Building Clean Government in Mainland China and Ho

BookReviewsObedientAutonomy:ChineseIntellectualsandtheAchievementofOrderlyLife.ByERIKAE.S.EVASDOTTIR.[VancouverandToronto:UBCPress,2004.ix320pp.$85.00.ISBN0-7748-0930-2.]“Ifyouareanarchaeologist,thennothingisforbiddenyou(baiwujinji)”,ErikaE.S.EvasdottirwastoldbyoneChinesearchaeologist.Thistantalizingremarkpreparesthereaderforwhatpromisestobeanexcitingjourney,drawingon“theenviablythickprofessionalRolodexofcon-tacts”oftheprofessionalChinesearchaeologist,astheauthorsetsoutadizzyingarrayofarchaeologicallyrelatedintellectualenigmasandsocialskeinsfordecryption.Inheropeningchapter,AutonomyandAutonomies,Evasdottirdis-cussesChinesearchaeologistsasasubsetoftheintellectualclass,“fascinatingbyvirtueoftheirpositioningrelativetodiscoursesofhistory,scienceandcommunism,”andwhyChinesearchaeologists“tendtousestrategiesofobedientautonomymoreoftenthanotherintellectuals.”ObedienceservestomaintainandstrengthenorderwithintheorthodoxyandorthopraxythatinformtheworkingenvironmentoftheChinesearchaeologist,butbyautonomytheauthorisnotdescribingafreedomorself-interestedsenseofbeing,butrathertheintervention,manipulationandthemanagementofreputationandidentitypermittedbythiscreatedbackdropoforderintheworkingenvironment.Thenotionof“obedientautonomy”isthesinequanonoftheChinesearchaeologist,castasthe“typical”Chineseintellectual.However,ratherthanventuringfarintointellectualhistory,theauthoradoptsasocialanthropologicalapproachtoexaminearchaeologistsasprofessionals.Thisoriginal,ifmorelimited,viewofChinesearchaeologyandthesocialroleofthearchaeologistiswelldelineatedbytheauthor,asshetakesreadersbacktothebasicsofacademiclife,namelybeingastudent.Inthesecondchapter,Evasdottirexamines“whatmakesarchaeologistsmostinterestingtotheanthropol-ogist:thefactthatarchaeologyisanapprentice-typedisciplineinwhicholderarchaeologiststeachnewlyarrivedyoungstersthe‘tricks’ofthetrade.Thosetrickstend,onceagainsimplybecauseoftherequirementsofarchaeology,tobeovertexpressionsofthesamestrategiesofruleandrelationshipmanipulationthatmakeupobedientautonomy.”Fieldworksetsthearchaeologist,liketheanthropologist,apartfromintellectualsengagedinmanyothersocialsciencesandhumanities,bringingthearchaeologistintoactiverelationshipswithChinesefarmersandruralentrepreneurs,perpetuatingprofessionalrelationshipsthatextendfortheoldergenerationofChinesearchaeologistsbacktotheclosingyearsoftheCulturalRevolutiondecade.However,thepovertyoftheChinesecountrysideremainsunalleviatedinmanyareasand,fortoday’sChinesearchaeologystudents,theirfirstencounterswithruralpovertycanbedestabilizingandalarming.Ifanything,thedifferencesbetweentherelativecomfort-levelsoftoday’surban-basedarchaeologystudentswiththeirlaptopsastoolsoftradeandthoseoffarmersinmoreremoteareas©TheChinaQuarterly,2005711BookReviewsaremorestrikingnowthan20yearsago.ToestablishactiverelationshipswiththecustodiansofChina’slands,sometimesinconveniencedordisplacedbyarchaeologicalwork,sensitivityandtactarerequired.EvasdottirwelldocumentstheinadequaciesofthefledglingChinesearchaeologists,andthestrategiesteachersmustinstilintheirstudentsinordertoensurethattheyhandletheserelationshipswell,anddonotendangertheenterprise.Seenasremoving“treasure”fromtheground,Chinesearchaeologistsfrequentlyencounterconflict,butEvasdottireschewsconcreteinstancesofthis;ifthisbookweretodetailmoreofthepitfallsfacedbytheyoungChinesearchaeologistthereaderwouldfeelgreatersympathyfortheteacherswhoseprotectiveandpatronizingbehaviourshefaithfullydescribes.Todate,muchEuro-AmericananalysisofChinesecontemporaryarchaeologyhasbeenmarredbyanexcessiveemphasisonthenationalistagendaofarchaeologyinChinaattheexpenseofotheragendas,orbytheviewthattheChinesearchaeologistasintellectualisincollusionwithauthoritiesinre-writingChineseprehistory.Evasdottir,tohercredit,dismissestheseapproachesattheoutsetofthisstudy.Inherdiscussionoforthopraxy,whereEvasdottirdismissesthenarrowEuro-AmericanviewofChinesecollusionistpoliticalagendas(whetherNationalist,Maoist-Communist,CentralistorHanChinesechauvinist),andinthebook’sfourthchapter,“Theseparationofpowers,”theauthorcomestogripswiththeimplicationsofthisforheravowedtopic–Chinesearchaeologyasaprofession.Withhumour,sheparaphrasesLewisBinford’sformulation,“archaeologyisanthropologyoritisnothing,”toreadas“Chinesearchaeologyisbureaucracyoritisnothing.”Thisisanenticingfeint,prefacinghercontentionthatthevisibilityofgovernmentinChinesearchaeological(andintellectual)lives,incontrastwithitsinvisibilityinEuro-AmericanarchaeologicallivestendstoresultinsimplisticEuro-AmericanimagesofChinesecounterpartsascollusiveorvictimized.Shepointsoutthat“suchsimplisticvisionsoftheChineseworldsayagreatdealmoreaboutEuro-AmericanculturethantheydoabouttherelationshipbetweenChinesearchaeologistsandtheChinesestate.”Sheobserves:“ThereisaremarkablesophisticationtothewaysinwhichChinesearchaeologistsrespondtotheprevalenceofbureaucracyintheirdailylives.”Here,infact,wearebeingledintodangerousterritory.DespitehersounddelineationofthebureaucraticrealitieswithwhichtheChinesearchaeologistlives,itisimpo