words kill, and so do arguments

Sometimes I wonder at how many libraries of Babel (let's be annoying, so yes: cf. Jorge Luis Borges) the academic world manages to produce. Not that I am principally against the reproduction of ideas in various schemes and frameworks, in fact I find it quite inspiring to read what different scholars do with similar ideas. In case anyone is actually reading this blog, you may by now have noticed that I am currently engaged in some form of research about 1950s China. Actually, what the project I work for aims at doing is to discover elements and structures of ritual within the process of establishing the humanities in China during the 50s. May sound a little awkward, but the idea is actually quite intriguing (learn more on my website or the site of the project). And guess what? Our project is not the first to steer in that direction...

So I am currently reading the Ph.D. thesis by Cheng-chih Wang entitled Words Kill: Calling for the Destruction of "Class Enemies" in China, 1949-1953 (N.Y./London: Routledge, 2002). Dr. (I presume) Wang basically argues that the assumed domestic genocide (which in this case he defines as directed against political enemies) in China at the time was linguistically legitimized by the all-encompassing propaganda machinerie the P.R.C. had at its disposal. Regardless of how compelling the reader may find the genocide argument, Wang's method of textual analysis is what instinctively drew me to reading his work, as it reminds me strongly of what I spend much time with these days: Wang wishes to establish the theory that (1) not only did a genocide take place in China between 1949 and 1953, but that (2) this genocide was legitimized by words, by language, by subtly constructing an apparent reality that could not but lead the (literate) public to believe and accept that certain governmental actions of a lethally violent nature were legal and justified. What else is this if not an inquiry into a ritualization process?

So what does the formerly aspiring Dr. Wang do to prove his case? He resorts to textual analysis, specifically all the Renmin ribao (People's Daily) editorials of the period, sorting them by paragraph, topics (main- and subthemes) and ideological terminology which defines, classifies and proposes measures against "the enemy". The case I am stating is of course by far less provocative: I am simply trying to understand the ritual, rather than its actual political effects. So I am engaging in a similar type of research, though the discovery of recurring themes and patterns in the case of our project becomes an end in itself. And this is exactly the point at which I think mere textual and proto-linguistic research (I use colors and a lot of pencilled comments instead of complicated phrase-pattern-formulas, something my linguist friends probably smile at with a benign shake of the head...) should conclude its scope.

As far as I can tell, Dr. Wang has been extremely thorough in sifting through the RMRB as his primary source material. But everything else, all the talk of the atrocious political consequences of his linguistic studies seems to rest on secondary source material only. I do not wish to say that it is impossible to agree with Dr. Wang's conclusion, but I somehow doubt that his research - or rather his type of research - really amounts to the evidence needed to support his intial presumption.

In conclusion, I think that Words Kill is a great documentary on how to tackle written source material in trying to detect certain ritualistic patterns. The question remains how far one can actually draw a political conclusion that in its implications is distinct from the textual source by just analyzing the language of the media.