15.07.2013 Views

Researching Hybridity in Social and Economic ... - NUS Home

Researching Hybridity in Social and Economic ... - NUS Home

Researching Hybridity in Social and Economic ... - NUS Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

This multi-locational <strong>and</strong> multi-discipl<strong>in</strong>ary research <strong>in</strong>to Ch<strong>in</strong>ese capitalism takes me<br />

to the most important aspect of the <strong>in</strong>tegrated method approach – abstraction <strong>and</strong><br />

deconstruction (see Figure 1). Instead of overtly concerned with describ<strong>in</strong>g everyth<strong>in</strong>g about<br />

actor networks <strong>in</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese capitalism – a methodological procedure often found <strong>in</strong><br />

ethnography (e.g. Yang, 1994; Yao, 2002) <strong>and</strong> some quarters of actor network theory (e.g.<br />

Murdoch, 1997a), I was <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> unfold<strong>in</strong>g the multiple logic(s) of these actor networks,<br />

their shift<strong>in</strong>g identities <strong>and</strong> discursive constructions, <strong>and</strong> the diverse mechanisms of their<br />

enrolment. This approach to Ch<strong>in</strong>ese capitalism requires me to focus on key social actors <strong>and</strong><br />

their dynamics <strong>in</strong> different spatial <strong>and</strong> temporal sett<strong>in</strong>gs. I believed that these processes do not<br />

emerge directly from empirical observations. In other words, data do not speak for<br />

themselves. I needed abstraction to distill these multiple logic(s) <strong>and</strong> causal mechanisms of<br />

Ch<strong>in</strong>ese capitalism from an array of messy empirical data, <strong>and</strong> to facilitate theory<br />

development (cf. Whitley, 1992; 1999; Orrù et al., 1997). Equally important, I wanted to go<br />

beyond a materialist theory of Ch<strong>in</strong>ese capitalism that focuses narrowly on its economic<br />

structures <strong>and</strong> is oblivious to its discursive constructions. Deconstruction is therefore a useful<br />

method to identify different discourses of the rise of Ch<strong>in</strong>ese capitalism <strong>and</strong> Ch<strong>in</strong>ese bus<strong>in</strong>ess<br />

networks as a vocabulary <strong>in</strong> our underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of economic organization <strong>in</strong> East <strong>and</strong><br />

Southeast Asia. Follow<strong>in</strong>g Derrida, Dixon <strong>and</strong> Jones (1998: 255; emphasis omitted) def<strong>in</strong>e<br />

deconstruction as a method that aims to “del<strong>in</strong>eate the social power that fixes mean<strong>in</strong>gs<br />

constructive of identities, spaces, <strong>and</strong> discipl<strong>in</strong>es”. By decenter<strong>in</strong>g hegemonic discourses of<br />

Ch<strong>in</strong>ese capitalism as essential products of Confucian culture, I sought to theorize the time-<br />

space dynamism of everyday life by Ch<strong>in</strong>ese <strong>and</strong> non-Ch<strong>in</strong>ese actors bound up with<strong>in</strong> specific<br />

hybrid networks of social <strong>and</strong> economic relationships.<br />

24

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!