s******i
发帖数: 870 | 1 I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
needs to be highlighted and refuted.
1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
methodology.”
This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
scientists define p | a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 2 你给吴同学寄了你的反馈没有？
【在 s******i 的大作中提到】
: I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
: needs to be highlighted and refuted.
: 1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
: literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
: methodology.”
: This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
: theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
: stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
: scientists define p
| s**a
发帖数: 8648 | 3 wu的书评是发在什么杂志上的？你可不可以把你这个反馈整理一下，寄给杂志发。杂志
一般都受这种回应的，只要时间不太久，篇幅不要太长。
【在 s******i 的大作中提到】
: I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
: needs to be highlighted and refuted.
: 1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
: literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
: methodology.”
: This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
: theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
: stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
: scientists define p
| a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 4 contemporary sociology
【在 s**a 的大作中提到】
: wu的书评是发在什么杂志上的？你可不可以把你这个反馈整理一下，寄给杂志发。杂志
: 一般都受这种回应的，只要时间不太久，篇幅不要太长。
| s**a
发帖数: 8648 | 5 这是您的著作，当然只能由您自己做出回应。如果我没有记错的话，contemporary
sociology的确是刊登过书评回应的。这是正二八经的学术交流，而且杂志喜欢辩论的
，只要言之有物，读者喜闻乐见。
【在 s******i 的大作中提到】
: I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
: needs to be highlighted and refuted.
: 1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
: literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
: methodology.”
: This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
: theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
: stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
: scientists define p
| s******i
发帖数: 870 | | s******i
发帖数: 870 | 7 I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
needs to be highlighted and refuted.
1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
methodology.”
This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
scientists define post-1949 China not as a “communist society”, but as a
“socialist society”, and they regard the China’s social change after 1840
to be a process influenced by China’s industrialization .
2. Dr. Wu said: “Whereas the author claimed that this is qualitative
research in contrast to a conventional quantitative analysis, I found it
more appropriate to call it historical/archival research.”
In all textbooks about methodology, historical/archival research is a major
part of qualitative research.
3. Dr. Wu said: “The first two (chapters) introduced the broad historical
backgrounds, including the nation building, globalization, the U.S.-China
relationship, and the Taiwan issue, and the Chinese stratification from 1840
to 1949.”
The “Chapter 1: Introduction” is divided into three parts: i) Problem
Statement, ii) Methodology, and iii) Theory. The title of the chapter 2 is
“Chinese Social Stratification before 1949”, and most of it discusses
Chinese social stratification before 1840. Neither chapter discusses Taiwan
issue. Dr. Wu’s comment is about subjects other than what I have written
in Chapter 1 and 2.
4. Dr. Wu said: “Chapters 3-6 described the cadre system in 1949-1959, 1959
-1979, 1979-1993, and 1993 thereafter, respectively.”
These four chapters describe the Li Yi Model of Chinese Social
Stratification during the aforementioned historical periods, and the cadre
system is discussed only briefly.
5. Dr. Wu said: “(The Li Yi Model of Chinese Social Stratification) is
common sense rather than a new conceptual model. … The book appears to make
little effort to explore the mechanism of such structural changes.”
I have written an entire book (which required much more than a “little
effort”) that explores the mechanism of the structure and evolution of
Chinese social stratification. I believe the Li Yi Model is the first and
only model of its kind in the English-speaking world. Any model should be
based on common sense, as several of the most popular models of American
social stratification demonstrate.
6. Dr. Wu said: “Ignoring social and political changes in China since 1949,
the book has no way to differentiate between the socialist
industrialization and industrialization driven by the market forces, as well
as their different impact on social stratification.”
Chapters 3-8 analyze industrialization as i) directed by central planning
after 1949, ii) influenced by the socialist period 1959 to 1979, especially
the Cultural Revolution period 1966 to 1976, and iii) partly redirected by
market forces from 1979 to the present. Throughout my discussion, I have
distinguished between a social stratification shaped by an economy directed
by government and today’s quasi-centrally planned economy in which market
driven industrialization plays an important role.
