The Anthropology of Power and Maoism

Author(s): Andrew Kipnis

Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 105, No. 2 (Jun., 2003), pp. 278-288
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567502 .
Accessed: 13/07/2011 19:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org
 ANDREW KIPNIS

The Anthropologyof Power and Maoism

ABSTRACT Thelegaciesof Maoistrulemadereflecting on poweralmostunavoidable forU.S.anthropologists

whoconductedre-
in
search thePeople'sRepublic In I
ofChina(PRC)justafterMao's death. thisarticle,examinethetheorization ofpowerintheworks
offivesuchanthropologists. their
Although approaches are diverse,
theysharean historical
awareness ofthe unexpected
dynamics
andparadoxicaloutcomesofMao'sattempts to enacta revolutionary
transformation
ofthesocialorganization
ofpowerinthePRC.I
concludethisarticlebyenumerating
lessonsfromtheseauthors'analysesfortheanthropological studyofpoweringeneral.[Key-
words:power,Maoism,governance,China,postsocialism]

EveryCommunistmustgraspthetruth,"politicalpower theirown politicalassumptionsand to seekout new ways

growsout ofthebarrelofa gun."
-Mao T'se-tung
I wentto China withMarxisthopes;but I leftwithMax
Weber'sworstfears.Writingthisethnography has been
endeavor.
a self-reflective
-Helen F. Siu
I EXPLORE
N THISARTICLE, obscurecor-
a relatively
ner of the discipline-the anthropologyof Maoism-
to elicita set of principlesforgainingdepth and clarity
fromthe diversityof anthropologicalapproachesto the
studyof power.Whileprimarily concernedwiththe exer-
cise oftheorizingpower,I beginbybriefly
exploringsome
of the reasonswhythe anthropologyof Maoism makesa
valuableresourceforthisexercise.
particularly
U.S. anthropologists were not allowed into the Peo-
ple's Republicof China (PRC)untilafterMao died in 1976,
and the continuationof anthropologicalstudiesof the
PRC coincidedwiththe emergenceof poweras a central
theoreticalconcept in culturalanthropology(D'Andrade
as the epigraphby Siu illus-
1999). More importantly,
trates,the firstpost-MaoPRC anthropologicalresearchers
were oftenmotivatedby personalinterestin the radical
transformations of the social organizationof powerthat
Maoism and Marxismmore broadlysuggest.They saw
Marxiansocial theoryas simultaneously a theoreticalre-
sourceforanthropology, a governingideologyin the PRC,
and a sourceof theirown politicalhopes. The failuresof
Maoist governance,1particularlyits inabilityto replace
capitalismwitha systemin whichthe abuse ofpowerdis-
appeared,forcedtheseanthropologists to both reexamine
forunderstanding thedynamicsofpowerin general.
Because of Mao's effortsto involve the "masses"
themselvesin therevolutionary transformation ofsociety,
these ethnographersconfrontedMaoism not only as a
governingideologyforelites,butalso as a formofthought
thathad deeplyinformedpopularconsciousness.Lisa Ro-
fel's(1999) depictionof silkfactory workersin the cityof
Hangzhou shows how deeply Maoism influencedthose
who came of age duringthe CulturalRevolution.Even
duringthe mid-1980s,when they had abandoned both
theirreverenceforMao and theirfaithin collectivism,
theseworkersmaintainedtheir"beliefthatstruggle against
improperauthority is the singularly
mostimportantactiv-
ityin life" (Rofel1999:176). They habituallyquestioned
and challengedthose with power in theirfactory.Their
conceptionof power itselfseemed anthropological,em-
bracing assumptionsthat many within the discipline
wouldconsiderFoucauldian.Theyperceivedpoweras an in-
escapable aspect of all social relationsand "politicsas a
dialecticalrelationship[in which]authorityexistson one
side ofa socialrelationship, and insubordination standsas
its oppositeforce,in the faceofwhichit pushesor stops"
(Rofel1999:176).Foranthropologists interestedin Maoism
to beginwith,it is easyto understandhow researchamong
such people could lead to reflectionon the problemsof
power.
The books I have chosen to examinehere-Helen F.
Siu'sAgentsand Victims inSouthChina:Accomplices inRural
Revolution(1989), Mayfair Mei-hui Yang'sGifts,Favors,and
Banquets: The Art of Social in
Relationships China (1994),
RobertP. Weller'sResistance, Chaos,and Controlin China:
TaipingRebels,Taiwanese Ghosts,andTiananmen (1994),Ann

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 105(2):278-288. COPYRIGHT ? 2003, AMERICANANTHROPOLOGICALASSOCIATION


