Dutch historian (born 1961)
Frank Dikötter (; ) is a Dutch historian who specialises in modern China. Dikötter has been Chair Professor of Humanities at the University of Hong Kong since 2006. In "Patient Zero" (2003) and "Narcotic Culture" (2004), Dikötter argued that the impact of the prohibition of opium on the Chinese people led to greater harm than the effects of the drug itself. Dikötter is the author of "The People's Trilogy", which consists of "Mao's Great Famine" (2010), "The Tragedy of Liberation" (2013), and "The Cultural Revolution" (2016), providing an overview of Communist-led China.
Before relocating to Hong Kong, he was professor of modern Chinese history at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He holds an honorary doctorate from Leiden University and is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Work.
In "Patient Zero" (2003) and "Narcotic Culture" (2004), Dikötter posits that the impact of the prohibition of opium on the Chinese people led to greater harm than the effects of the drug itself. These works have been poorly received by academics, with historian Kathleen L. Lodwick saying that ""Narcotic Culture" appears to be one of the revisionist histories of which there have been several lately that have aimed at convincing us that imperialism wasn't all that bad, or at least that we should not blame the imperialists, in this case the opium traders who made vast fortunes from the trade, for the social problems they created. Closer attention to accuracy in the bibliography would have caught some errors, which appear more than once and so are not simply typos." Alan Baumler wrote in his review of "Narcotic Culture", "the authors' unwillingness to engage with the secondary literature, poor conceptualization, and questionable use of evidence make the study less useful than it could be." Timothy Brook wrote that the authors of "Narcotic Culture" "float some extraordinary propositions that go not only beyond received wisdom, but beyond actual evidence and even common sense."
"The People's Trilogy".
Dikötter is the author of "The People's Trilogy", three books that document the impact of Communist-led China on the lives of ordinary people on the basis of new archival material. The first volume, titled "Mao's Great Famine", won the 2011 Samuel Johnson Prize (now called the Baillie Gifford Prize) for nonfiction, Britain's most prestigious book award for non-fiction, in 2010. The second installment, "The Tragedy of Liberation: A History of the Chinese Revolution, 1945–1957", was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2014, losing out to "This Boy" by Alan Johnson. "The Cultural Revolution: A People's History, 1962–1976", concludes the trilogy and was shortlisted for the PEN International Hessell-Tiltman Prize in 2017.
"Mao's Great Famine" is a 2010 book about the Great Chinese Famine. The book was well received in the popular press and won the Samuel Johnson Prize in 2011, but academic reviews were much more critical. In 2010, Pankaj Mishra described Dikötter's work as "boldly and engagingly revisionist", leading to a public dispute between the two. In 2011, Roderick MacFarquhar said that "Mao's Great Famine" is "Pathbreaking ... a first-class piece of research. ... [Mao] will be remembered as the ruler who initiated and presided over the worst man-made human catastrophe ever. His place in Chinese history is assured. Dikötter's book will have done much to put him there." Felix Wemheuer, lecturer in Chinese history and politics at the University of Vienna, in his review of "Mao's Great Famine", criticized Dikötter for his book's lack of explanation of local variations in destruction and death toll, his ignorance of Mao's efforts to deal with the problems, and his lack of sophisticated arguments due to his political agenda: to reduce Chinese Communism to terror. Cormac Ó Gráda, famine scholar and professor of economics at University College Dublin, criticised the book as "more like a catalogue of anecdotes about atrocities than a sustained analytic argument", and stated that it failed to note that "many of the horrors it describes were recurrent features of Chinese history during the previous century or so." Anthony Garnaut, a social historian of China, said that Dikötter's juxtaposition and sampling techniques fall short of academic best practice, and the allegations Dikötter levels at Yang Jisheng's work are bewildering. In Garnaut's view, Dikötter selectively uses Yang's archival research to tell "an idiosyncratic vignette of totalitarian folly" without historical context. Garnaut also mentioned Dikötter's neglect of the plain wording of the archival document on which he hangs his case. According to Andrew G. Walder, Dikötter's high death estimate cannot be reconciled with age-specific population data.
"The Tragedy of Liberation" examines the establishment and first decade of the People's Republic of China. In the book, Dikötter describes the early years of the state as an era of "calculated terror and systematic violence". The book was well received in the popular press, but academic reviews were much more critical. For "The Financial Times", Julia Lovell called it "[a] remarkable work of archival research. Dikötter rarely, if ever, allows the story of central government to dominate by merely reporting a top-down directive. Instead, he tracks the grassroots impact of Communist policies – on farmers, factory workers, industrialists, students, monks – by mining archives and libraries for reports, surveys, speeches and memoirs. In so doing, he uncovers astonishing stories of party-led inhumanity and also popular resistance." In his review of "The Tragedy of Liberation", Felix Wemheuer wrote, "Dikötter is retelling an old story about the early years of the Cold War based on new sources. While many journalists celebrate "The Tragedy of Liberation" in their reviews, most Western historians, political scientists, and sociologists offer a much more complicated version of early PRC history that includes diverse experiences and local variations. Finding credible alternative narratives is a huge task that warrants future research by modern China scholars. Unfortunately, Dikötter's condemning of the Chinese revolution in his "People's Trilogy" requires an academic response that consists of more than a few novel local case studies." Adam Cathcart, lecturer in Chinese history at the University of Leeds, has pointed out Dikötter's problematic use of sources. Brian DeMare has criticized Dikötter's "The Tragedy of Liberation" for implying that landlords were a communist-invented fiction. DeMare writes, "Due to Dikötter's choice of phrasing, many readers believe that he is arguing that there were no landlords in China. His citation, however, refers to my UCLA dissertation, where I discuss how the term "land lord (dizhu)" was an alien word in the countryside [...] There were, to be sure, many landlords in China."
"The Cultural Revolution" provides an account of China's Cultural Revolution. For "The Guardian", Julia Lovell called it an extension of "Mao's Last Revolution" by Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals, with more intensive use of evidence drawn from China's local archives, and an excavation of the unintended socioeconomic consequences of the Cultural Revolution, including the growth of a private economy. Daniel Leese pointed out four issues about the book: lack of analysis or explanation of many local examples within their particular environment, lack of comprehensive analysis on causes and effects, problematic neglect of the role of ideology in Mao Zedong's launch of the Cultural Revolution, and a lack of clarity between analytical concepts and party language. In his review of the book, Fabio Lanza wrote that Dikötter repeatedly made controversial statements without providing sufficient evidence, and he described events with salacious, if very dubious, details. Lanza concluded that Dikötter's work "does not add anything to our understanding of the Cultural Revolution. Rather, as a mass-marketed assessment of the period, it goes against a long-standing effort in the field of PRC history to produce nuanced, well-sourced, complex, historically rich, and truly innovative analyses." In his review, Ian Johnson wrote about Dikötter's lack of nuance and the absence of grounding for his contrarian views (for example, Dikötter wrote that literacy and public health decreased during the Mao period).
Mao Zedong's biographer Philip Short wrote that "Dikötter's errors are strangely consistent. They all serve to strengthen his case against Mao and his fellow leaders." In reference to Dikötter's errors and misleading comments, Short said the main problem with the author's book was that it did not offer a credible explanation of why Mao and his colleagues acted as they did. Short posited that Dikötter's book "set out to make the case for the prosecution, rather than providing balanced accounts of the periods they describe."
References.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;