7. Dr. Wu said: “The book specifically focuses on the cadre system. As ‘
cadre’ has different meanings in different contexts in China, the key term
has never been clearly defined.”
China’s central government has always clearly and unambiguously defined
what a cadre is, who can be a cadre, and how to recruit a cadre. On May 2,
2007, the government announced to all of China, on the front pages of major
newspapers, that “there are 15 million female cadres in China, accounting
for 38 percent of the total cadres.” That, by the way, implies there are
39.47 millions cadres in China, which not only validates the estimate I made
cadre in my book of 40 million cadres, but also affirms my use of the word
in the way the Chinese government defines it.
8. Dr. Wu said: “The author even called the civil servant system before
1949 as the cadre system, which is quite unconventional.”
If you read the books of Sun Zhongshan, Jiang Jieshi, and Mao Zedong, as
they are written in Chinese, you will find they referred many times to the
“civil servant system” before 1949 as the “cadre system.”
9. Wu said: “The assertion that the cadre system under the socialist system
is inherited from the pre-1949 period (p. 48) is striking without much
sound justifications.”
The Chinese Communist Party in the mainland and Chinese Kuomindang in Taiwan
have , generally speaking, the same kind of cadre system. This is well
known to those who have studied the Chinese cadre system, and chapter 2 of
the book explained why they are generally the same.
10. Dr. Wu said: “The historical trend in the growth of cadre size itself
speaks little about the change of social stratification without reference to
the population/employment growth.”
The Li Yi Model of Chinese Social Stratification, the essence part of my
book, has always been based on population/employment growth.
11. Dr. Wu said: “In the end of the book, the author brought up the role of
China’s unique household registration system (hukou) and the work unit (
danwei) in social stratification, but they appeared not to fit the content
in chapters 3-6.”
Chapter 7 of the book, titled “Understanding Chinese Social Stratification:
Three Main Aspects” analyzes how the national university entrance
examination, household registration system, and work unit forged the
structure of Chinese social stratification. Chapters 3-6 provide the
historical bases needed to see how the three main aspects of present China’
s stratification have evolved.
12. Dr. Wu said: “If there is any implication on those analyses, that is,
without attending to the household registration system and the work unit, Li
Yi’s Model of the Chinese social stratification appears to be too rough
and oversimplified.”
I believe I described completely the household registration system and the
work unit in Chapter 7, and I used the essence of my book, the Li Yi model
of Chinese social stratification, to analyze them carefully, class by class
and status by status, in chapter 8.
13. I will not comment on the last paragraph of Dr. Wu’s review, other
than to say it’s misleading.
Dr. Wu’s review of my book does not discuss what I believe to be its
significant contribution to sociology, the LI Yi model of Chinese Social
Stratification. The existence of many models of American social
stratification signifies the importance of modeling, yet Dr. Wu has said
nothing about the importance of Chinese models, whether my model is valid,
or whether any other Chinese models exist. If the LI Yi model is the first
and only Chinese model of Social Stratification, he should have acknowledged
that. If Dr. Wu knows of other Chinese models, he should have compared and
contrasted them with the Li Yi model, and he should have explained his
opinion about their limitations.
Dr.Wu has commented about the supporting examples I have used in my book,
but he has overlooked its core, the Li Yi model of Chinese Social
Stratification.
I would like to ask Dr. Wu to discuss the need for a model of Chinese social
stratification. If there is a need, would he please describe what he
believes to be the correct theory and methodology required for the model’s
development?
Notes:
1. http://www.sachina.edu.cn/Htmldata/longbook/liyi_structure_china/471.html
2. Watson, James L (ed.) 1984. Class and Social Stratification in Post-
Revolution China. Cambridge University Press.
3. Naughton, Barry. 2007. The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth. The
MIT Press.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class#Chinese_model
5. http://www.womenofchina.cn/news/politics/14942.jsp | a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 8 你给吴同学寄了你的反馈没有？
【在 s******i 的大作中提到】
: I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
: needs to be highlighted and refuted.