Anagnost'sNationalPast-Times:Narrative, Representation,
and Powerin ModemChina (1997), and JudithFarquhar's
Knowing Practice:TheClinicalEncounterofChineseMedicine
(1994a)-all addressMaoismas a generalphenomenonand
problematize theconceptofpower.Perhapsnot coinciden-
tally,all ofthesebookswereauthoredbyU.S.-educatedan-
thropologists who did theirfieldwork in the PRC during
thelate 1970sand early1980s,whentheshadowsofMaoist
governanceloomed largest,and who continueto workin
wherepowerremainsa primary
U.S. universities, concern.2
In derivinga "post-Maoist"approachto the studyof
powerfromtheseworks,mypurposeis not simplyto add
to an alreadyimpressivelist of anthropologicalperspec-
tives on power: feminist,postcolonial,poststructuralist,
Weberian,Foucauldian,Marxian,and so on. Justas many
ofthesesignpostscould be shownto have multipleand at
timescontradictory meanings,the authorsI examinehere
cannotbe said to have arrivedat a singletheoreticalposi-
tion.In sensesthatI hope to makeclear,Yang is explicitly
Focauldian,Siu and Wellerare implicitlyWeberian,while
Farquharand Anagnostmightbe labeledpoststructuralist.
What these authorsshareis a view of Maoism as a theo-
reticaldiscoursethatsimultaneously
governedChineseso-
influenced
ciety, anthropology, structured
and theirown
Such a view of Maoism
political imagination. required
theseauthorsto reflecton the interrelations
among their
own politics,theirtheoreticalchoices, and theirethno-
Whatevertheirdifferences,
graphicportrayals. theytheo-
rizepowerwithoutgivingin to tendenciesto reifyitintoa
singular,omn'ipotent concept,to denounceit as an evilto
oppose, or to ignore complexityofthe dynamicsit in-
the
dexes. Throughsummarizingtheirworks,I derivesome
common principlesapplicable to a broad range of ap-
proachesto theanthropologicalstudyofpower.
AGENTS AND VICTIMS IN SOUTH CHINA
Siu's Agentsand Victimsin SouthChina is one of the first
English-language ethnographiesof China to be published
in the post-Maoera. Siu began her fieldwork in 1977, re-
turningto a partof the PearlRiverDelta whereshe still
had relatives.The book focuseson the evolutionof the
multifaceted relationshipbetweenthecentralstateand lo-
cal societyundertheruleoftheChineseCommunistParty
(CCP), particularly in termsof the roles of local elites.It
raises a long seriesof questions about the organization
and dynamicsofpowerunderMao.
Organizedhistoricallyand full of examples,tables,
maps, and individualprofiles,the book's empiricallyrich
detailcan itselfbe readas a critiqueofthetypeofideologi-
cally drivenhistoriesproducedby the Maoist regime,of
the verynotionthathistoricaland culturallegaciesshould
in thefirstinstancebe treatedas ideologicalartifacts,a no-
tion thatwas enshrinedin even primaryschool textbooks
in Mao's China (Siu 1989:18). The book beginswitha rich
descriptionof the PearlRiverDelta duringthe Qing Dy-
nasty(1644-1911); briefly tracesthe turbulentfirsthalfof
Kipnis * Anthropologyof Maoism 279
the 20thcentury, whenwarlordsbattledforruleofthena-
tion, the Japaneseinvaded,and civilwarbetweenthe Na-
tionalistsand Communistsbrokeout; and finisheswitha
close descriptionofthechangesbroughtaboutduringsuc-
cessivephases of Maoist governance.To greatlyoversim-
plify,the tale is one of the transformation of a dispersed
complexofpowerrelationsduringtheQing Dynasty(mul-
tiplyorganizedin lineages,ancestraltrusts,marketing or-
ganizations, templehierarchies, academiesof learning,and
local militias)into a unitarystructure ofpoweremanating
frompartyheadquartersin Beijingand enforcedlocally
throughthe overlappingstructures of householdregistra-
tion, communallyorganizedpropertyrights,the assign-
mentof class labels,and statemonopolycontrolof agri-
culturaland nonagricultural productsand inputs.
Siu's depictionof thistransformation raisesa number
of "paradoxesofpower"(to pluralizethetitleofone ofher
chapters)and toucheson the perennialissues of agency,
complicity,and rebellionin the process.As Ortner(1996:
1-20), amongmanyothers,argues,social analysisusually
fallsinto the trapsof makingeithertoo much or too little
of agency.Siu avoids thesepitfallsby focusingon the ele-
mentsof contradiction and paradoxthatarisein the very
of
processes exercising, consolidating,and resistingpower.
Considerfirsta seriesof questionsrelatingto placing
individualsin positionsofpoliticalpower.Who shouldbe
trustedwithpower?The systemofclass labelswas in part
a methodforidentifying leadersforthe new society,but
the CCP labels fitneitherthe complexitiesof earlierDelta
socioeconomiclife nor local ideals of virtue.Few Delta
residentshad the puritythe CCP was looking for,and
Delta cadres selectedat the beginningof CCP rule were
oftenlater purgedfor the "counterrevolutionary" affili-
ationstheyheld beforeCCP rule.Ifa revolutionary trans-
formationof societyis to be imaginedand pursued,how
can anyone raisedin the old societybe a suitableleader?
Second is the problemofpoweras a corrupting force.Part
of Mao's justification forlaunchingthe CulturalRevolu-
tion (1966-68) was thatlocal cadreshad become corrupt
because of the privilegesgrantedto themwhilein power,
whilethe inanityofMao's own actionsraisesthequestion
of whatholdingso muchpowerdid to Mao himself.Con-
ceivingpoweras a forcethat corruptsthose who hold it
complicatesthe metaphorof a "powerholder,"a human
agent who is able to possess an inanimatething. Can
powereversimplybe held? Finallyis the problemofwhy
an individualwouldwanta positionofpowerand respon-
sibilityin the firstplace. When local leaderswereframed
as targetsduringthe CulturalRevolutionforthe purpose
of trainingthe next generationof rebels,many of them
became more than willingto pass on the trappingsand
responsibilitiesofpositionsin localgovernment to therebels
(see also Chan et al. 1992:128-129). Should powereverbe
given to someone who reallywantsit?
A secondtypeofparadoxinvolvestherelationship be-
tweensystemsofpowerand higherpurposes.Bythe Great
