隨著中國政經轉型與社會變遷，各式社會組織的出現引發人們的關注。而就「國家—社會」關係的研究角度看來，目前仍由「國家中心論」所主導，國家的意志與能力被視為關鍵的解釋變項，因而忽略了對社會力量如何組織以及如何動員的關注，也無法針對不同議題性質與社會部門行動者屬性異同的比較。針對此，本文在理論上以組織「治理結構」研究中「組織場域」為基礎，提出一個關於中國NGO的場域分析框架，將社會組織在模式、動力與機制上的變化與影響，視為重要的研究對象。另一方面，在實證研究上，本文選擇當前中國最為活躍的兩個草根組織─環保與愛滋病組織為研究對象，在這兩個領域中，雖出現部分類似特徵，但其在行動策略、動員模式，以及與國家互動的關係上，卻呈現出截然不同的圖像，本文基於廣泛的經驗調查，將具體描述這些面向的差異。最後，本文將透過上述的理論與實證對話，呈現當前中國社會組織的治理結構與組織場域圖像，以期對相關研究有所貢獻。

China's drive toward reform and modernization over the past 30 years has not only led to rapid economic growth, but has also created new opportunities for social change. The dramatic changes and significant consequences stirred by the development of social organizations have drawn much attention to the subject. Existing studies on the state-society relationship remain largely dominated by the "State-centered approach", in which the state will and capacity are considered to be the key interpretation variables. By contrast, the attention given to the "organizing of social forces" and "mobilization of social resources" remains limited, and inadequate attention has been directed to the influence arising from the differences between the nature of different agendas and the characteristics of social-sector actors. With the tendency to focus on state apparatuses, research on the relationship between the state and social organizations in China today has been going nowhere, and more in-depth comparative analysis is unlikely.Theoretically, this article first of all argues that the "governance structure" and "organizational field" of social forces should be reestablished as the focus of research in contemporary China. Such research must focus on the changes in and effects of the various models, driving forces, and structures of social organizations. Secondly, it presents an empirical study of the two most active grassroots organizations in China-environmental NGOs and AIDS NGOs. Both organizations exhibit similar characteristics in certain areas, but they differ vastly in terms of action strategy, methods of mobilization, and interaction with the state. Backed up by extensive empirical investigations, this article will demonstrate such differences. Based on these, this article provides a dialogue with the foregoing empirical research to identify the potential blind spots of existing theoretical viewpoints in their analyses.