: 1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
: literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
: methodology.”
: This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
: theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
: stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
: scientists define post-1949 China not as a “communist society”, but as a
: “socialist society”, and they regard the China’s social change after 1840
| s**a
发帖数: 8648 | 9 wu的书评是发在什么杂志上的？你可不可以把你这个反馈整理一下，寄给杂志发。杂志
一般都受这种回应的，只要时间不太久，篇幅不要太长。
【在 s******i 的大作中提到】
: I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
: needs to be highlighted and refuted.
: 1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
: literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
: methodology.”
: This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
: theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
: stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
: scientists define post-1949 China not as a “communist society”, but as a
: “socialist society”, and they regard the China’s social change after 1840
| a******o
发帖数: 1197 | 10 contemporary sociology
【在 s**a 的大作中提到】
: wu的书评是发在什么杂志上的？你可不可以把你这个反馈整理一下，寄给杂志发。杂志
: 一般都受这种回应的，只要时间不太久，篇幅不要太长。
| | | s**a
发帖数: 8648 | 11 这是您的著作，当然只能由您自己做出回应。如果我没有记错的话，contemporary
sociology的确是刊登过书评回应的。这是正二八经的学术交流，而且杂志喜欢辩论的
，只要言之有物，读者喜闻乐见。
【在 s******i 的大作中提到】
: I believe Dr. Wu’s review of my book makes significant errors, and each
: needs to be highlighted and refuted.
: 1. Dr. Wu said: “The book deviated itself from the current stratification
: literature on China by adopting a different perspective and research
: methodology.”
: This book follows exactly the mainstream thinking in American sociology’s
: theory and methodology , exemplified by the masterpiece on Chinese social
: stratification (Watson, 1984) . Current mainstream American social
: scientists define post-1949 China not as a “communist society”, but as a
: “socialist society”, and they regard the China’s social change after 1840
| s******i
发帖数: 870 | 12
http://www.univpress.com/Catalog/Reviews.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0761833315
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Reviews for The Structure and Evolution of Chinese Social Stratification
$41.00 Paper Nov 2005 0-7618-3331-5 / 978-0-7618-3331-4 258pp
"This book provides the readers with a comprehensive understanding of the
structure and evolution of the Chinese social stratification....The book...
is...quite conducive to understanding the Chinese culture and society."—
2007, Journal of Chinese Political Science
"Good analysis, very informative. I plan to use it again as reserved reading
