Parasitic Host Manipulation – A Possible Source of Zombification in Humans?

Below is a faux research article I wrote on ‘zombification’ in humans for a course analyzing the biological, political, sociological, and psychological aspects and implications of a zombie apocalypse.

Abstract

Zombified humans display an array of behavioral traits which differ greatly from non-zombified humans; these traits are manifest in the relentless aggression and insatiable hunger for human flesh which are characteristic of zombie behavior. The danger which these zombies present to humanity is enormous, so understanding the sources and processes of zombification is vital to combating the zombies and preventing further cases of zombification. There are a number of possible pathogenic sources of this zombification, but one of them, parasitic zombification, is arguably the most likely. Some parasite species have demonstrated an ability to alter the behavior of their hosts, and the processes through which they do this are beginning to become better understood. As this parasitic behavioral manipulation comes closest to the sort of behavioral changes we observe in the zombies, detailing the processes of parasitism and host manipulation and applying them to a zombie model is very important. Doing so will greatly aid scientists and government officials in understanding, combating, and preventing this zombie apocalypse.

Background on Parasitism

Parasitism entails a non-mutual relationship between two organisms in which one, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host (Chandler, 1955). These parasites can be protozoa, which are microscopic, one celled organisms that live and multiple within their host;  helminths, which are large, multicellular organisms which also live within their host but cannot multiply while in an adult stage whilst inside their host; and ectoparasites, which include ticks, fleas, lice, and other organisms which attach or borrow into the skin of their host and remain there for long periods of time. Parasites often show a high degree of specialization, reproduce at rates which are much faster than their host, and rely upon their host in order to propagate their species (About Parasites, 2010).

Parasites can come in an array of shapes and sizes, infect and attack a diverse range of species and bodily systems, and cause ailments whose symptoms can be inconvenient to lethal, yet one specific group of parasites are particularly dangerous and, in the case of human zombification, important for study. These parasites hijack their host’s nervous system and manipulate their behaviors, often producing zombie-like behaviors in their host (Knight 2013). The behaviors which parasitic host manipulation can cause have often been divided into three well documented categories (Poulin et al., 1994). In the first, parasites manipulate their hosts in such a way as to favor transmission to their next host, often by rendering the former more susceptible to predation. In the second, they can  force a host into a habitat other than the one in which it usually lives, because the parasite must either exit or propagate in that habitat. The third type of manipulation causes the host to attempt to transmit the parasite via the spread of blood. This sort of transmission is most often seen in blood-sucking insects, who transmit the parasites while gorging on the blood of their prey.

Mechanisms Used by Manipulative Parasites

Manipulative parasites use a number of different mechanisms to control the behaviors of their hosts. Different parasites make use different mechanisms, producing different behaviors and effects, yet the array of possible mechanisms and results make it clear that parasites have a large set of tools for controlling and manipulating their hosts. These mechanisms include energetic drain, site of infection influences, manipulation of the immune system, and neuromodulation.

image00Rates of behavioral modification mechanisms used by manipulative parasites

One way Parasites manipulate host behaviors is through the extraction of energy, in the form of nutrition, from their hosts. When the host becomes starved for nutrients, their behavior might change, and if the energy drain impairs their physiology they might become sluggish or display lower physical performance. On the other hand, if a host is drained of energy, it might become more active and increaser foraging rates. Either way, the change in behavior could benefit the parasite responsible for the energy drain. Yet while this method of behavioral alteration demonstrates that such manipulation need not be complex, it does also lead to general behavior changes that might not benefit the transmission of the parasite, leading to inefficient transmission rates and putting the host at danger of malnutrition and death, thereby also killing the parasite (Lafferty & Shaw, 2013).

Another manner in which parasites manipulate their hosts is through the use of their host’s immune system. Because parasitic infection elicits host immune responses that are designed to overcome the invading parasite, parasites have to negotiate the host’s immune defenses in order to establish an infection. The continuing nature of the infection means that the parasite must continually evade the host’s immune system. However, many parasites demonstrate the ability to exploit host immune defense mechanisms for their own benefit. Research has shown that  parasite-exerted effects on the immune system may influence neuromodulator pathways, thereby altering the behavior of the host. For example, neuroinflammation is a common immune response of the brain to injury or invading pathogens. Several studies have demonstrated that that parasites may incorporate these host neuroinflammatory responses into their behavior modification strategy, using things such as nitric oxide (NO), rodlet cells, and alteration of neuromodulators to alter host behavior. For example, nitric Oxide, in addition to an immune response, functions as a neurotransmitter that can influence brain monoaminergic activity (Helluy & Thomas, 2010). Another example is the trematode Schistoso mamansoni, which secretes opioid peptides into its host, thus influencing both host immunity and neural function (Kavaliers et al., 1999). Inhibiting the host immune system while also utilizing it to neurally control the behavior of the host  is an evolutionary capability which has given manipulative parasites great advantages over their hosts. As parasites are constantly being target by the hosts immune system, they will consistently have resources to alter the behavior of the host.

Manipulative parasites can occupy a range of sites within their host. They are often found in the body cavity, muscles, central nervous system, and other parts, such as the brain. By occupying and damaging key these organ systems, these parasites can change host behavior. For example, the parasite Diplostomum spatheceum infects and damages the eye of a fish, causing it to become more susceptible to predation and thus the parasite more easily spread. Other parasites infect other parts of their host’s body, such as their muscles, in order to change the strength and function of these parts of the body and thus help the parasite spread more easily through transmission.

image01Infection location rates of manipulative paraistes in their hosts.

