Reflecting Michael Burawoy’s labor process and factory regime theory and its influence on Chinese labor studies

Michael Burawoy’s labor process and factory regime theory have been landmark contributions to labor studies and Marxist sociology, substantially influencing Chinese labor studies. This article, however, offers a critical reflection on his theory, as a genuine salute to his life as a Marxist and his contributions to labor studies. We argue that the core of labor regime theory is a striking epistemological paradox rooted in two mutually reinforcing tendencies: (1) labor regime without labor process in the production sphere, and (2) labor process without labor as class subject. The conditions for class formation are thus perpetually suspended in labor regime theory, especially when applied in Chinese labor studies. We propose that Chinese labor scholars’ praxis is not to dismiss the issue of class but to uncover the conditions of its becoming, and to elucidate the dynamic tension between class in itself and class for itself.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Critical Sociology
Published
2026-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205261463189
Primary Topic
Labor Movements and Unions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reflecting Michael Burawoy’s labor process and factory regime theory and its influence on Chinese labor studies

Ngai Pun, Jingting Liang, Zhong Kai Qian
Critical Sociology
Labor Movements and Unions
article

Reflecting Michael Burawoy’s labor process and factory regime theory and its influence on Chinese labor studies

Ngai Pun, Jingting Liang, Zhong Kai Qian
article en

Abstract

Michael Burawoy’s labor process and factory regime theory have been landmark contributions to labor studies and Marxist sociology, substantially influencing Chinese labor studies. This article, however, offers a critical reflection on his theory, as a genuine salute to his life as a Marxist and his contributions to labor studies. We argue that the core of labor regime theory is a striking epistemological paradox rooted in two mutually reinforcing tendencies: (1) labor regime without labor process in the production sphere, and (2) labor process without labor as class subject. The conditions for class formation are thus perpetually suspended in labor regime theory, especially when applied in Chinese labor studies. We propose that Chinese labor scholars’ praxis is not to dismiss the issue of class but to uncover the conditions of its becoming, and to elucidate the dynamic tension between class in itself and class for itself.

Critical Sociology
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Labor Movements and Unions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.