Leap Forward(1958-59), the CCP organizationof local
280 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 2 * June2003
powerwas at its height.Local cadreswererequiredto en-
forcechangeson local societyin a way that earlierlocal
leaderscould onlyimagine.Spurredon by theirsuperiors,
local cadrescompetedwitheach otherin agreeingto give
moregrainto the state,commitmorelaborto corveepro-
jects,and followMaoistdirectivesto the letter.One cadre
interviewed bySiu explainedtheperiodas follows:
We wereall caughtin thespirit
ofeuphoria,
competing
withone another,exaggeratingand thenbelievingour
Thestateexpected
exaggerations. sowepres-
ustodeliver
suredthemasses.Whydidthepeasants comply? Wellif
theywanted toeat,theyhadtowork; therewasnoalter-
native.
Onecouldnotsurvive ofthecollective
outside ...
Sincethepartyenjoyedtremendous powerto organize
people'slives,whenthingswentwrong, peoplewould
notblamethemselves;theyblamed theparty
andthecad-
resinstead.
[1989:185-187]
In thefinalanalysis,theveryextentofthispowerrevealed
itslimitations.ForifthePartysucceededin firstcreatinga
relativelymonolithicgroup consistingof "the masses"
and thendrivingthemto absurdefforts, itfailedmiserably
in accomplishingits statedgoal-a leap forwardin rural
development.In short,when conceptualizingpower,the
powerto manipulatepeople and the powerto accomplish
ends shouldnotbe conflated.
The relationshipbetween the power to manipulate
othersand the powerto accomplishends arisesagain in
Siu'sanalysisoftheCulturalRevolution. HereWeber's(1978:
212-301) typologyof the specificformsauthoritytakes
(rationalversuscharismaticand so on) is relevant.During
the CulturalRevolution,Mao bypassedhis own bureauc-
racyand spurredthe Red Guardsto actionby cultivating
his own charismaand spreadinghis wordsthroughthe
propagandaapparatus.As Siu puts it, "directideological
weapons replaced organizationalpower" (1989:242). As
powerin concretecontextsbecamemoreand moredepend-
entupon an individual'sabilityto convinceothersthathe
or she had thebestinterpretation of the ideologyin ques-
tion,politicsbecame moreand moresubjective.Although
it was easy enough to unleash destructiveforcesin this
manner,it is unclearwhatelse could have been achieved.
Finally,Siu's analysesraise a seriesof paradoxesre-
gardingthe relationshipof local and individualagencyto
stateorganizedpower.When describingthe riseofMaoist
statepowerduringthe early1950s,Siu emphasizeshow it
could not have been achievedwithouta degreeof com-
plicityfromDelta residents.Nationalistrule been brutal
enoughto makea regimechangedesirableformostDelta
residents,and many of them foundways of turningthe
construction ofCCP powerto theirown ends,at leasttem-
In
porarily. contrast,when describingthe post-Maodis-
mantlingof the communesand construction of a market
economy, Siu emphasizes how Delta residents could not
have resistedthe reforms even iftheyhad wantedto. The
reforms wereforceddown theirthroatbythe samepower-
ful governmentthat theyhad helped to constructthree
decades earlier.In short,Siu ironicallyfocuseson local
complicityin the constructionof structures thatbecame
oppressiveand local powerlessness in the faceof changes
that,at leastin economicterms,enrichedthe majorityof
Delta residents.3Thus, the analysis of the exercise of
agencycan be separatedfromthatof the construction of
locallyempoweringsocioeconomicstructures as well.
Yet anotherparadox of individualagencyand state
power involves the relationshipbetween rebellionand
submissionduringthe CulturalRevolution.Mao's incite-
ment of Red Guard rebellionwas partof his strategy for
consolidatingpower at the top of the CCP. At the very
coreof Red Guardrebellionwas submissionto Mao's cha-
risma.Siu states:
Rebellionagainst wasapparently
authority motivatedby
ardentloyaltytoauthority,
beitMao'sorthatoftheparty
bureaucrats.
Powerfulpatrons likeMao wereelevated to
superhuman stature.
Revoltagainstleadingpolitical
fig-
uresintheparty hierarchy reinforced
paradoxically their
importance amongthoseinvolvedin the struggle. It
seemedthatrebellionwasoccurringundertheshadowof
itsideological [1989:240]
opposite.
Here,again,Siu avoidsthetrapsofmakingtoo littleor too
muchof agencyby focusingon the elementsof contradic-
tioninherentin socialactionitself.
In sum,Agentsand Victimsilluminatesa whole series
of paradoxesabout power,agency,complicity, and rebel-
lion in the evolutionof state-society
relationsin the Pearl
River Delta. AlthoughSiu herselfdoes not summarize
theseparadoxesin any explicitway,the issuestheyentail
are importantones foran era when powerhas becomean
all too oftenreifiedconceptin anthropological theory.
PRACTICE AND IDEOLOGY UNDER MAOISM
Siu's studyof the role of local elitesin state-society
rela-
tionsis complementedby AnnAnagnost'sand JudithFar-
quhar'smusingson therelationships betweenwriting, prac-
tice,and ideologyin the of
exercise powerunderMaoism.4
As Siu's historicalexamples illustrate,many of the ten-
sionsbetweencenterand localityin implementing Maoist
policiesinvolvedthe mannerin whichtheoreticalor ideo-
logical writingsemanatingfromthe centerwere inter-
pretedin local settings.The mostdestructive momentsoc-
curredwhen local practicewas dogmaticallymade to
conformto Maoisttheory.
On the surface,Farquhar'sKnowingPracticeseemsto
have littleto do withquestionsof power.It addressesthe
relationshipbetweenmedicalpracticeand textualknowl-
edge in traditionalChinesemedicine.Farquharcompleted
an 18-month courseat a collegeoftraditional
Chinesemedi-
cine that involved,as all such coursesdo, both rigorous
textualtrainingin variousmedicaltraditionsand practical
trainingin diagnosingand treatingillness.Althoughthis
dual focusmay seem comparableto the trainingof West-
ernphysicians,Farquharwas takenabackby the extentto
whichthedifferent traditions ofChinesemedicineyielded
conflicting of
interpretations symptomsand, moreimpor-
tantly, wayin whichdoctorshandledtheseconflicting
the
interpretations. When she asked her teachersto analyze

