Involution and Inverse Involution: Differences in the Direction of Intergenerational Changes in the Social Communication of the Migrant Population
PENG Da-song
Population Research Institute/High-quality Development Evaluation Research Institute, Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210042
Abstract：Previous studies have unanimously believed that the social interaction of the migrant population is involuted, and the communication network is limited to acquaintances such as family members, relatives, and countryman. With the improvement of the urban adaptability of the young generation of migrant, as well as the improvement of the urban institutional environment and cultural environment, it is possible for them to reverse trend of involution in social interaction. Based on the 2017 China Migrants Dynamics Survey (CMDS) data and applied the fixed-effect model to analyze the intergenerational change trend of the social interaction of the migrant population, and to compare the difference in the direction of the intergenerational change in the social interaction of the two types of migrants, rural-urban and urban-urban. The study shows that compared with the “post-60s” migrant population, the “post-90s” migrant population’s social interactions tend to be involution, while the “post-70s” and “post-80s” migrant population shows more characteristics of inverse involution. In other words, social interaction breaks through the limitations of geography and kinship, and extends to unfamiliar relationships, in which the scope of communication continues to expand, and the information loading on the communication network continues to increase. The involution of social interaction among the “post-90s” migrant population mainly occurs in the rural-urban migrant population. The urban-to-urban migrant population not only hasn’t the characteristics of involution, but also has a tendency to inverse-involution. Further research shows that the migrant population with lower class status is more prone to involution of social interaction. Education and family-migration have a moderating effect on social interaction, and this effect is significantly different between the two types of migrant population. The social intercourse involution of the young generation of rural-urban migrants indicates that life opportunities will decrease and inequality will deepen, which should be paid great attention to .
彭大松. 内卷化与逆内卷化:流动人口社会交往的代际流向差异[J]. 《深圳大学学报》（人文社科版）, 2021, 38(5): 112-123.
PENG Da-song. Involution and Inverse Involution: Differences in the Direction of Intergenerational Changes in the Social Communication of the Migrant Population. , 2021, 38(5): 112-123.
[1] 刘世定,邱泽奇.“内卷化”概念辨析[J].社会学研究,2004,(5):96-110. [2] Geertz C.Agricultural Involution:The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia[J].Population Studies,1965,18(3):599-600. [3] (美)黄宗智.华北的小农经济与社会变迁[M].北京:中华书局,1991.1-2. [4] 周大鸣,郭永平.谱系追溯与方法反思——以“内卷化”为考察对象[J].世界民族,2014,(2):9-15. [5] 张岳. 农民工的社会交往内卷化了吗?——基于对“内卷化”概念比较性的理解[J].天府新论,2020,(1):88-95. [6] 李祖佩. 乡村治理领域中的“内卷化”问题省思[J].中国农村观察,2017,(6):116-129. [7] 汪国华. 从内卷化到外延化:新生代农民工务工地创业社会支持网络研究[J].中国青年研究,2019,(8):56-61. [8] 刘丽. 新生代农民工“内卷化”现象及其城市融入问题[J].河北学刊,2012,(4):118-122. [9] 叶鹏飞. 探索农民工城市融合之路——基于社会交往内卷化的分析[J].城市发展研究,2012,(1):81-85. [10] 肖云,邓睿.新生代农民工城市社区融入困境分析[J].华南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2015,(1):36-45. [11] 吴业苗. 从“农业内卷化”到“打工内卷化”:人的城镇化困境与诉求[J].河北学刊,2016,(5):186-191. [12] 康红梅. 社会排斥背景下底层群体“内卷化”职业身份认同研究——以环卫农民工为例[J].理论月刊,2016,(1):143-148. [13] 杨菊华. 新型城镇化背景下户籍制度的“双二属性”与流动人口的社会融合[J].中国人民大学学报,2017,(4):119-128. [14] Lin N.Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action[M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 14-16. [15] Blau P.M,Duncan O.D.The American Occupational Struc-ture[J].American Sociological Review,1968,33(2):296-297. [16] Featherman D L,Jones F L,Hauser R M.Assumptions of Social Mobility Research in the U.S.:The Case of Occu-pational Status[J].Social Science Research,1975,4(4):329-360. [17] 刘精明,李路路.阶层化:居住空间、生活方式、社会交往与阶层认同——我国城镇社会阶层化问题的实证研究[J].社会学研究,2005,(3):52-81. [18] Erikson R,Goldthorpe J.The Constant Flux:A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies[M].Oxford:Claren-don Press,1994.217-219. [19] (美)彼特·布劳.不平等和异质性[M].王春光,谢圣赞译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1991. [20] Kalmijn,M.Intermarriage and Homogamy:Causes, Patterns,Trends[J].Annual Review of Sociology,1998,24:395-421. [21] 张翼. 中国阶层内婚制的延续[J].中国人口科学,2003,(4):43-51. [22] Zimmer R W,Toma,E F.Peer Effects in Private and Public Schools across Countries[J].Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,2000,19(1):75-92. [23] 焦媛媛,李智慧.同侪影响的内涵、产生机理及其在管理学中的研究展望——基于社交网络情境[J].南开管理评论,2020,(1):213-224. [24] 彭大松,苗国.家庭化流动背景下非户籍人口的社区参与研究——基于广义分层线性模型的分析[J].人口与发展,2020,(5):62-72. [25] Granovetter M S.The Strength of Weak Ties[J].American Journal of Sociology,1973,78(6):1360-1380. [26] 边燕杰,张文宏.经济体制、社会网络与职业流动[J].中国社会科学,2001,(2):77-89+206. [27] 边燕杰,张磊.论关系文化与关系社会资本[J].人文杂志,2013,(1):107-113. [28] 田丰,付宇.无友不如己者:城镇化如何影响个人社会资本[J].社会学评论,2020,(5):74-87. [29] 汤兆云. 农民工社会融合的代际比较——基于2013年流动人口动态监测调查数据的分析[J].社会科学家,2016,(9):82-87. [30] 刘小敏,蔡婷玉.社会变迁视域内的中国人口流动:60年回顾与思考[J].江海学刊,2009,(5):27-32. [31] 梁土坤.居住证制度、生命历程与新生代流动人口心理融入——基于2017年珠三角地区流动人口监测数据的实证分析[J].公共管理学报,2020,(1):96-109+172-173. [32] 李实,朱梦冰.中国经济转型40年中居民收入差距的变动[J].管理世界,2018,(12):19-28. [33] 费孝通. 乡土中国生育制度[M].北京:北京大学出版社, 1998.24-30. [34] 沈杰. 青年、世代与社会变迁:世代理论的源起和演进[J].中国青年政治学院学报,2010,(3):1-7. [35] 王春光. 新生代农村流动人口的社会认同与城乡融合的关系[J].社会学研究,2001,(3):63-76. [36] 任文龙,张苏缘,陈鑫.金融发展、收入水平与居民文化消费——基于城乡差异的视角[J].农村经济,2019,(11):118-127. [37] 黄超.收入、资产与当代城乡居民的地位认同[J].社会学研究,2020, (2):195-218+245-246. [38] 尚进云,王振振.家庭背景、大学文凭与职业阶层地位获得的城乡差异——基于EGP职业阶层分类的新观察[J].复旦教育论坛,2020,(5):79-85.
2021, Vol. 38 
粤公网安备44030502007936号