This article analyses the book-publishing industry in the mainland of the People’s Republic of China from a sociological perspective. Borrowing the concept of ‘field’, I demonstrate how the industry is a field of division, characterized by the distinction between state-owned firms and private-sector players, and yet is also shaped by the interdependence between these two types of organizations. In the first half of the article, I illustrate how the official, state-owned publishing houses interact with the ‘illegal’ private publishing firms, a (...) process enabled by the distinctive ‘trade’ in ISBN numbers. In the second part, I examine the distribution sector, which too features a distinct separation between state-run and privately owned channels, resulting in companies operating in different channels receiving differentiated terms and treatment. (shrink)

Critical accounts over the past years have focused on neoliberalism as a subject of knowledge; there has been a recently growing interest in neoliberalism as an object of knowledge. This article considers the theoretical, epistemological and political implications of the relationship between neoliberalism as an epistemic subject and neoliberalism as an epistemic object. It argues that the ‘gnossification’ of neoliberalism – framing it an epistemic project, and deriving implications for political engagement from this – avoids engaging with numerous ambiguous elements (...) of the production of knowledge. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of the ‘scholastic fallacy’ and Boltanski and Chiapello’s work in sociology of critique, the article lays out a framework for the study of the relationship between epistemic, moral, and political elements of critique of neoliberalism, including the conditions of its own production in contemporary academic contexts. (shrink)