Abstract
The article critically examines the application of the individualization thesis to China. Factors presented in support of the case for Chinese individualization are shown to be either ambiguous or, on examination, counter-indicators. Family transformations from the Mao period to the present maintain family obligation. Labour migration, rather than leading to individualization expresses family commitment. Rights awareness similarly provides no clear evidence of individualization while rural and labour struggles around collective rights do not support the thesis.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 9-23 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Journal of Sociology |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2016 |
User-Defined Keywords
- collective rights
- family obligation
- kinship and business
- labour migration
- party-state
