As China grapples with the complex health challenges of a modern society—including a rapidly aging population and strained healthcare resources—a new academic call to arms is emerging. Leading scholars argue that to truly understand and solve these issues, China must move beyond simply importing Western theories and instead forge a sociology of health rooted in its own unique social and cultural fabric.

In a thought-provoking piece, Yao Zelin, an associate professor at East China Normal University, contends that the future of Chinese medical sociology lies in a deliberate turn inward. This isn’t about rejecting global scholarship, but about critically adapting it and, more importantly, using the medical field as a powerful lens to examine the fundamental workings of Chinese society itself.

The critique begins with a foundational issue: the limits of Western concepts. Take, for example, the “sick role,” a cornerstone theory in Western medical sociology that defines the rights and obligations of a patient. While useful, Yao argues it is built on an individualistic, middle-class, Protestant ethic that clashes with China’s deeply entrenched family-centric values. In China, illness is often a family affair, not an individual one. To understand patient behavior, one must analyze the family as the primary unit of care and decision-making.

This call for contextualization extends to the very subjects of research. While patients have been extensively studied, Yao urges a broader focus on the entire medical ecosystem. This means not just doctors, but the army of nurses, technicians, social workers, hospital administrators, and even professional patient escorts who together constitute modern healthcare. Understanding their inter-professional dynamics, cooperation, and conflicts is crucial to grasping how the system truly functions.

Perhaps most significantly, Yao advocates for a shift in research ambition. He distinguishes between studying medicine as an object of inquiry versus using medicine as a lens or a “cutting point” to reveal broader social truths. The former is valuable, but the latter is transformative.

Consider the study of major illness. An analysis focused solely on healthcare might look at treatment paths and patient compliance. But using the illness as a sociological lens allows researchers to observe how a family is “activated” by crisis. The disruption of daily life forces a re-negotiation of kinship, finances, and care arrangements, offering a rare window into the resilience, power structures, and “life politics” of the contemporary Chinese family. It’s a perspective that traditional studies of marriage or child-rearing might not provide.

To achieve this, Yao calls for a “historical turn” in sociology, urging researchers to develop a “historical consciousness” that sees the past not as a separate realm, but as an active force shaping present-day health behaviors and institutions. By weaving together history, cultural context, and a bold sociological imagination, China can build a more authentic and effective knowledge system.

This is more than an academic debate; it is a roadmap for creating social science that is genuinely relevant. By developing a sociology of health that speaks from its own experience, China can not only better address its domestic challenges but also offer a valuable, alternative perspective to the global conversation on health and society.