School Killings in China: Anthropological Review of 2010
This paper offers a critical review of Steinmueller and Fei's (2011) article "School Killings in China: Society or Wilderness?" published in Anthropology Today. The review examines the article's analysis of the 2010 wave of unrelated school killings in China, including the authors' exploration of social and political contributing factors such as rapid social change, unemployment, inequality, and moral crisis. The reviewer evaluates three specific cases discussed in the source article, considers the psychological dimensions of the killers' motivations, and reflects on the significance of China's one-child policy in amplifying the tragedy for affected families. The paper also offers a balanced critique of the authors' perceived bias and argumentative clarity.
- Overview of the Article: Summary of Steinmueller and Fei's 2011 article
- Social and Political Implications: Social change, inequality, and government role
- Case Analysis and Psychological Dimensions: Three cases and killers' psychological profiles
- The One-Child Policy Context: One-child policy amplifies tragedy for families
- Critical Assessment of the Article: Critique of authorial bias and clarity
- Conclusion: Society or Wilderness?: Unresolved question about China's moral state
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The review moves logically from summary to analysis to critique, giving readers a clear sense of the source article's content before evaluating its strengths and weaknesses.
- The writer engages personally and reflectively with the material, noting what was most compelling or disturbing — a hallmark of effective critical response writing.
- The critique of authorial bias is balanced: the reviewer acknowledges both the limitations and the merits of Steinmueller and Fei's approach.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates critical source evaluation — the ability to summarize an article's argument faithfully while independently assessing its methodology, bias, and persuasive effectiveness. Rather than simply restating the source, the reviewer layers in contextual reasoning (e.g., the one-child policy) to deepen the analytical response.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a broad overview of the source article, then narrows into thematic analysis of social and political factors, psychological case details, and the one-child policy's relevance. It pivots to a critical assessment of the authors' writing and bias, and closes with an unresolved but thoughtful reflection on the article's central question — whether China is a "society or wilderness." The structure mirrors a standard undergraduate critical review format.
Overview of the Article
The article by Steinmueller and Fei (2011), School Killings in China: Society or Wilderness?, provides insightful information about the atrocities that transpired in 2010. The article offers an overview of the numerous children who were slain at the hands of multiple unrelated killers, along with analysis and hypotheses regarding the nature of the killings. The authors provide comparative analysis of these slayings relative to those in other countries, as well as comparative profiles of the killers themselves. In addition, the authors offer a critical look at how media coverage in China influenced the government's response to these atrocities, and insight into citizen reaction to the widespread attention these incidents received.
Social and Political Implications
The review of the social and political implications of the school killings, and the broader look at contemporary China, was the most engaging part of the article. Many attribute the killings to rapid social changes, unemployment, personal insecurity on the part of the killers, and deepening inequalities. Still others view the killings as an indicator of a pending moral crisis in China (Steinmueller & Fei, 2011). This interpretation is framed in part as a response to how the government has attempted to characterize China as a harmonious state, with the government acting as a parental authority to all of its citizens.
There is significant disagreement with this governmental assertion. Several of the killers articulated acute levels of distrust of the government's intentions and explicitly blamed the government for driving them to act as they did. Although the government cannot be held directly liable for the killers' actions — personal accountability is certainly warranted — the argument does raise important questions about the relationship between social inequality and political legitimacy in contemporary China.
Case Analysis and Psychological Dimensions
The examination of the three cases Steinmueller and Fei offered provided increased insight into the possible connections between the actions taken by those responsible for the school killings. The psychological and cognitive dimensions were particularly intriguing, offering some window into the murderers' thought processes. The article's treatment of motivation raises broader questions about the relationship between individual psychology and systemic social pressures — questions that anthropology as a discipline is well positioned to address.
Conclusion: Society or Wilderness?
Whether the authors succeed in answering the question of whether China is a wilderness or a society remains unclear. The absence of moral restraint evident in the killers' actions could certainly give one the impression that China is more of a wilderness. However, as disturbing as these incidents are, the entirety of China's societal values cannot and should not be reduced to the actions of a few obviously disturbed individuals. The article raises urgent questions without fully resolving them — which may itself be a fair reflection of the complexity of the subject.
References
Steinmueller, H., & Fei, W. (2011). School killings in China: Society or wilderness. Anthropology Today, 27(1), 10–13.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.