Twentieth-Century China

Many books have been published on the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966–1977). It is not Sascha Klotzbücher’s intention to add another new national or local political history. His book focuses on Maoism as the “lived experience” of individuals. His methodological approach is inspired by concepts of Freudian psychoanalysis and aims to understand the role of emotions in people’s self-perceptions of their roles during the Cultural Revolution. In the context of Western China scholars and the Chinese Red Guard generation, the author also analyses how memories of engagements with Maoism are transferred to the next generation. The book uses a rich variety of sources such as diaries, memoirs, and transgenerational oral-history interviews. Thankfully, Klotzbücher provides long excerpts from the diaries and interviews in Chinese, so that the educated reader is able to comprehend his interpretation.

In the first part of the book (chapters 1 and 2), Klotzbücher reflects on roles and self-perceptions of China scholars from the West. He argues that, in beginning our studies, many scholars are attracted to China as a projection surface for their own fantasies about the country as an alternative to “Western civilization.” Moreover, as a result of personal contacts, friendship, love, marriage, or cooperation with Chinese colleagues in field studies, we unavoidably become emotionally involved with the object of our research. However, our professional self-perception as academics does not allow us to acknowledge this lack of emotional distance. Hence, this issue becomes taboo. Klotzbücher takes as an example the well-known sinologist Rudolf Wagner (1941–2019) of Heidelberg University (Germany), where the author received an MA degree. According to him, Wagner contributed in the 1970s, before becoming professor, to establishing in Germany a positive view of Maoism as a modern form of chinoiserie. As editor of his academic journal, Befreiung (Liberation), Wagner defended the Khmer Rouge as late as 1978 and labeled accusations of war crimes “CIA propaganda.” However, Klotzbücher says Wagner would never have been able to reflect on this emotional involvement with the Maoist movement. Wagner’s past would have been a taboo topic at his institute in Heidelberg, so much so that even second-generation scholars like the author himself would not challenge Wagner’s background (until writing this book). Klotzbücher argues that we need to take emotional involvements with China seriously and incorporate critical reflection about it into our research designs. To reflect on his own submission to taboos, the author selected Wagner for a case study, otherwise he could have chosen one of the many other Western professors who were Maoists in the 1970s. Klotzbücher also warns us not to follow in the “footsteps of the communist party” by limiting our research agenda according to official taboos in China. Our fear of putting our Chinese colleagues or relatives in danger might also influence and frame our field studies. Hence, we should always reflect on our emotions instead of pretending to be only rational professionals.

In the book’s second part (chapters 3–6), Klotzbücher analyzes published diaries and memoirs from members of the Red Guard generation who participated in the Cultural Revolution as teenagers and young adults. In China, this generation is called the “old three classes” (lao sanjie 老三届), referring to 1966, 1967, and 1968 graduates of [End Page E-33] urban junior and senior high schools. Some Red Guards saw violence against “enemies” as bystanders, while others were even involved in killings. The author wants to understand how these individuals coped with these experiences. One way to suppress feelings of guilt would have been to internalize the ideological Maoist dichotomy of friends and enemies. However, the Maoist ideal of a selfless and pure Communist always would have been larger than life and never could have been attained by most people. Therefore, some Red Guards felt shame and inferiority...