The Qianlong emperor is often regarded as the most prosperous era of the Qing empire. Indeed, it was a time of rapid population growth, an improved and vast economy, and of expanding regional hegemony. However, with the changing material conditions, Chinese society was unsettled, disoriented from traditional life, and commoners began to see the changes at a personal level in their own towns. Meanwhile the emperor’s power becomes less centralized as he shifts his duties to corrupt bureaucrats, the Empire as a whole “incompletely centralized” as Max Weber observed. (188 soulstealer) Philip Kuhn discusses in his Soulstealers: The Chinese Sorcery Scare of 1768, that amidst these political realities, a social phenomenon occurs in which mass hysteria breaks out over rumors of sorcerers clipping cues (or souls) off unsuspecting men. While the obvious discussion of the book revolves around the sorcery scare itself, latently Kuhn’s book elucidates an important analysis of the inner workings of authoritarian government confident of its rule but always paranoid about the possibly of a dissents or outright rebellion. It details the differing reactions to the sorcery at the local government/police level, the commoners level, and at the Empire’s level. Moreover, Soulstealers also reveals that Chinese society seems to have an illusion of social cohesion, that’s made apparent when commoners quickly turn to accusing outsiders and ethnic minorities of being “soulstealers.” The strength of the book is in Kuhn’s special care of giving examples of cultural, religious, normative, political, and economic elements of the story. Kuhn successfully weaves them together to form a clear narrative that seems to honestly reflect this particular phenomenon. His use of sources never feels like a distortion of evidence to benefit a certain argument, rather an explication of appropriate data.
While his analysis looks at the aforementioned elements to discern an understanding for this case of mass hysteria, he consistently cautions the reader to avoid strongly inferring one reason over another. In this way he is promoting a type of scholarly work that allows for the unity of theories, and promotes an interdisciplinary approach to history that I admire. The second chapter of the book deals with the economic factors of Chinese society in the 18th century. Drawing from an excellent and rich array of primary sources, Kuhn explains the rapid changes in China’s economy. The population “roughly doubled in the 18th century” (41) which led to the need for people to find work, thereby leading to likely massive amounts of migration throughout the region. Why is this relevant? Well, the suspicion “of soul stealing focused on wanderers: strangers, people without roots, people of obscure origins and uncertain purpose, people lacking social connections, people out of control.” (41) The victims of lynch mobs and torture chambers were mostly beggars (and monks). While this economic reality assuredly contributed to the increase in beggars, it does not explain why beggars were singled out at suspected sorcerers. Kuhn explains that “I would love to be able to say that Chinese of the eighteenth century feared soul-loss because these felt their lives threatened by unseen forces…such an assertion however bewitching can certainly never be proved.” (48) This is just one example of Kuhn effectively analyzing a factor in the inquiry of the sorcerer scare, and undergirding his analysis with warnings to not infer wholly on that evidence. This demonstrates a comprehensive, and critical historical piece, but often makes the reader feel as though there is no real answer for the scare itself.
Another strength to this book is Kuhn’s ability to reveal commonalities within Chinese society. While he discusses the differences between regions, even going so far as to discuss how local bureaucrats governed in differing ways, he also picks out commonalities in various forms of analysis. One such example is that Kuhn explains that “the hysteria that spread over east-central China in 1776 was cultured in a rich broth of local sorcery beliefs.” (26) Not surprisingly, local sorcery beliefs varied greatly depending on where you were in China, however there were some foundational beliefs that most regions agreed upon. Simply, they believed that the human body can “under certain conditions, can be separated” (26) from the body and used to benefit or empower the soulstealer certain abilities. The soul could be removed by clipping the queue tip on men or women’s lapel. The sorcerer would likely stupefy the victim so they couldn’t resist the spell/incantation or queue clipping. Then the victim would sicken and die. Sorcerers were likely people who already dealt with the supernatural such as Buddhist monks or Taoist priests.
Lastly, Kuhn’s treatment of the motivations of people during this sorcerer scare is another strength to his book. The Emperor, while he believed sorcery was “bunk, an absurd superstition” (226) he had an extreme paranoia of sedition. Did the Emperor believe that people were truly losing their souls thanks to sorcerers clipping queues? Probably not, but rather he understood the symbolic power of men’s queues (and how it expresses submission to the kings), and men losing their queues meant sedition. Kuhn also explains how the emperor’s campaign against the sorcery scare functioned to maintain the omnipotent but shadowy presence of the throne. Moreover, Kuhn discusses the common people and their motivations for accusations. He suggests that in a society with very little chance of personal empowerment due to government and cultural barriers, people sought to experience some sense of empowerment in their singling out of the “underclass.”
While this book offers a fascinating and comprehensive portrayal of the Chinese sorcery scare of 1768, the book also attempts to nullify the idea that this was a “prosperous age.” Moreover, in his discussion of the social dynamics of China, the lack of personal agency among the common people, the overarching and shadowy figure of the government, and the unity felt through illogical and hysterical behavior during the sorcery scare, Kuhn also elucidates realities that perhaps still persist in China today. One can easily draw comparisons between the Mao Communist party and the Dynastic Rule. Also between the present governments’ attempt at controlling normative behaviors of Chinese society by controlling internet use and the bureaucrats’ response to the sorcerer scare to restore submission and cultural hegemony. This book is valuable to researchers attempting to understand social dynamics and social cohesion amidst authoritarian governments, and it offers plenty of analogies widely applicable to history and social sciences. For the reader who would like to have a single thesis on the cause of the sorcery scare, this may not be the book for you.