for my sociology course on globalization and Chinese society."—Dr. Renxin
Yang, Northern Michigan University
"I have been using this book as a primary textbook in the course "Chinese
Social Change after WWII" for two years...The data in this book [is] so rich
and detailed, [it] enriches my teaching...This book...[is]...key for
Japanese people [to] understand China."—Dr. Hidematsu Hiyoshi, Lecturer,
Nihon University, College of Humanities and Sciences
"...a comprehensive treatment of such an important topic...laid out in a
clear and logical way. The arguments and conclusions are based on detailed
empirical statistical information of occupations and other relevant
variables...insightful and provocative...from an expert who understands the
Chinese society well."—Kam Wing Chan, Professor, Department of Geography,
University of Washington
"My students are finding [The Structure and Evolution of Chinese Social
Stratification] very useful...[My students] like the approach to the class
structure. I intend to assign it again next year."—Stu Shafer, Professor of
Sociology, Johnson County Community College
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group | 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200,
Lanham, MD 20706 | (800) 462-6420
>>> National Film Network Online Store <<<
About Us | Customer Service | Booksellers | Privacy Policy | Site Map | k**a
发帖数: 1181 | 13 http://sspress.cass.cn/paper/25990.htm
评李毅《中国社会分层的结构与演变》
日期：2011-11-28 10:30:00
来源：《中国社会科学报》
社会分层的研究专著汗牛充栋，但较少涉及历史维度，《中国社会分层的结构与演
变》一书针对演化主题展开深入阐述，历史叙事脉络分明。演化叙述并不是单纯的考古
兴趣，该书从当代的结构发现历史的印记，从运行的体制发现传统的基因，同时，将分
层现象学和分层制度学合二而一。分层研究分两大主题，一是描述分层现象，二是揭示
分层机制。该书将上述两大主题整合，得出了“中国社会分层李毅模型”。
通过“李毅模型”，首先可直观当代中国社会50年分层现象，经验数据显示的不仅
是社会构成的数量性变化，如干部数量及在总人口中的比例的变化；也显示出社会构成
的历史性演化，如“资本家人群”在20世纪50年代的消失和在80年代以后的复出，及农
民工从农民人群中的分化；更显示出社会等级不变的实质性秩序，如干部阶层始终位于
社会等级的首位，最大的农民人群则处于社会的底层等。这一模型与古代中国“士农工
商”的社会结构既有相同处，如干部与士阶层的社会首位等级，又有实质的不同，如工
与农地位的互易，反映社会主义及工业化制度之于封建主义农耕制度的历史差异。
……（出处：中国社会科学报）
……查看更多内容请订阅《中国社会科学报》
《中国社会科学报》版权所有，转载请注明出处及本网站名。
地址:北京市朝阳区光华路15号院1号楼泰达时代中心11-12层 总 编 室 Tel:
010-85886569 Fax:010-85886569 E-mail:z*****[email protected]
邮政编码:100026 事业发展中心（广告发行） Tel:010-85885198 Fax:010-
85885198 E-mail:f*****[email protected]
版权所有 © 2010 中国社会科学杂志社 | k**a
发帖数: 1181 | | k**a
发帖数: 1181 | 15 李毅对亲爱朋友的两点建议
亲爱的朋友：您好！
我爱你，用您们的普世价值爱死你。我对您有两点建议。
第一，李毅在国内外学术界的地位，您撼不动。您就算了吧。
几十年来，我一直为祖国、为人民、为科学努力奋斗。您在这里对我恶毒攻击、恶意诽
谤，毫无用处。现在是网络时代、电脑时代、全球化时代。我是什么人，在互联网上查
看一下，就一目了然。
1，我给祖国引进和建立了“国际社会学”这门学科。在百度键入“国际社会学”，可
以看到，现在，在祖国大陆，国际社会学就是李毅，李毅就是国际社会学。中国教育部
科研项目【2008】890号“国际社会学的学科建设”课题负责人。
2，在www.amazon.com/键入Chinese Social Stratification，可以看到，在这个十分
重要、强手如林的研究领域，我的英文著作，The Structure and Evolution of
Chinese Social Stratification,在英文世界排名世界第一，七年多了。我为祖国、为
人民、为中国社会学，争了光，争了气。这本书，在中国大陆也可以在网上购买，280
元人民币一本。