amongthesecompeting
thecontradictions she
traditions,
was toldthatdoctorsusedtheir"experience" to
(jingyan)
makediagnosticdecisionsand thatshe shouldtake"prac-
tice" (shijian)as herguide.In short,theoreticalcontradic-
tionswereneverexplicitlyaddressed.This experienceled
her to make the relationshipbetweenthe textualizedtra-
ditionsand doctors'practicethefocusofherethnography.
She concludedthat,at least duringthe early1980s, Chi-
nese doctors'attitudestowardconflicting medicaltheories
were"relativisitic."
Doctorsmustact,and theymusthavean ethicsand a
Buttheymustintervene inillness
whileknowing
politics.
thatthere isnooneworld, nosingleobjective
standpoint,
no absolute truth. Onekeyto theirefficacy
liesin their
willingness to acceptteachingfromthepastand from
elsewhere, their thatslowly
understanding embodied vir-
cannot
tuosity befinally andtheir
verbalized, that
politics
can function in a worldofmultiplebiasesand bodies.
[Farquhar 1994b:93]
This eclecticismmight seem distantfromissues of
powerunderMaoism,but the languageof takingpractice
as one's guide was politicallycharged throughoutthe
Maoist period,indexinga whole seriesof issuesregarding
the relationshipbetweenwrittenguidelines,instructions,
and theoriesissuedby the statecenterand theirinterpre-
tation and implementationin local settings.While Red
Guardswere taughtto learn revolutionary ideals by put-
ting Maoism into "practice,"quotes from Mao's famous
essay, "On Practice,"like "Discover the truth through
practice"(Mao 1975:308), were ofteninvokeddisingenu-
ously to resistthe dogmaticimplementationof Maoist
As Farquhar
policy.5 putsit,"Chinesepeoplecan be said
to have lived,sometimesbitterly, a 'practiceof practice'"
(1994a:3). The dogmaticimplementationof a "scientific
Marxism"that sharplylimitedaccess to othersourcesof
textuallybased knowledgeformedthe historicalback-
groundto thedoctors'concernwitheclecticism.
Anagnost's(1997) workexplicitlytheorizesthe rela-
tionshipbetweenwriting, worldmaking,and powerunder
Maoism. She begins her book with an analysisof suku
(speakingbitterness), the Maoist techniquein which im-
poverished individualswere taughtto publiclydescribe
theirsufferings in termsof the revolutionary categoriesof
class and exploitationduringpoliticalcampaigns.Anag-
nostdrawson MarstonAnderson's(1990) literary analyses
of socialistrealismand Derrida'snotion of "presence"to
theorizespeakingbitternessas a processby which ideas
and categoriesthat firstappeared in Marxisttheoretical
writings weretransformed into social realities.Derridacri-
tiques notionsof writtenrepresentation in whichwriting
is seen as merelyre-presentingsomethingthatwas already
present.Instead, Derrida sees writingas a powerfulact
thatreconfigures theworldratherthan merelymimicking
it. Anagnostsimilarlyexamineshow Maoistwritingswere
used to remakethe world,even creatingthe "peasantsub-
ject" ratherthan simplyreportingon a social type that
was alreadypresent.As she putsit,
Kipnis * Anthropologyof Maoism 281
In revolutionary a poetics
practice, ofthebodyanditsin-
sultsmovedfromliterary to thespoken
representations
wordsofuneducated Thiseruptionintospeech
peasants.
ofthepeasantsubjectmustthereforebe placedwithin
a
wholesystem ofrepresentations
in whichnewconcep-
tionsof the socialand historical
became"real-ized"
throughthevisceral ofthespeaking
experience subject.
[1997:19]
Speakingbitternessmade its deepestimprinton China's
social landscapethroughits rolein "real-izing"Mao's sys-
tem of class identities.BecauseMao definedclass in rural
China as much in termsof the experienceof exploitation
as in termsof relationsto the meansofproduction,narra-
tives of speakingbitterness(i.e., experiencingexploita-
tion) directlyinformedboth the processof assigningclass
labelsand local understandings and embodimentsofwhat
these labels meant.AlthoughMao's definitionof class in
termsof exploitationcan be said to have allowed local
conditionsto influencethe definitionof class categories,
theirapplicationwas by no meansa transparent reflection
of preexisting conditions.In mostcampaigns,workteams
wereforcedto fillstate-designated numericquotasforland-
lords or other undesirablecategories(Vogel 1969:108).
Duringthe Land Reform(the firstruralcampaign)many
people had to be trainedextensivelybeforethey could
speaktheirbitterness in theproperclassterms.Anagnost's
point,however, is not to disputetheaccuracyoftheCCP's
categories,but to note theirproductivepowerin transform-
ingthesociallandscape.HereherquotationofVaclavHavel's
discussionof the role of ideologyin EasternEuropeboth
illuminatesthisproductivepowerand suggestscommon-
alitiesin theuse ofideologyacrossmostsocialistregimes:
Ideologyis ultimatelysubordinated
"totheinterests
of
the structure
... it has a naturaltendencyto disengage
fromreality, tocreatea worldofappearances,tobecome
ritual.... It becomesreality albeita reality
itself, alto-
getherself-contained, onethaton certain levels(chiefly
insidethepowerstructure) mayhavea greater weight
thanreality as such.[1997:108]
While class categorieswere perhapsthe mostimpor-
tantmethodbywhichthe CCP inscribeditsideologyonto
the social, the communistprocess of categorizingand
naming individuals and collectivesextended to many
otherrealmsas well.As Bakken(2000) suggests,China was
governedin largepartby labelingmodelsto be emulated
(and countermodelsto be scorned). In another article,
Anagnostsuggeststhat by acting within,ignoring,and
falselyassumingtheidentitylabelsgivenbythestate,Chi-
nese individualsand communities compliedwith,resisted,
and manipulatedto theiradvantagethe "hegemonicfic-
tions" (1997:55) spun by the Maoist state.Thus,like Siu,
Anagnostboth examinesthe spaces foragencyin Maoist
structuresofpowerand analysesthedynamicsthatemerge.
In the conclusionto this latteressay,Anagnostcon-
traststhis dynamicwith the mechanismsof panoptical
disciplinethatFoucaultsuggestsforWesternsocieties:
Subjectsarenotconstituted
as objectsofknowledge
in a
scienceoftheindividualso muchas theyareclassified
282 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 2 * June2003
intoa system
ofsignsthatlocates
themas factors
ina his-
torical a master
drama, narrative
abouttheconsciously
di-
towardsocialism.. . . Thegoalis notso
rectedprogression
muchtheorthopedic of theindividual
refashioning so
thatdeviance ismadetoconform toa normpresumed to
be already presentin thesocialbodyas a wholebutthe
radicalre-formationofthatverysocialbody,inwhichold
practicesaredisplacedbynew,intheutopicprojection of
a newsocialreality.[1997:116]
Perhapsmy framingof thiscontrastexaggerates.As May-
fairYang's discussion(below) of socialistbiopowerillus-
trates,the Maoist regimedid concernitselfwitheliciting
compliance to specificbehavioral programs.Moreover,
momentsof utopic projectionare undoubtedlycommon
in Westernregimesas well.YetI agreefullywithAnagnost
in pointingto the relativeimportanceof the drive to
utopicexcessas a distinguishing featureof socialism.The
difference involvesthe place of holistictransformation in
the socialistimaginary.Insofaras the verylegitimacyof
theregimeis caughtup in itsabilityto maketheclaimthatit
has enableda holistictransformation, socialiststatestendto
play the of
game enforcing the acknowledgment of their
social categorieseven and especiallywhen theyseem ir-
relevantto otherrealmsofeverydaypractice.Thisleads to
thehighlypoliticizedritualsofMaoistcampaigns.Though
theseritualsundeniablyshaped social "reality,"rarelydid
the changestheyeffected have muchto do withthetrans-
formations literally
suggestedbytheideologiesin question.
GIFTS, FAVORS, AND BANQUETS: THE ART OF SOCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS IN CHINA
MayfairYang's(1994) book describesPRC discoursesabout
and practicesof creatingand manipulatingsocialrelation-
ships,or guanxixue.In contrastto Siu's focuson a single
geographicregionor Farquhar'sfocuson a well-defined
institution,Yang examines a diffuseseriesof discourses
and practicesacross a broad urban landscape. Like the
otherauthorsreviewedhere,however,Yang analysesthe
distinctivenatureof Maoist statepower,its failures,and
itstransformative Morethanany oftheothers,she
effects.
makestheexplicittheorizingofthispowera primary goal.
Yang introducesher accountwith a narrationof the
difficultiesshe encounteredin attempting to do fieldwork
in the early1980s. She describesthe fearengenderedby a
pervasiveclimateof surveillance(in which,forexample,
all visitorsto herdormroomwererequiredto register with
the authorities),the maze of bureaucraticchannels she
neededto navigateto securepermission fortheformalstudy
she had originallyplanned,and the counterstrategies she
learnedforavoidingboth surveillanceand dealing with
bureaucracies.She situatesthese difficulties not as the
unique circumstancesof a foreignresearcher, but as in-
dicativeof the practicaldynamicsof livingundera still
fairlyMaoist systemof statepower.Yang then describes
hertheoreticalstrategies fordescribingthissystem:
In outliningtheworkings ofstatepower,I do notsimply
seekto describethe statein termsof a narrowtechnical
senseofthebureaucracy class.The stateis
and itsofficial
notitssystem oflaws,rules,andregulations;noris it a
system offorcebasedonlyon policing,punishment, and
militaryaction.Whatforms a pointofdepartureforthis
inquiryintomodern forms ofsocialcontrolandcounter-
controlincontemporary ChinaisFoucault's noveldefini-
tionofpower[1980]as a constitutivefieldanddiscourse
ofstrategic rather
action, thansomething possessedbya
classora group.[Yang1994:43]
Yang continues,"What is at issue in this book is not
merelyclass or institutionalcontrol,but a moderntech-
nique and telosofpower"(Yang 1994:43). Yang'sreliance
on Foucaultmovesheranalysisin two,somewhatcontra-
dictorydirections.On the one hand, she deliberately sets
herselfapart fromthe Maoist, revolutionary preoccupa-
tion with "seizing"power.Those who treatpower as an
object to be seized tend to neglectthat technologiesof
power can have similarsystemiceffectsno matterwho
controlsthemand that"holding"a certainformof power
can transform the will of the powerholderherselfin un-
anticipatedways.On theotherhand,she is quite sensitive
to the factthatdifferent systemicstructures of powercan
entaildiffering socialdynamics.She emphasizesthediffer-
ences between state power in Stalinist,totalitariansys-
tems,and Westerncapitalistones, as well as the differ-
ences between states that focus almost exclusivelyon
economic developmentand those that definetheirpro-
jectsin moral-political ratherthan economicterms(Yang
1994:40-43). Insofaras this latteremphasisimpliesthat
"who" holdspoweris importantat leastin termsof deter-
miningthe overallstructure of the systemimplemented,
the two directionsof Yang's analysiscould be taken as
contradictory, though I preferto see them as necessary
complements.
Yangappliesthenotionofpoweras a constitutive social
fieldto not one butthreedistinct"domainsofpowertech-
niques"thatshe seesinteracting in Chinaduringthe 1980s.
Eachdomaincorresponds to a particular
modeofexchange:
(1) thestatedistributiveeconomy, (2) thegifteconomy
and(3) a resurgent
[i.e.,guanxixue], commodity economy.
Eachmodefollows itsownrulesofoperation anditsown
corpusof etiquette and goodforms in socialrelations,
produces itsownsystem of valuation and ratesof ex-
change, andrepresentsa uniquestyleofthetactics and
strategiesof domination. Thoughrepresenting distinct
tactical thesedomains ofpowertechniques arenot
styles,
mutually in thesensethattheycomprise
exclusive sepa-
rateinstitutions or functions of the socialstructure;
rather, theytransverseinstitutionsand areintertwined
within them.Furthermore, thepracticesofeachmodeof
exchange canbe seenas reactionstothepractices ofthe
othertwomodes,so thattheir boundaries aremarked by
conflict.
[Yang1994:178-179]
AlthoughMarxistsystemsof state distributive economy
orientedtowardthe principleofgivingto
are theoretically
each accordingto his orherneedsand, thus,towardelimi-
nating the operationof power fromthe distributionof
systemthatadminis-
goods and services,the bureaucratic
tersthe economy quicklyusurpsthe disciplinarypower
thatcapitalholdsin capitalisteconomies.Goods and serv-

