingxin 2015, The Confucian-Legalist State:A New Theory of Chinese History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This Article


CN: 11-1100/C

Vol 33, No. 01, Pages 17-40+242-243

January 2018


Article Outline



  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Formation and development of the practical social sciences
  • 3 Sociology paradigm and social science paradigm with Chinese characteristics
  • 4 Four Western social science methods with different understandings of time
  • 5 Daoist time as noumenon
  • 6 Conclusion
  • Footnote