Bin Xu’s thoroughly researched monograph, the culmination of a project that began in 2007, led to fieldwork in 2013, and continued through 2018, is an impressive achievement that complements and expands on previous work on the topic of urban educated youth (zhiqing) who were sent to the countryside during and after the Cultural Revolution. However, Xu’s greatest contribution comes from his theoretical insights that will be especially welcome to sociologists and political scientists working on issues related to generations and memory. His analysis of zhiqing memories is so rich and complex that a short review cannot do justice to the nuance and variation introduced throughout the book. Put simply, he tells a story of how members of the zhiqing generation have come to terms with their complicated past and how they resolve the tension between their desire to remember their youth and confirm their worthiness while also evaluating the unpopular “send-down” program and other political upheavals in the Mao years. Unlike much of the earlier work on the send-down program, Xu is less interested in “what really happened” and more concerned with memories of the Mao years and their “red legacies,” exploring the influences and meanings of the past in the present (p. 20).
Even before it ended in 1980, the campaign to send zhiqing to the countryside as the Cultural Revolution was winding down in 1968 generated considerable scholarly interest. With the sources available at the time, which included statistical compendia, official documents, the Red Guard press, and refugee interviews in Hong Kong, these studies examined the rationale for the movement and focused on socioeconomic factors such as changing demographics and labor market issues, as well as political and ideological factors associated with Mao’s efforts to realize his vision of socialism. Other studies—like the volume under review—focused on the mindset and experiences of the youth themselves, rather than state policies, although these interview-based accounts were more interested in understanding the background to their performance as Red Guards, not their experiences as rusticated youth.
Bin Xu’s study is much more ambitious and analytical, with three explicit goals. The first one is empirical, searching for factors that can explain the variations in memories of the zhiqing. Second, he seeks to incorporate theoretical insights and contribute to the “sociological understanding of memory, particularly generation and memory” (p. 7). His third goal is normative, using the empirical and theoretical analysis to examine ethical and political issues, including social inequality and historical responsibility. He uses a mixed-methods approach, drawing on 124 in-depth interviews and 61 ethnographic observations, in addition to press reports, archival sources, an analysis of literary works about the movement (chap. 3), and visits to exhibits and museums as sites of memory (chap. 4). Unlike the authors of earlier studies, he is able to accompany zhiqing groups at their reunions, visits their send-down places, and other trips (chap. 5 on generation and memory in groups) and to observe the interactions and controversies that occur when different zhiqing groups “link up” (chap. 6). A very helpful methodological appendix takes the reader through the stages of his project, offers descriptive statistics on his interviewees, explains his measurement of class and habitus and his coding frame, sets out his hypotheses and statistical analysis, and details the literary works he analyzed and the museums and exhibits he visited. He adopts a three-level frame to explore generational memory. At the individual level, generational memory is primarily autobiographical, which Xu explores through the life stories of his zhiqing subjects. At the group/community level, memory means mnemonic practices in the form of face-to-face interactions and communications at the local level. At the public level, memory means mnemonic practices in organizational and institutional settings, such as memoirs, exhibits, memorials, and museums.
His first two chapters provide a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the life stories of 87 zhiqing, contrasting “winners” and “losers” in the present. He notes that every life story has two distinctive components: personal experience and historical evaluation of the send-down movement. The key concepts that explain intragenerational differences in memory and understanding are class and habitus, the latter derived from the work of Pierre Bourdieu who, along with Karl Mannheim, provides the conceptual foundation for Xu’s analysis of generation and memory. Habitus is formed by one’s interaction with social structure, especially class position, usually in one’s formative years. In the case of the zhiqing, their habitus was shaped by the two dimensions of class origin (chushen) and political performance, which were greatly influenced by the centrality of politics in the Mao years. Using these two dimensions, Xu identifies four types of habitus, which he uses throughout the book: the faithful red (those with a good class background who were politically active in support of the political ideology); the indifferent red (those with a good class background but not active politically); aspirants (those from middle or bad class backgrounds who tried to distinguish themselves through political performance); and withdrawers (those from middle or bad class backgrounds who remained inactive politically).
It is class position that shapes a zhiqing’s view of the past and habitus that shapes the evaluation of the send-down program. Going further, Xu makes an important distinction between “class in the present” and “class in the past” (p. 231), noting that the former shapes the memory of personal experience and the latter shapes historical evaluations of the program. With some exceptions, the higher the current class position—as measured by economic, cultural, and social capital—the more likely the zhiqing would hold a positive view of the send-down movement and its influence on later life. Those with habitus based on good class backgrounds in the Mao years are more likely to have positive evaluations of the send-down program. However, he finds that habitus is neither homogeneous nor static. It can change at important historical moments and varies depending on the zhiqing’s life course and current class position.
Readers not focused specifically on China will find his theoretical contributions of most interest. First, Xu goes beyond the individual to explore three levels of memory—individual, group/community, and public—and how participation in the latter two levels influences and alters individual memory. Second, he departs from existing studies that look at intergenerational differences of memory by focusing on intragenerational differences. Third, in seeking explanatory factors in studying collective memory, he emphasizes the importance of concepts of class and group as independent variables. Indeed, Xu notes that one of his major contributions is to bring “class” back into the field of collective memory. In short, Xu’s work will be of great interest not only to scholars of China but also to social scientists who seek to incorporate China’s experience into a larger comparative framework.