ices are distributednot only accordingto a principleof
need but also accordingto the principleof complying
withthe demandsof the bureaucraticsystemitself.Prior-
ityforstatehousingin the 1980s, forexample,was given
to those who had compliedwiththe birthcontrolpolicy
and had providedexemplaryserviceto theirworkunits,or
underMao to thosewho had been assignedclass statuses
that supposedlydemonstratedtheirloyaltyto the state.
The extentof this normalizing,disciplinaryprocessex-
tendsto the entirefieldof goods distributed by the state,
including (in the early 1980s) serviceslike medical care
and education,as wellas theenormousrangeoflifeactivi-
tiesforwhichbureaucratic permissionswereneeded,such
as marriage,divorce,birth,movingone's householdregis-
ter,changingjobs, obtaininga passportor driver'slicense,
and so on.
The gifteconomyand relatedsystemofpowerpoached
offand operatedin resistanceto the officialstatedistribu-
tive economy.The officialeconomycreatedinnumerable
opportunities forindividualbureaucrats to divertresources
away fromstateends and towardpersonalends. Though
theseopportunities formedthebasisforthegifteconomy,
Yang does not simplyequate thiseconomywiththe cor-
ruption of a narrowlydefinedbureaucraticelite.In urban
China, the state economyconstructeda "societyof gate-
keepers" in which the numberof people who controlled
access to some good, service,or necessaryformofbureau-
craticpermissionwas enormous.Moreover,accessto these
gatekeeperswas extendedthroughnetworksof kin and
friendship to all thosewho held some sortof relationship
to the gatekeeper.As a consequence,the artof social rela-
tionshipsbecame a ubiquitoustechniquein urbanChina,
as it was in the SovietUnion and EasternEurope(see also
Walder 1986). Bureaucratsweresimultaneouslyenforcers
of stateprocessesof normalizationand keylinksin chains
of the gifteconomy.This dual role splitthe subjectivities
of individualbureaucratsand enabled the two systemsof
powerto transverse and intertwine
institutions withinthem.
Yang emphasizes that the gifteconomy was also a sys-
of
tem power and morality.Whereasthe statedistributive
economyworkedto enforcea regimeof normalizationto
state definedpoliticaland moral ends, the gifteconomy
restedon and actedto reproducea formofalternative eth-
ics thatemphasizedreciprocity, personalloyalty,kinship,
mutualaid, and so on. The gifteconomythusinvolveda
realmof personalisticpowerthathas been well described
by anthropologists in othercontexts.Thispowercentered
on the deploymentof symboliccapital (Bourdieu1977)
and was markedby a lackof subject-objectdistinctionbe-
tweenthe itemexchangedand the people who exchange
it (Gregory1982; Strathern1984, 1988). Yang arguesthat
the dimension of personalisticpower differentiated the
gifteconomy from the commodity economies that also
developedunderthe shadowofsocialiststateeconomies.
The tensionsbetween the state and gifteconomies
ariseat manylevels.Attheideologicallevel,Yangexplores
thistensionby explainingMao's seeminglystrange(from
Kipnis * Anthropologyof Maoism 283
a Marxistvantage)identification withQin Shihuang(the
firstemperorof China) in the "CriticizeLin Biao,Criticize
Confucius"campaignof 1972. Wherepre-QinConfucian-
ism saw the stateas familialrelationshipswritlargeand
envisionedgood leadershipas the harmonizingofhuman
relations,Qin's Legalistphilosophysaw the strengthof
the stateas restingon the destructionof social relation-
ships and the total atomizationof society.Familyloyal-
ties,friendship,and social relationsin generalwereimag-
ined as comingat the expenseof loyaltyto the stateand,
thus,wereto be discouragedby a varietyof brutalmeans.
The classicliteratureon totalitarianism similarlydescribes
social atomizationas consequenceofthe reignofterrorin
totalitarianregimes(Arendt1967; Wittfogel1957), but
Yang'spointhereis different. ForYang,the conceptionof
totalitarianstatesas atomizingis a facetof those states'
self-representationsratherthana socialreality.In fact,the
distribution systemsof Maoist and Staliniststatesengen-
dered societiesdominatedby a refinedart of social rela-
tionships.The propagandathatpresentsan atomizedsoci-
etyas an ideal and realityof socialistlife,like thatin the
"CriticizeLin Biao, CriticizeConfucius"campaign,is a
statereactionagainstthisart.
At the level of individualsubjectivity, Yang explores
the tensionbetweenthe stateand gifteconomiesthrough
herdiscussionofMao worship.In Mao worship,"each in-
dividualwas broughtto an equal distancefromtheleader
or statecenter,and statesurveillancewas directlyembed-
ded in the interiority of each subject" (Yang 1994:248).
Evenforthe mostdevoted,however,completeloyaltywas
neverpossible.Therewas alwaysthe problemof a "flash
of thought"in whichan unrevolutionary idea would un-
expectedlyeruptinto consciousness.Such flashesnecessi-
tatedconfession,discipline,and self-doubt. These flashes
point to the contradictory nature of socialist statepower.
On the one hand, the classificationand normalization
proceduresofthe centralizedstatedistribution systemcre-
atedhighlydifferentiated On
subjects. the other hand,the
propagandaapparatuspromotedthe image of the people
as fullyunified,what Lefort(1986), in his analysisof the
Stalincult,callsthe "People-as-One."
All of Yang's argumentsreflecther Foucauldiantheo-
rizationof power,invitinga briefconsiderationof com-
mon criticisms of Foucault.In criticalessayson both Fou-
cault'swork(Habermas1987; Hoy 1986; Said 1986) and its
applicationsto the anthropology of China (Sangren1995,
of
2000), questions agencypredominate.By denyingthat
power is somethingheld by a particularhuman agent,
does not Foucault'sconceptionbecomenihilistic?Bymak-
ing power into a kind of all-determining superorganic
structure-Powerwith a capital "P"-does not Foucault's
conceptionreproducethe errorsof the most staticforms
of structural-functionalism? Sangren (2000) compares
Foucault'sconceptof powerto the Chinesereligiouscon-
cept of "ling"(a typeof magicalpowerusuallyattributed
to deities)and suggeststhatboth conceptsmystify power
relationsby portraying poweras above and beyondindi-
284 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 2 * June2003
vidual human agency.AlthoughI have considerablesym-
pathywiththesecritiques,I thinkthatthereis moreroom
for middle ground than is usually acknowledged.Both
Foucaultand Yang are concernedwithsystemictechnolo-
giesofpower.Thesetechnologiescan persistovertimebe-
cause the people theyempowerdominatetheirsocieties.
Fromthe perspectiveof a powerfulindividual,abandon-
ing a particulartechnologydoes not guaranteethat an-
otherpersonwillnot use it to reestablisha similarformof
domination.But thisargumentdoes not implythatsuch
wholes. To pre-
technologiesconstituteself-reproducing
vent a recognitionof the systemiceffectsof certaintech-
nologiesofpowerfromslidingintoa reductivetheoretical
functionalism of Power,what is needed is neithera total
denial of the agencyof powerholdersnor a denial that
technologiesof powercan have systemizing but,
effects,
rather,a formof practicetheory,whichis just what San-
grenadvocates.
Viewingpowerin thisway opens up the concretehis-
toricalquestionsposed by Siu. How does the veryfactof
"holding"a certainformofsocialpowerconstrainor limit
the powerholder?Aredifferent formsofpowermoresuit-
able forachievingdifferentends?How so? And,mostim-
portantly, how mightwe reformsystemsof powerso that
they are more just?The workofRobertWellerprovidesyet
anotherstrategy forengagingsuchquestions.
SATURATED SOLUTIONS AND THE PRECIPITATION OF
RESISTANCE
At firstglance,Weller's(1994) book is not an anthropo-
logicalstudyof Maoism at all. Two of his threecase stud-
ies of powerand resistancein Chinese social movements
(the studyof the 19th-century TaipingRebellionand that
of ghostworshipin Taiwan duringthe mid-1980s)do not
involve the PRC, while the third(the 1989 Tiananmen
studentmovement)focuseson a post-Mao movement.
Nevertheless, I include his book here forthreereasons.
First,Wellerconducted his historicalresearchon theTaip-
ing Rebellion 1984-85 duringa yearat NanjingUniver-
in
sity,exposinghim to the PRC duringa periodwhen the
shadowsof Maoism stillloomed large.Second,his discus-
sion of Tiananmenfocuseson the postcrackdown reasser-
tion of authoritariancontrol, action associatedwith
an
the more conservative(i.e., Maoist) factionsof the party
apparatus.Finally,and mostimportantly, he drawson his
experienceof and readingabout Maoism and socialism
more generallyto extendhis argumentbeyond the case
studiesproperand to justify his presumptions.
WhileYang,in heruse ofa Foucauldianconceptionof
power,focuseson the systemizing dynamicsofpowerun-
derMaoism,Weller'sbook focuseson social action.He ar-
gues that even under the most totalitariansystemsof
authoritarianrule,therearespacesfortheindependentin-
terpretationofsocialreality.He organizeshis book around
the questionof when theseformsof independentaction
shouldbe consideredacts of resistanceagainstthe regime
in power.
He opens thebook witha listofthe typesofsocial ac-
tion thathave been labeled resistanceby anthropologists
in the 1980s-including devil worshipin SouthAmerica
(Taussig1980), Mexican Americansexual humor(Lim6n
1989), and, most relevantlyhere,Yang's (1994) book on
guanxixue. Ratherthan determiningwhetherthe resis-
tance label is justifiedin any of these cases, Wellerlinks
the questionofwhen to categorizea givensocial actionas
resistanceto two common paradoxesin anthropological
analysis:thatof religiouspractitioners who participatein
or even initiateelaboratesymbolicritualswithoutbeing
able to offerany consistentexplanationof theirown ac-
tions,and that of social practiceswhose politicalsignifi-
cance shiftsradicallyin a shortperiod.In makingthese
links,Wellersuggeststhatmuch social practiceproceeds
in a stateof interpretive or both.Tak-
silence,ambiguity,
silenceor as a
ing ambiguity starting point, thendraws
he
on StanleyFish'sargument(1980) to arguethata consis-
tentpoliticalinterpretation ofa givenpracticerequiresthe
workof a powerfulsocial organization:"The move from
indeterminatemeaning to definitiveinterpretation in-
volves a social transformation whereone group success-
fullydevelops and promotesits interpretation above all
others"(Weller1994:27). For more ambiguoussocial ac-
tions,Wellersuggeststhemetaphorofa saturatedsolution
and forthepoliticizationofsuchactions,thatofprecipita-
tion:
Saturated standjuston thevergeofprecipitat-
solutions
ing.Theyareas fullas theycan get,havingdissolved
everythingputinthem, justasa ritual
maydissolveallat-
temptsat interpretation. Yet justone littlepushcan
changetheentire character ofthesolution byprecipitat-
ingouta solidwhenthere wasonlya liquidbefore....If
saturatedeventsare thick,overflowing withdissolved
possibilities,
precipitated arethinandeasy
interpretations
Werecognize
to analyze. themeasilythrough their
thor-
oughlyworked-out interpretations thatwe hearconsis-
anduniformly.... Onlyatthispointofexplicit in-
tently
can we speakclearly
terpretation ofpolitical
resistance.
[1994:23]
In applyingthesemetaphorsto his threecase studies,Wel-
lersuggeststhatethnographers mustdistinguishpotential
precipitatesfromactual ones and identifythe social and
historicalforcesthat sometimesallow one interpretation
out,whileanotherredissolves.
to precipitate
The TaipingRebellionbegan as a messy,multivocal,
religiousmovementin whichthe Christianity ofHong Xi-
uquan blendedwiththe polytheistic religiouspracticesof
the wild frontierregion of the Xunzhou Prefecture in
Guizhou duringthe mid-1840s.Then knownas the "God
Worshippers," the movementwas markedby uncontrolled
possessiontrancesin whichalmostany participantcould
of the cult'sreligious,historical,and
offerinterpretations
As the local Chinese statebegan to
politicalsignificance.
oppose the movementand defineit as political,Hong Xi-
uquan and the movement'sotherleadersbeganconceiving

