Andrew Walder is the Denise O'Leary and Kent Thiry Professor in the Department of Sociology at Stanford, where he is also a Senior Fellow in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). He is currently the Director of the Division of International, Comparative and Area Studies in Stanford’s School of Humanities and Sciences, and in past years has served as the Director of FSI’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. He is the current Chair of Stanford’s Department of Sociology.
A political sociologist, Walder has long specialized on the sources of conflict, stability and change in communist regimes and their successor states. His current research focuses on changes in the ownership and control of large Chinese corporations and the parallel emergence of a new corporate elite with varied ties to state agencies. He also continues his research interest in Mao-era China, with a focus on the mass politics of the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1969.
Walder joined the Stanford faculty the fall of 1997. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology at the University of Michigan in 1981 and taught at Columbia University before moving to Harvard in 1987. As a Professor of Sociology, he served as Chair of Harvard’s M.A. Program on Regional Studies-East Asia for several years. From 1995 to 1997 he headed the Division of Social Sciences at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. From 1996 to 2006, as a member of the Hong Kong Government’s Research Grants Council, he chaired its Panel on the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Business Studies.
His recent publications include Fractured Rebellion: The Beijing Red Guard Movement (Harvard University Press, 2009), The Chinese Cultural Revolution as History, edited with Joseph Esherick and Paul Pickowicz (Stanford University Press, 2006), “Revolution, Reform, and Status Inheritance: Urban China 1949-1996," in American Journal of Sociology (2009), “Political Sociology and Social Movements,” in Annual Review of Sociology (2009), “Ownership, Organization, and Income Inequality: Market Transition in Rural Vietnam” in the American Sociological Review (2008), and “Ambiguity and Choice in Political Movements: The Origins of Beijing Red Guard Factionalism,” in the American Journal of Sociology (2006).
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/soc/people/awalder/index.html
0 有用 Dean Zhao 2021-12-31 14:17:35
同时标两本。一本是《新传统主义》,制度主义视角的工厂政体研究,洞见不必多说,但也是有不少问题,比如忽视了集体主义经济秩序下工人横向联结的可能(这点《选择性放任》说得很清楚)。第二本是港版的《China under M》,对M时代的国家社会主义政经体制和CR把握得很准确,但对这个时代的评价有失公允,没有超过迈斯纳的水准。是时候切入对官僚制的阅读了。
1 有用 六经注我 2021-11-07 13:50:33
Walder所洞察到的是即使在全面政治控制下,也并非能达到政党及其追随者个人之间的意识形态联结以及社会关系的断绝。作为communist party的社会组织基础——国有工厂内部的运转维系,实际上仍然保持着以工人对工厂党政领导的依附、高度制度化的垂直性上下互惠关系网(network of patron-client relations)和紧密的个人联系网络为特征的neo-traditionism(... Walder所洞察到的是即使在全面政治控制下,也并非能达到政党及其追随者个人之间的意识形态联结以及社会关系的断绝。作为communist party的社会组织基础——国有工厂内部的运转维系,实际上仍然保持着以工人对工厂党政领导的依附、高度制度化的垂直性上下互惠关系网(network of patron-client relations)和紧密的个人联系网络为特征的neo-traditionism(新传统主义)。这一现象的根源是来自于将政治上的忠诚与资源分配、物质奖励等个体福利挂钩的计划手段,而这样的分配手段只能由党政干部才能掌握。因此新传统主义的悖论在于:对干部个人化的忠诚与对party非个人化的忠诚的掺杂,既是party动员社会的需要,同时也产生了固定关系网的意料之外的后果。 (展开)
0 有用 澈之 2022-01-25 23:46:33
What is significant from a comparative perspective about Chinese industrial bureaucracy is not that it deviates from the ideal type of bureaucracy, but that it represents the integration of patrimonia... What is significant from a comparative perspective about Chinese industrial bureaucracy is not that it deviates from the ideal type of bureaucracy, but that it represents the integration of patrimonial rule with modern bureaucratic form. This is precisely why I describe this modern institutional setting as "neo-traditional." (展开)
0 有用 RM的K 2020-02-04 14:21:02
理论化真的好,可惜时下语境实在难以带入
0 有用 其其实 2012-12-04 23:32:27
Review
0 有用 亚克西 2022-05-21 10:31:53
代替简中本
0 有用 我都想笑了 2022-05-07 12:08:38
脱轨
0 有用 NowhereCat 2022-03-07 12:57:45
虽然早就知道了这书中文条目已经没得了但是怎么把以前的书评也全铲了……有时间补一个summary。
0 有用 澈之 2022-01-25 23:46:33
What is significant from a comparative perspective about Chinese industrial bureaucracy is not that it deviates from the ideal type of bureaucracy, but that it represents the integration of patrimonia... What is significant from a comparative perspective about Chinese industrial bureaucracy is not that it deviates from the ideal type of bureaucracy, but that it represents the integration of patrimonial rule with modern bureaucratic form. This is precisely why I describe this modern institutional setting as "neo-traditional." (展开)
0 有用 Dean Zhao 2021-12-31 14:17:35
同时标两本。一本是《新传统主义》,制度主义视角的工厂政体研究,洞见不必多说,但也是有不少问题,比如忽视了集体主义经济秩序下工人横向联结的可能(这点《选择性放任》说得很清楚)。第二本是港版的《China under M》,对M时代的国家社会主义政经体制和CR把握得很准确,但对这个时代的评价有失公允,没有超过迈斯纳的水准。是时候切入对官僚制的阅读了。