I do, however, make these remarks from the point of view of general agreement with them on the relative strength of the paradigms discussed. The two authors, however, commendably try to use the different approaches throughout the text. One example is when they challenge the reader to reflect upon whether political stability is caused by Confucian philosophy and ethics or on the state organization itself. Personally I think this is not a clearcut dichotomy as the state organization, its bureaucracy and other institutions of social control to a certain degree can be viewed as part of the overall cultural context. I have once argued that in terms of 'stability' we should regard 'Confucianism' as a structure of social control more than as pure ideology or doctrine.
Material culture is one part of the inertia of tradition.
Perhaps a variant of Michael Dutton's 'repetition with a difference' could have brought this dichotomy out of the deep ditches of culturalism versus structuralism. Applying the concrete data to theory in a clear way is precisely what I mean by an innovative 'free style' - a way of writing that makes the student reflect and see the empirical material in the context of the previously discussed theoretical paradigms. Generally I think the autrhors do this much better in the start than at the end when the feeling of a 'set piece' is more dominant. My general feeling is that the last chapters pile up a lot of empirical facts, but somehow loosen the close links to theory. When I indicate that the book falters towards the end, I believe that it is more to my argument than my mind just getting tired.