A Brief Reading of 'The Cost Theory' Part Two: 'Relational Studies'

This article is the second in a series of brief readings of 'The Cost Theory'. Initially, I intended to write it in one article, but I found the author's language to be very concise. If I omitted too much, it would harm the essence; if I omitted too little, the length would be excessive. Thus, I decided to divide it into multiple articles. The author of 'The Cost Theory' is Professor Zheng Yefu, and the book was first published in 1997. It truly feels like a case of meeting too late. Douban Book Link

Particularism, which we commonly refer to as 'relational studies', stands in contrast to Universalism, which refers to behavioral standards represented by money and scores. The proponents of these two concepts, T. Parsons and E.A. Sihls, describe Particularism as 'the supremacy of value determined by a special relationship with the attributes of behavior', while Universalism is 'independent of the special relationship between the actor and the object in identity'. Thus, the distinction between the two lies in whether the standards governing people's orientations towards each other depend on the special relationships that exist between them.

Particularism originates from ancient tribes and still exists in today's communities and groups. It fosters a specific kind of trust and exchange. Universalism also has ancient roots; as the scope of social exchange and social life expands, transactions shift from direct to indirect, and customers transition from acquaintances to strangers, leading to the emergence of money. Money serves as the value scale and crystallization of Universalism, but its function is limited to the economic realm. Social life is far broader than the economic domain. Thus, exam scores, work KPIs, etc., alongside money, constitute the scales of Universalism in social life.

The emergence of Universalism aims to simplify the increasingly complex and expanding social life and exchanges. The earliest large-scale Universalism historically originated in a China filled with Particularism, exemplified by the imperial examination system. This system predates the West by over a thousand years; however, the relational studies of modern Chinese people hinder the development of Universalism and even obstruct social progress.

Everyone believes they are making a rational choice, gaining convenience and benefits through Particularism and face-to-face 'transactions' among acquaintances. Yet, this individual 'rationality' collectively forms 'irrationality' in group behavior. Consequently, we lack a general medium; we must seek acquaintances for anything we do, our social exchanges are obstructed, circulation is sluggish, and 'costs' soar.

In the distribution of social resources and rights, when Universalism fails or is obstructed, Particularism inevitably comes into play. Here, the author provides an alternative perspective on price regulation:

Universalism has its rules, meaning standards must be in place. For instance, goods are purchased with money, and prices must be appropriate to fully implement Universalism. If prices are not appropriate, there may be a price without goods. The gap between inflexible low prices and demand desires is left for salespeople to fill, meaning they only sell to friends and acquaintances. Another example is exam scores. If Peking University aims to admit 1,000 students, the minimum score should be that of the 100th-ranked applicant. If the cutoff is set at the score of the 150th-ranked applicant, the resulting 'gap' prevents Universalism from being fully realized, and Particularism will inevitably fill it, often becoming dominant in the process. Can the gap in Universalist standards be compensated by another universal means, such as queuing without raising prices for scarce goods? No. The standards in social distribution systems and competitive systems are always determined by social power. When money (a form of power) cannot determine the purchasing rights of an item, interpersonal advantages (another form of power) will come into play. Those who possess these advantages will not tolerate those who lack them, merely adept at queuing, to take precedence in resource distribution. Moreover, low internal friction and low 'costs' have always been the basis for social selection standards. People's wealth and interpersonal relationships are both limited; this competition can immediately show results. If it truly comes down to 'queuing', it will escalate step by step, ultimately leading to internal friction, conflict, and other complex situations.

Universalism and Particularism are not inherently markers distinguishing traditional societies from modern ones; they are two types of trust structures. Trust is the cornerstone of all social exchanges; a society without trust is bound to collapse. A person can enter any university based on excellent scores, easily find employment with a diploma from a prestigious university, and traverse the world's exchanges with gold. However, when a person enters a risky situation, who can be trusted as a partner, and who will be their final guardian in times of crisis? This profound and comprehensive trust often arises from a narrow, Particularist trust system.

Although Universalism and Particularism are not oppositional or mutually exclusive, modern society at least requires one or two sound and complete Universalist standards. Take Japan as an example; Japanese society is one where Particularism prevails. When Japanese people introduce themselves to the outside world, they always mention which institution they belong to, followed by their profession. They often refer to their workplace, organization, or school as 'my home' and to the other party's workplace or organization as 'your home'. Japanese people view their workplace as an extension of the family concept. At the same time, Japan also possesses mature and developed market economies, currencies, contracts, and other Universalist standards. The coexistence of Particularism and Universalism will continue for a long time, and Japan proves that modern civilization can still be dominated by Particularism while demonstrating that the social efficiency brought about by Particularism can also be quite high. However, as stated at the beginning of this paragraph, one or two sound and complete Universalist standards are essential, as even ancient Chinese society has demonstrated.