theirown state.Theyorganizedlinesof politicaland mili-
taryauthoritywithinthe movementand violentlysup-
pressed those utteringheterodoxinterpretations during
spirit possessions. Eventually the polyvocal religious
movementwas transformed into a rebellingarmywithits
own orthodox, antigovernmentideology-the Taiping
Heavenly Kingdom.The Taipings eventuallyconquered
the southernhalfof China, brieflyestablishedtheirown
state,and nearlytoppledtheQing dynasty.
In its open rebellionagainstthe extantregime,the
Taiping Rebellionmeets anyone's definitionof political
resistance.It did not startout thatway. In thebeginning,
Wellerargues,the situationwas notthatdifferent fromhis
second case-Taiwanese ghostworshipduringthe 1980s:
The apparently enormous differences
betweenthetwo
cases-onea shattering andtheothera politi-
rebellion
callyquiescentreligious
oddity-should notdisguise
the
fundamental oftheprocesses
similarity inbothcases.For
Taiwan, however, hindsight
provides nobenefits.
Inspite
ofmanyattempts toforcea unified
there,
interpretation
thesolutionstillremains andanypotential
saturated, po-
litical
resistance
remains unrealized.
[Weller
1994:110]
Wellerattributes thelackofprecipitation amongtheghost
worshippers to the relativepower of the Taiwanesestate.
UnlikeGuizhouin the 1840s,Taiwanin the 1980s did not
offerreligiousleadersthe physicaland social space to cre-
ate an independentarmy.
The thirdcase studyfocuseson the struggleforthe
definitionof historicalmeaningduringthe 1989 student
democracymovement.Studentprotestbegan that spring
and escalated afterApril 26 when the governmentat-
temptedto define the movementin termsof "chaos"
(luan). Fortwo monthsmanydissentingvoices contested
thisinterpretation.Opinionsweresplitat thehighestlevel
of the governmentand even the People'sDaily began giv-
ing voice to a wide varietyof positions.Afterthe more
conservationfactionsof the CCP leadershipwon out and
violentlysuppressedthemovementon June4, the CCP re-
viveditsdormantstructures forcarrying out politicalcam-
paigns and, at self-criticism
sessionsand publicmeetings,
forced the monological officialline down everyone's
throat.Althoughpro formaacceptanceof the partyline
was evidentenough,so wereexpressionsof boredom,he-
donism, and lack of engagementwith the wider scene.
These,Wellerargues,point at the spaces forsaturatedso-
lutionsofambiguityeven at theheightofan authoritarian
movementtowardsmonovocality.
Weller'sapproach can be contrastedon many levels
to thatof Yang. WhereWellerdefinesresistancein terms
of explicitexpressionand intentionalinstitutional plans,
Yang sees resistanceas indicativeof thedirectionsin which
poweris tryingto push, ratherthan indicativeof the in-
tentionsof the resistor.With Foucault,Yang sees subjec-
tivitiesas constructedby and throughpower,subjectsas
often simultaneouslyand contradictorily resistantand
compliant,and theirresistanceand complianceas both
conscious and subconscious.In contrast,Welleris more
Kipnis * Anthropologyof Maoism 285
Weberianthan Foucauldian.Althoughhis insistenceon
the importanceof ambiguity,a surfeitof meaningand a
lack of interpretation builds on poststructuralisttheories
oflanguage,he does not simplymimicthem."Meaningin
actualsociallife,"he argues,"is not homogeneously messy"
(1994:221-222). Rathertheprocessesofdefiningand rede-
finingthe significance-political or otherwise-ofa given
social action mustbe understoodin termsof the institu-
tionalhistoriesofthosedoingtheinterpreting.
Sangren (2000:232) argues that Weller's approach,
withits emphasison explicitinterpretation, neglectsthe
processesbywhichsubjectivities are constructed,and is at
a loss to explaincases in whichthe explicitlydefined"re-
sistance"of givengroupof social actorsactuallycontrib-
utesto the reproduction theverysocial systemtheythink
are
they resisting.6 While agreeingthatWellerdoes not fo-
cus on the of
reproduction socialforms,I stillbelieveWel-
ler'sworkis a valuablecontribution to the theorizationof
thedynamicsofpower,particularly withintheparameters
he set forhimself.His insistenceon payingattentionto
processesof institutionalisation cannot count as the re-
ductionof social lifeto the action of individualsand can
evenbe considereda formofattentionto processesofsub-
jectification.Moreover,his focus on explicitexpression
raisesthe importantquestionof complicityin powerdy-
namics,whilehis emphaseson ambiguityand processen-
ables a subtleapproach to this problem.Finally,and in
thisregardresemblingYang,Weller'sinsistenceon spaces
of ambiguitydeflatesthe presumptionthat a revolution-
ary seizureof power could ever enact a once-and-for-all
transformation.
CONCLUSION
In his book,Envisioning
Power,EricWolfdistinguishes
"four
modalities in how power is ... woven into social relations"
(1999:5).Theseincludean individual,Nietzscheansense of
the powerthatinheresin individuals,a Weberiansenseof
powerthatfocuseson the abilityof "an egoto impose its
will in social actionupon an alter,"a tacticalor organiza-
tional powerin which the contextsthat constrainsocial
interactionare manipulated,and a structural powerthat
"not only operateswithinsettingsand domains but also
organizesand orchestratesthe settingsthemselves,and
that specifiesthe directionand distributionof energy
flows" (1999:5). While it may be useful to distinguish
among these different modalitiesof power,I would add
that the most successfulanthropologicalexplorationsof
powerexaminethe interactionsamongthemto compare
and contrastthe workingsof powerin concretehistorical
settings.On thislevel,the writingsdiscussedhereare far
moresuccessfulthanWolf'sown case studies,whichhave
been justifiably criticizedforfocusingonly on structural
power and then reifyingthis modalityinto "littlemore
than a label, a conceptthatis brandishedeverynow and
again to remindthe readerthatit is intendedto be the fo-
cus of the study"(Barrett et al. 2001:474). In contrast,Siu
286 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 2 * June2003

