1 Michael Dutton, Policing and Punishment in China: From Patriarchy to “The People” 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992).Google Scholar

2 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, trans. A. Sheridan (New York: Pantheon, 1977).Google Scholar

3 Private communication with Zhang Jinfan (7 May 1994). Probably the best exposition of this particular argument is given, not by Zhang Jinfan himself, but by Zhang Guohua in his entry on lizhi in the Encyclopedia of China (Law) 364–65 (Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House, 1984).Google Scholar

4 I was guided here not by a desire to invest in the collective but to question the divisions which tumed on binary opposites like individuaUcollective. Here is one of the “telltale signs” of Foucault's influence on my work, but it is traceable back to his work on the mentality of government rather than to Discipline and Punish. For further elucidation of Foucault's work on “govemmentality,” see Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, & Peter Miller, The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 1991).Google Scholar

5 It does not, for example, cover policing forms or penalties made operative under the public security provisions of the administrative regulations.Google Scholar

6 Tanner's critique of Discipline and Punish reproduces the same flawed methodology he uses to attack Policing and Punishment in Ch. Disaph and Punish, we are informed, is a work of flawed empirical research. The problem here is that Discipline and Punish is more than empirical and historical research. Indeed, it is only significant because of the theoretical insights it offers. Such theoretical insights, while situated with an empirical history are irreducible to that history and not underlaborers of it. To attack alleged failures in Foucault's historical method, therefore, is one thing, but to assume that somehow this offers a compelling reason to ignore the theoretical arguments of the text is simply a non sequitur.Google Scholar

7 See John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame und Reintegration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Matthew Hurlock in his review of my book for the Columbia Law Review picks up on a similar theme. Beginning his review (rather tellingly I thought) with the American Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…,” etc.), he questions the “failure” of my work to adequately address the issue of individual rights and the state. See Matthew R. Hurlock, “Social Harmony and Individual Rights in China,” 93 Colum. L. Rev. 1318 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Arguing that Tanner is an Orientalist and simultaneously drawing largely on the work of a Chinese scholar for his Orientalist framework may seem somewhat strange. There is, however, little strange about it. Just as certain women can take up antifeminist arguments, so, too, can Chinese reproduce forms of Orientalism.Google Scholar

10 After spending so much time demonstrating the way in which the Chinese collectivist ethos leads to those outside the group being dehumanized, Tanner then somewhat intriguingly refers to the fact that “There is nothing uniquely Chinese about dehumanizing the criminal” (p. 295). The problem with this is that if there is nothing uniquely Chinese going on here, then why the emphasis on the dehumanizing collective? Alternatively, if the collective cultural stance of the Chinese does establish a mode of dehumanization, then it would be, by definition, unique.Google Scholar

11 As evidence of the dehumanized fate of foreigners in China, Tanner selects a rather inappropriate example which, far from strengthening his case, actually goes some way to undermine it. He refers to the way foreigners are often hailed with shouts of “old outsider” (laowai) as evidence of their lowly status. Unfortunately, laowai signifies something else. The term lao (old) in Chinese, when used as a predv to a name, is traditionally a mark of respect. Placed in front of the character wai (foreigner) it could be read as respected foreigner. This alternate reading is borne out by the work of Zhang Zhan'ou, which explains laowai as “term of endearment” (aicheng). He goes on to say: “Laowai is a clear and melodious form of address, it is to really positively express a type of affection.” Zhang Zhan'ou, “The ‘laowai’ of Beijing” (Jingdu de ‘laowai’), Econ. Evening News (Jingji Wanbao), 30 April 1993, at 2. That foreigners are treated as ‘foreign’ in China is without doubt, but is their fate any worse than foreigners in many other countries? How well are blacks or Asians treated in Western countries? How do outsiders fare in Japan? Yet in neither the West nor in Japan do we have arguments about human rights being predicated upon such culturally specific grounds.Google Scholar

12 One of Mao Zedong's most famous sayings was exactly on this point: “Criminals are also people only with a criminal tag in front of their name” (fanren ye shi ren, zhi buguo ‘ren’ zi qiantou jiale yi ge ‘fan’ zi).Google Scholar

13 For a fuller examination of this trend toward targeting see Michael Dutton & Lee Ti, “Missing the Target? Policing Strategies in the Period of Economic Reform,” 39 Crime & Delinq. 316(1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Such is the level of concern about publicity of the role of these centers that the Ministry issued a directive to all units advising them never to publicly cite their name or acknowledge their existence. See Ministry of Public Security, “Notice Concerning the Un-suitability of Openly Reporting on Detention and Investigation Centers” (1987) (Gong'anbu guanyu buyi gongkai baodao shourong shencha de tongzhi), 3 The Handbook on Preparatory Investigations and Watchhouse Work (Yushen, kanshou gongzuo shouce) 234–35 (Beijing: China People's Public Security University, 1988) (“Handbook”).Google Scholar

15 See Supreme Court, Supreme Procuraturate, Ministry of Public Security, & Ministry of Justice, “The Supreme Court, the Supreme Procuraturate, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice Notice Concerning the Need to Pay Attention to Some Important Problems in the Attack upon Transient Criminals” (23 Aug. 1986) (Zuigao renmin fayuan, migao renmin jianchayuan, gong'anbu, sifabu guanyu zai daji liucuanfanzui huodong zhong xuyao ji ge wenti de tongzhi), 3 Handbook 133–34Google Scholar

16 Ministry of Public Security, “Notice Concerning the Unsuitability of Openly Reporting on Detention and Investigation Centers” (1987) (Gong'anbu guanyu buyi gongkai baodao shourong shencha de tongzhi), in 3 Handbook 234–35.Google Scholar

17 Li Kangrui, Xu Evyong, Zhou Jingnan, & Mao Tongkun, “Some Initial Thoughts on a Number of Problems Relating to the Legislation Covering Investigation and Detention” (Shilun shourong shencha lifa de ji ge wenti), Public Security Research (Gong'an Yanjiu), No. 6, at 62 (1989).Google Scholar

18 Ministry of Public Security & Ministry of Public Health, “Notice Concerning Prevention of Contagious Diseases among Those Criminals Detained for Investigation” (10 March 1984) (Gong'anbu, weishengbu guanyu zai yafan shoushen renyuan chuanran jibing fangzhi gongzuo de tongzhi), in 2 Handbook on Preparatory Investigations and Watchhouse Work 188–89 (Beijing: Masses Press, 1985).Google Scholar

19 Li Buyun, personal conversations, Jan. 1994.Google Scholar

20 Wang Zhongfang, personal conversations, Feb. 1994.Google Scholar

21 Tanner's argument here is surprising, for he seems to believe in the comprehensibility described in the police handbooks. Elsewhere, however, I am derided for believing in their rhetoric.Google Scholar

22 I have actually tried to rectify this problem by highlighting at least some of these things in a forthcoming article in the journal Positions. See Michael Dutton, “Dreaming of Better Times: ‘Repetition with a Difference’ and Community Policing in China,”Positions (forthcoming 1995).Google Scholar