| On May 24, 2024, the Department of Sociology and the Lieberthal-Rogel Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan held an emotional conference in honor of sociologist Xiaohong Xu. Professor Xu, who passed away on December 12, 2024 at the age of 45, was a much beloved scholar and teacher, and a most original sociologist of Chinese politics, culture, political economy, and history. At the time of his death, Xu was an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the University of Michigan and the Liberthal-Rogel Center’s associate director. The event gathered scholars and students who discussed Xu’s most recent contributions and was attended in-person and remotely by 150-some people. Its complete videorecording is available online. Elizabeth Armstrong, chair of Michigan Sociology, opened the conference by saying Xu was “not just a brilliant mind,” but a person who became “a dear friend and mentor to many of us.” Director of U-M’s International Institute Mary Gallagher reflected on her efforts to bring Xu to the University of Michigan and spoke about her intellectual exchanges with him, highlighting Xu’s unique perspective on Chinese governance, which always sparked enriching debates. Ann Lin, director of the Lieberthal-Rogel Center, said that the conference was testament to Xu’s influence. “The depth of love and respect for Xiaohong is evident in this gathering. His work has reshaped our understanding of social science in the context of China.” Lin added that many students who applied to the Master’s program in her center did so “because they wanted to work with Xiaohong Xu.” She highlighted Xu’s role in inspiring a new generation of scholars and the profound impact that he had on their academic journeys. The conference was organized in four panels, with each featuring at least four scholars who engaged, critiqued, and reflected on one of Xu’s recent contributions. The first of them is a still unpublished manuscript, entitled The Great Separation: Labor Politics in China from Mao to Market, which by Roi Livne’s (Michigan) account Xu regarded as his “life-defining work.” The Great Separation explains China’s transition from Maoism to its specific version of market capitalism by tracing the evolution of a symbolic separation between “economy” and “politics.” This separation effectively meant a depoliticization of economic growth policies in China. Yan Long (UC Berkeley) praised Xu’s ambitious approach and likened this work to establishing a national park. Long noted Xu’s emphasis on the continuity between the Cultural Revolution and post-Mao developments, challenging both Marxist and liberal perspectives. Ho-fung Hung (Johns Hopkins) emphasized Xu’s contributions to the sociology of political parties and collective action and the balance his analysis struck between romantic and anti-romantic elements. Stephanie Mudge (UC Davis) focused on Xu’s original concept of “ordoeconomism,” comparing it to German ordoliberalism. Mudge explained how Xu’s argument on the separation between politics and economics provides a unique framework for understanding Chinese socio-economic dynamics. A second panel focused on The Misruling Elites, an ambitious work published posthumously in Theory & Society shortly before the journal’s transformation. Introducing the article, Mary Gallagher commended Xu and colleague’s innovative datasets and robust engagement with existing theories of social revolution. She emphasized how Xu’s work challenges established narratives and provides a more nuanced understanding of elite political dynamics and governance in China. Yuhua Wang (Harvard) spoke about his personal interactions with Xu and highlighted Xu’s novel interpretation of elite fracturing and its role in the CCP’s rise to power. “In social science, the great shoulders are usually too old and too white,” Wang reflected. “Fortunately, we today can stand on the shoulder of Xiaohong; but unfortunately, the shoulder is also too young.” Xueguang Zhou (Stanford) spoke about Xu’s integration of micro-level quantitative data with classical sociological theories. Zhou noted Xu’s potential to deepen our understanding of local elites’ interactions with the CCP through contextualized case studies. Mark Mizruchi (Michigan) observed that “Xiaohong’s ability to connect historical events with broader sociological theories set him apart,” emphasizing how Xu’s work challenged conventional wisdom and offered new insights into the role of elites in shaping historical and political outcomes. Xu’s contribution to the recently published edited volume After Positivism was discussed in the third panel. Jonah Stuart-Brundage (Michigan) highlighted Xu’s anti-foundationalist and anti-essentialist approach to comparative-historical research, noting how Xu’s work challenged traditional methodologies and advocated for a reflexive, practice-oriented comparative framework. He emphasized how Xu’s methodological innovations provide valuable tools for sociologists seeking to navigate the complexities of comparative-historical research. Nicholas Wilson (Stony Brook) added that Xu “set a new standard in our field with his innovative comparative methods.” Yang Zhang (American University) provided an overview of the new wave of historical sociology in China that were influenced by Xu’s work. “Xiaohong’s emphasis on contextual depth reshaped our approach to historical sociology,” he remarked. Julia Adams (Yale), Xu’s dissertation advisor, reflected on discussions she had with Xu on comparative methods. “Xiaohong’s work on duality in comparative methods was truly inspirational,” she said. A fourth panel was dedicated to the article Modernity and the Politics of Newness, published in Sociological Theory, which Xu co-authored with Issac Reed (UVA). Reed, who came to present and reflect on the argument, credited Xu for providing “a fresh perspective on revolutionary temporalities.” He discussed how Xu’s work sheds light on the performative aspects of political movements and the ways in which revolutionary periods are constructed and understood. Yang Su (UC Irvine) noted that “Xiaohong’s insights into the dynamics of revolutionary periods are profound” and debated Xu and Reed’s approach to the contested nature of the revolutionary regime. Robert Jansen (Michigan) offered a programmatic reflection on Xu and Reed’s work, proposing future research directions on revolutionary temporalities. He discussed how Xu’s theoretical contributions provide a foundation for future studies on the temporal dimensions of political movements and the role of performance in shaping historical narratives. These discussions were framed by a keynote address of Ho-fung Hung, who reviewed Xu’s trajectory as a scholar, and concluding personal remarks by Xu’s close friends Yan Long and Roi Livne. Xu’s tragic and untimely death meant that he did not live to present and promote much of his work, let alone fulfill his enormous scholarly potential. This conference will hopefully be a first step toward doing this for him and ensuring that his ideas receive the attention they deserve. Junchao Tang is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University Michigan. His primary research interest lies at the intersection of social stratification, political sociology, and economic sociology. He uses a wide range of quantitative and archival approaches to understand the dynamics of financialization and quantification as well as their implications on economic inequality and state development. |
section CULTURE 