providesa detailedhistoricalmeditationon theparadoxes Finally,power must be seen as having uses beyond

of powerthatemergedin the PearlRiverDelta, Yang ex- thereproduction ofpowerrelationsfortheirown sake.For
aminestheinterrelations amongseveralstructures ofpower a potentialpoliticalleader,focusingon how to gainpower
and modesof subjectification thatemergedunderMaoism, withoutconceivingof the reasonswhy power is desired
Wellerexaminesthe place of the impositionof political can onlygeneratethemostcynicalformofpolitics.An an-
meaningin the construction and destruction of organiza- thropologyof power that makes power an end in itself
tional powerin threeChinese cases, while Farquharand joins in thiscynicism.As Farquhar(1994b) argues,power
Anagnostexploretheinterplay betweenideology,writing, in a doctor-patient relationshipcannotbe seen apartfrom
and socialpracticein Maoistand post-MaoChina. for
responsibility healing. As Siu's analysisof the Great
Many theoreticallessons may be taken fromthese Leap Forward exemplifies, organizationalpowershouldbe
studies,the firstofwhichis to reduceWolf'sfourmodali- analyzed in terms of what it accomplishesas well as its
tiesto three.The conceptofstructural poweris simplytoo success as a means of domination.The weaknessof the
easy to reify.As Siu demonstrates, veryattemptto
the typeof powerthat"growsout of a barrelof a gun" (Mao
transform multiplex structuresof powerto a singularsys- 1967:33) can onlybe understoodfromthisperspective.
tem is likelyto exacerbateratherthaneliminateabusesof The deep sense of paradox,irony,and contradiction
power.Moreimportantly, as Yang and Wellerargue,even in the anthropologyof Maoism makes it a valuable re-
when organizationalpowerreachesas faras the Stalinist sourceforall anthropologicalstudiesof power.The theo-
or Maoist state,unexpecteddynamicsand spaces of am- reticalreflectionsofthe authorsreviewedherederivetheir
bivalenceemerge.As Anagnostobserves,even "hegemon- worthnot onlyfromthe individualtalentsof the authors
ic fictions"can be turnedto variousends. Ratherthan as- but also fromthe historicalcircumstances in which they
sumingan overarchingformof structural power,I prefer did theirresearch.Theseauthorsthoughtand wroteabout
extending the concept organizationalpower to many
of power not just because of the trendswithintheirdisci-
levels, with the caveat that even the most superarching pline but also because ofthegoverningideologyofthe re-
level cannotbe seen as constituting a singularself-repro- gime wheretheirresearchtook place. This combination
ducing structure. drovea levelofreflexivity thatfewhave matched.
Wolf'ssecondmodality,thatofpowerin localizedin-
terpersonalrelationships,is perhaps of most immediate
interestto anthropologists, as thisis themodalitymostdi- ANDREWKIPNIS ResearchSchoolofPacificand AsianStudies,
Australian
NationalUniversity,
Canberra
ACT0200,Australia
rectlyenvisionedin ethnographicwritingand research.
The best studies,however,analyze this modalityin rela-
tionto aspectsof the firstand the third.Siu's studyof the NOTES
CCP reorganization of relationships betweenDelta house- Eachof thefiveauthorsexaminedherepro-
Acknowledgments.
holds and local leadersdrawsattentionto the interaction inhisorherownway,whileDonGardner,
videdinspiration Susan
betweenthe secondand thirdmodalities,whileYang'sex- Lees,FrancesMascia-Lees,Francesca AlanRumsey,
Merlan, Helen
Siu,RupertStasch,RobertWeller, andthreeanonymous reviewers
aminationof the construction of subjectivity in the artof useful Theremaining faultsaretheresult of
provided suggestions.
social relationships an
provides example of interactionbe- myownstubbornness.
tweenthefirstand second.Directanalysesoftheinterplay 1. ThetopicofMaoismcontinues toyieldheateddebatesandin
betweenthe firstand thirdmodalities,as in Yang's explo- pointingtotheimportance ofthefailuresofMaoismhere,I wish
to makeitclearthatI do notthink thateverything doneinMao's
rationof processesof subjectification in the Mao cult or namewasa failure. in theareasofruralhealthcareand
Especially
Siu's analysisof the complicityof Delta residentsin the education,Maoistgovernance yieldedsomenoteworthy achieve-
consolidationofMaoistpowerarealso important. ments.
The contrastbetweenthe approachesof Wellerand 2. Likeanysuchselection, mylistofbooksis boththematically
motivatedandsomewhat OfthefiveI selected,
arbitrary. Yangand
Yang suggestsdrawinga carefuldistinctionbetweenpoli- Siu providethepurestexamples ofan anthropology ofMaoism,
tics and power dynamics.Politicsis by necessitya self- whileAnagnost, Farquhar,and Wellerconcernthemselves par-
consciousprocessthatalmostalwaysinvolvesan attempt withMaoismandpartially
tially withotherthings (thenon-Maoist
to reshapepowerrelations.Powerdynamicsmay or may ofthereform
specificities eraforAnagnost, Chinesemedical prac-
ticeforFarquhar,andsocialmovements ingeneral forWeller).Ro-
not be visibleto those involvedbut are alwaysdescribed fel1999is another exampleofan erudite theorizationofpower
fromthe point of view of an analyst.In practicethe two thatispartially
concerned withMaoism(andpartially withgender
in thereform era),whileMueggler (2001)provides a fascinating
are closelyrelated.Politicsinvolvethe analysisof power ofhowtheMaoistandpost-Mao stateisimagined ina very
analysis
dynamicsand the analysisofpowerdynamicscan involve remoteand non-Hanlocation.Sangren (2000)suppliesanother
close attentionto politics.Despitetheirdifferences, both noteworthy theorizationofpowerin a Chinesecontext, though
withoutmuch reference to Maoism.In my selection,I have em-
Yang and Wellerare successfulat simultaneously explor-
phasizedtheperiodofresearch(before1985)becauseI believethat
ing nativeself-consciousness about powerrelationswhile this was when the sense of contradiction and paradoxMaoism
constructing theirown models.Wellergivesexplicitlocal raisedforU.S. anthropologistsreacheditspeak.Thoughsomelater
interpretation a keyplace in his own theorywhile Yang researchers(notablyJing1996; Meuggler2001; Ruf 1998) have
theorizedpowerin theirexaminationsofMaoistgovernance, they
incorporatesnumerousnativetheoriesof guanxixueinto have tendedto focuson how theseissueslookedfromtheperspec-
heranalyses. tiveofa particular
locality,a worthybutslightlydifferent
concern.
 Kipnis * Anthropologyof Maoism 287