3，李毅著作《中国社会分层的结构与演变》中译本，被国内列入历史系研究生书目。
见互联网上广为流传的“杨奎松推荐历史系必读书目”。
4， 李毅《社会学概论》(2011)，被列入博士专业书目:
http://my.tongji.edu.cn/article/1278.html
5，中国国家社科基金项目1990年第489号课题负责人，主编出版了研究生教材《马克思
社会思想史纲》，社会科学文献出版社，1993。
这些事情，都是铁的事实，您是撼不动的。要想在学术上打倒我，您要说出真名实姓，
要有起码的学术地位。像您现在这样，匿名对我恶毒攻击、恶意诽谤，是没有用的。
蚂蚁缘槐夸大国，蚍蜉撼树谈何易。
斥鷃每闻欺大鸟，昆鸡长笑老鹰非。
独有英雄驱虎豹，更无豪杰怕熊罴。
梅花欢喜漫天雪，冻死苍蝇未足奇。
第二，建议您认真批判李毅著作、李毅思想
三十多年前，中国在世界上是大三角的一极。中国思想、中国观点、中国语言、中国声
音，在世界上呼风唤雨、八面威风。现在，中国总值世界第二，超日赶美，但中国思想
、中国观点、中国声音，在世界上没有什么地位，比三十多年前有大的倒退。我因此
2008年在大陆出版的书中列出专节，明确提出中国要建立世界文化强国。这个提法，
2011年变成了中国的基本国策。
如何建立世界文化强国? 如何使中国思想、中国观点、中国声音在世界上重新站立起来
？李毅著作、李毅思想中，有许多见解。建议您认真批判。我的两本书，现在中国大陆
畅销。《社会学概论》，2011年五月出版，不到半年就卖光了，出版社加印了几千册。
如果书不好，为什么两本书都被列入研究生专业书目？中国读者自己买书、读书，如果
书不好，会畅销吗？
1. 著名旅美社会学家李毅先生做客环球网
http://bbs.huanqiu.com/thread-2998444-1-1.html
2．李毅《社会学概论》
http://www.langlang.cc/2814164.htm
3．《中国社会分层的结构与演变》
http://www.langlang.cc/2048111.htm
http://www.sachina.edu.cn/Htmldata/longbook/liyi_structure_chin
4. 当今中国社会各阶级阶层的分析
http://www.sociology2010.cass.cn/news/723808.htm
衷心希望您抛弃成见，加入这些中国读者的行列，认真批判李毅著作、李毅思想，共同
为把中国建成世界文化强国而奋斗。
我爱你。
李 毅 | k**a
发帖数: 1181 | 16 李毅著作在图书馆
李毅（1961年－）社会学家。中国西北大学文学学士，北京大学社会学研究生学历，美
国密苏里大学(MU)社会学硕士，美国伊利诺大学(UIC)社会学博士。
在WorldCat聯合目錄內，李毅著作如下:
1. The Structure and Evolution of Chinese Social Stratification, 2005
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62470986
2. The Structure and Evolution of China’s Cadre System, 2005
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/71438053
3. 《社会学概论》2011
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/777816903
4.《中国社会分层的结构与演变》2008
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/314019459
5.《社会学概论》1999
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/64201799
6.《社会学概论》1993
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/30814239
7．《马克思社会思想史纲》1993
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/30825697
8.《社会学概论》1991
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44631445 | k**a
发帖数: 1181 | 17 2013年
4月，在清华大学演讲。6月，把清华讲稿修改了一下，在山东大学演讲。清华、山大的
讲稿，《当今中国社会各阶级阶层的分析》，见互联网。很多网站转发。
六月份去看了越南。八月份搬家。
9月3日，环球时报网提了12个问题，我老实做了回答，近两万字，《著名旅美社会学家
李毅先生做客环球网》，见环球时报网。很多网站转发。
9月7日，在香港演讲，讲稿《李毅香港社会学演讲》，见互联网。
十月份去看了新加坡、马来西亚、印度尼西亚。
11月20日，在西宁演讲，演讲视频，《李毅青海社会学演讲》，三个小时，见互联网。
12月2日，在华盛顿演讲，讲稿《李毅美国首都社会学演讲》，见互联网。
12月10日，在广东医学院演讲，见“李毅广东医学院社会学演讲”，见互联网。
2014年
暨南大学
另外，还就中共十八大、许志永案件、薄熙来案件、重庆模式在美国《亚美导报》发表
几篇评论：
1．《李毅评中国十八届三中全会》
原载美国《亚美导报》2013年12月6日A2版
http://yamei-today.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/A2-120613.pdf
2．《许志永对当今世界的基本判断是错误的》
原载美国《亚美导报》2014年2月7日A4版
3．《李毅点评左中右对薄熙来审判的不同看法》
原载美国《亚美导报》2013年9月6日A4版
http://yamei-today.com/zh/2013/09/06/左中右对薄熙来审判的不同看
4。《李毅有关重庆模式的三点看法》
原载美国《亚美导报》2013年9月6日A2版
http://yamei-today.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/A2-090613.pdf | k**a
发帖数: 1181 | |
|
