Often I will find in a chronology or a biography, you know, official materials, evidence that because I have other evidence, it’s meaningful in a way that maybe the people who edited those collections might not have expected. That’s the idea of mosaic theory – you bring together many pieces of evidence, even small ones, to bring the full meaning out. — Joseph Torigian, NBN interview May 2025 In his new book, The Party’s Interests Come First: The Life of Xi Zhongxun, Father of Xi Jinping (Stanford University Press, 2025), Joseph Torigian leads readers deep into the complex work of historical reconstruction – a process he metaphorically describes as mosaic theory. Studying elite politics in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Torigian explains, isn’t about uncovering one decisive document; it’s about piecing together partial, often contradictory fragments like the Li Rui diaries, edited speeches, and scattered archival traces into a fuller, richer picture. Torigian’s approach builds on foundational insights from political scientists like Paul Pierson and China historians Frederick Teiwes and Warren Sun, whose empirical rigor has long shaped the field of CCP elite politics. Following this tradition, Torigian resists simple or deterministic narratives, showing that even dramatic moments like the Tiananmen protests must be understood as products of internal fractures, improvisation, and deep uncertainty – not as inevitable climaxes. In this interview, Torigian discusses how his course “The Revisionists” invites students to wrestle with the ethical tension between judging and understanding. His own scholarship, he explains, aims to provide the tools, context, and historical reconstruction that allow readers to form their own moral judgments – without handing them a prefabricated verdict. Ultimately, Torigian’s book and his public reflections invite us to step back from binaries of hero and villain, reformer and hardliner, or loyalist and dissenter, and to see history as a web of improvisation, contradiction, and meaning. He suggests that the historian’s role is not to dictate the final moral judgment, but to parse the evidence by piecing together and coloring a mosaic that illuminates the pressures and choices that shaped the past – leaving the moral reckoning, and the hard questions, to the rest of us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related