As is usual in any subfield,themoregeneralstudiestendto come Harrell,Stevan

first.Studyingpower is inescapablypoliticaland a critiqueof 2001 TheAnthropology ofReform andtheReform ofAnthropol-
Maoismjustdoes not siteasilybesidethemoretypicalanthropo- ogy:Anthropological of
Narratives and
Recovery Progress in
logicalcritiquesofracism,colonialism,capital,and patriarchy. As China.AnnualReviews ofAnthropology 30(1):139-161.
the visibility of Maoistabuseshas waned,even some China spe- Hoy,David Couzens
cialistshave founditeasierto ignoretheanthropological theoriza- 1986 Introduction. InFoucault:ACritical Reader.DavidC. Hoy,
tionsdiscussedhere.In revisiting theseworks,I mean to suggest ed.Pp.1-26.NewYork:B.Blackwell.
thatforChina and non-Chinaanthropologists alike,politicaldis- JingJun
1996 TheTempleofMemories: History, PowerandMorality ina
comfort can be theoretically Fora generalreviewofan-
productive. ChineseVillage.Stanford: Stanford Press.
in and ofthePRC,see Harrell2001. University
thropology Kipnis,AndrewB.
3. The residents ofthePearlRiverDelta havebeen amongthebig- 1997 Producing Guanxi:Sentiment, Self,andSubculture ina
gestwinnersof the reform era.Throughout thisperiodthere,the NorthChinaVillage.Durham,NC: DukeUniversity Press.
presenceand exploitationof desperate,work-seeking migrants Lefort,Claude
fromotherpartsof the countryhas servedas a reminderof how 1986 ThePolitical FormsofModernSociety: Bureaucracy, Democ-
fortunate theoriginalDeltaresidents havebeen. racy,Totalitarianism.Cambridge: Polity.
neither of authorscan be said to focussolelyon Lim6n,Jose
4. Though these 1989 Came,Carnales, andtheCarnivalesque: Bakhtinian Batos,
Maoism,theirpartialattentionto issuesof Maoist statepoweris Disorder,andNarrative Discourses.American Ethnologist
symptomatic oftheirpositionamongthefirst U.S. anthropologists 16(3):471-486.
to do researchin Chinaduringthepost-Maoera.Anagnostwentto Mao T'se-tung
Nanjingin 1981,whileFarquharwentto Guangzhouin 1982. 1967 Quotations fromChairman Mao T'se-Tung. NewYork:Ban-
5. Evenmorefamouswas Mao's oft-quoted aphorism"seektruth tamBooks.
fromfacts,"thoughit does not appearin "On Practice."See Kipnis 1975 Selected WorksofMaoT'se-Tung. 5 vols.Beijing:Foreign
1997:113-114formoreon thatsaying. Languages Press.
Mueggler, Eric
6. One famousexampleis Willis's(1977) ethnography ofworking- 2001 TheAgeofWildGhosts:Memory, Violence,andPlacein
classschoolresistors in England. Southwest China.Berkeley: ofCalifornia Press.
University
Ortner, SherryB.
REFERENCESCITED 1996 MakingGender:ThePolitics andErotics ofCulture.Boston:
BeaconPress.
Anagnost, Ann
1997 NationalPast-Times: andPower Rofel,Lisa
Narrative,Representation, 1999 OtherModernities: Gendered Yearnings inChinaafter So-
inModernChina.Durham,NC: DukeUniversity Press. cialism.Berkeley: ofCalifornia Press.
Marston University
Anderson, Ruf,Gregory A.
1990 TheLimitsofRealism:ChineseFictionintheRevolutionary 1998 CadresandKin:Makinga Socialist VillageinWestChina,
Period.Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress. 1921-1991.Stanford: Stanford Press.
Hannah University
Arendt, Said,EdwardW.
1967 TheOrigins ofTotalitarianism. London:AllenandUnwin. 1986 FoucaultandtheImagination ofPower.InFoucault:ACriti-
Bakken,Borge calReader.DavidC. Hoy,ed.Pp.149-156.NewYork:B.Black-
2000 TheExemplary HumanImprovement,
Society: SocialCon- well.
trol,andtheDangersofModernity inChina.NewYork:Oxford
Sangren,PaulSteven
UniversityPress. 1995 "Power"againstIdeology:ACritiqueofFoucaultian Usage.
StanleyR.,SeanStokholm,
Barrett, andJeanetteBurke CulturalAnthropology 10(1):3-40.
2001 TheIdeaofPowerandthePowerofIdeas:AReviewEssay. 2000 ChineseSociologics: AnAnthropological Accountofthe
American Anthropologist 103(2):468-480. RoleofAlienation inSocialReproduction. London:Athlone.
Bourdieu,Pierre Siu,HelenF.
1977 Outlineofa TheoryofPractice. NewYork:Cambridge Uni- 1989 Agents andVictims inSouthChina:Accomplices inRural
versityPress. Revolution. NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity Press.
Chan,Anita,RichardMadsen,andJonathanUnger Strathern,Marilyn
1992 ChenVillageunderMao andDeng.Berkeley: Universityof 1984 SubjectorObject?WomenandtheCirculation ofValuables
CaliforniaPress. inHighlandNewGuinea.InWomenandProperty-Women as
D'Andrade,Roy Property.ReneeHirschon, ed.Pp.158-175.London:Croom
1999 Culture IsNotEverything. InAnthropological Theoryin Helm.
NorthAmerica. E. L.Cerroni-Long, ed.Pp.85-103.Westport,CT: 1988 TheGenderoftheGift:Problems withWomenandProb-
Bergin andGarvey. lemswithSociety inMelanesia.Berkeley: University ofCalifornia
Farquhar, Judith Press.
1994a Knowing Practice:TheClinicalEncounter ofChineseMedi- Taussig,MichaelT.
cine.Boulder:Westview Press. 1980 TheDevilandCommodity Fetishism inSouthAmerica.
1994b Multiplicity, PointofView,andResponsibility inTradi- ChapelHill:University ofNorthCarolinaPress.
tionalChineseHealing.InBody,SubjectandPowerinChina.An- Vogel,EzraF.
gelaZitoandTaniE.Barlow, eds.Pp.78-99.Chicago:University 1969 CantonunderCommunism: Programs andPoliticsina Pro-
ofChicagoPress. vincialCapital.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Fish,StanleyEugene Walder,AndrewGeorge
1980 IsTherea TextinThisClass?TheAuthority ofInterpretive 1986 Communist Neo-Traditionalism:WorkandAuthority in
Communities. Cambridge, MA:Harvard UniversityPress. ChineseIndustry. Berkeley:
University ofCalifornia Press.
Foucault,Michel Weber,Max
1980 TheHistory ofSexuality, vol.1.Robert trans.New
Hurley, 1978 EconomyandSociety: AnOutlineofInterpretive Sociology.
York:RandomHouse. 2 vols.Guenther RothandClausWittich, eds.Berkeley: Univer-
Gregory, ChrisA. sityofCaliforniaPress.
1982 Gifts andCommodities. London:AcademicPress. Weller,RobertP.
Habermas, Jtirgen 1994 Resistance, Chaos,andControlinChina:TaipingRebels, Tai-
1987 ThePhilosophical Discourse ofModernity:TwelveLectures. waneseGhosts,andTiananmen. Seattle: University ofWashing-
Cambridge, MA:MITPress. tonPress.
288 AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 2 * June2003

Willis,PaulE. Wolf,EricR.
1977 Learning toLabour:HowWorking ClassKidsGetWorking 1999 EnvisioningPower:IdeologiesofDominanceandCrisis.
ClassJobs. UK:SaxonHouse.
Farnborough, Berkeley: ofCalifornia
University Press.
Wittfogel,KarlAugust Yang,Mayfair Mei-hui
1957 Oriental AComparative
Despotism: StudyofTotalPower. 1994 Gifts, andBanquets:TheArtofSocialRelationships
Favors,
NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversity Press. inChina.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversity
Press.