A key organ system for the manipulation of host behavior is the central nervous system; these parasites are able to manipulate behavior either through damage of the system or more subtle, neural manipulation (McConkey et al., 2013). The location in the brain and central nervous system of where this manipulation occurs is significant: various receptions of a certain hormone or neurotransmitter may produce different behavioral results depending on where they are located in the brain (McConkey et al., 2013). Parasites which want to manipulate their hosts behaviors in specific ways via neuromodulation must thus be located in and targeting specific locations within their hosts brains.

Numerous studies have shown that parasites achieve manipulation by directly or indirectly altering concentrations of hormones or neurotransmitters in their hosts. Concentrations of these substances that can be synthesized by the host and that have effects on behavior are altered following infection, thereby changing the behavior of the host. These substances could be produced by the parasite and released into the host, or actively taken from the host by the parasite and then rereleased (Knight 2013).

Monoamine neurotransmitters, which include the catecholamines DA, adrenaline (epinephrine, EP) and NE, the indoleamine 5-HT, and octopamine (OA), are potent neuromodulators. Monoamines influence many types of behaviors in vertebrates and invertebrates, including those related to activity, movement, stress, social activity and reproduction. The manipulation of these neurotransmitters is common in parasites which control their host’s behavior. One of the most striking and consistently documented behavioral modifications can be seen through parasite-induced changes in indoleamine 5-HT. Changes in 5-HT-altered behaviors in both vertebrates and invertebrates demonstrate the ubiquity of 5-HT as well as its widespread use in animals of varying complexity. Indeed, 5-HT is a major neuromuscular neurotransmitter used in the most primitive animals and its role expands into neuromodulator and neurohormone in more complex animals, where it controls additional physiological functions and behaviors, including stress responses and immune challenges. By altering indoleamine 5-HT, parasites take advantage of their hosts through the manipulation of their behaviors (Knight 2013).

The other neurotransmitters also have significant impacts on host behavior. DA has been found to stimulate locomotion, aggression, dominance and reproductive behavior in fish and mammals, and when altered can produced altered behavior in these categories. OA is a neurotransmitter and hormone that regulates other neuromodulators and that also influences many behaviors, including fight-or-flight reactions, stress, aggression, locomotion and feeding (Knight 2013).

Despite an understanding of these mechanisms for altering host behavior, researchers still do not know whether parasites alter host neuromodulators by secreting their own neurochemicals to produce a change in host neurochemical activity, or whether they secret chemicals which trigger a host response, thereby leading to altered neurochemical activity (Adamo 2013). Unfortunately, the complexity and interconnectedness of neuromodulator systems make it difficult for researchers to discern the specific mechanisms responsible for changes in behavior. Yet the complex nature of these systems might also help parasites induce widespread behavioral changes in their hosts with minimal effort; because these monoamines regulate one another in feedback loops, a parasite need only alter the activity of one in order to effect regulatory changes in the others (Knight 2013).

Applying parasitic host manipulation to the zombie model

Zombified humans display an array of behavioral traits which are starkly different from non-zombified humans. They are relentlessly aggressive, and have an insatiable desire for human flesh; indeed, it seems that the main motivating force for zombies is the search for and consumption of human flesh. They also display significantly lessened cognitive skills and capabilities, demonstrating a change in the physiology of their brain. As of yet, the source of zombification has not been identified, yet it is known to be highly infectious and spread through the bite of a zombie or the transference of zombie blood (Mogk 2011).

Could zombification be caused by a parasite manipulating human behavior? The characteristics of zombies, zombification, and parasitic behavioral manipulation seem to point in that direction. Zombification occurs from the transfer of blood and from a bite of a zombie. It is entirely possible that a parasite causing the zombie infection is transferred through blood and that, by attacking humans and spreading their blood, zombies are acting as a sort of vector for these parasites. If this is the case, the parasite would fall into the category of host manipulator which the host to attempt to transmit the parasite via the spread of blood. While this sort of host manipulation is most often seen in host insects, it could be that this parasite is making use of humans instead.

The insatiable hunger which zombified humans display could be a result of the energy drain caused by the parasite as it feeds off of and controls the human host. By reducing the amount of nutrients in the host body, the parasite could be causing the host’s hypothalamus to increase the host’s desire for food in order to replenish the nutrient loss. By doing so, the zombie will continue to display and act upon its hunger for human flesh, thereby causing it to continue to attack humans and spread the parasite.

The lessened cognitive capabilities of the zombified humans could be a result of damage caused to the frontal lobe by the parasite. Such damage would decrease thinking function, memory tasks, planning, and attention; all of these traits seem to be deficient in zombified humans (Mogk 2011). This damage could perhaps be intentional, for the aggressive behaviors which zombies display against other humans require a lessened sense of empathy, reasoning skills, and other traits which inhibit these behaviors in nonzombified human beings.

The behaviors which zombies exhibit could be the result of behavioral modification caused by parasitic manipulation. As has been discussed, the monoamine neurotransmitters DA and OA influence locomotive, aggressive, and dominant behaviors in mammals. It is entirely possible that the parasite infecting zombies manipulates these neurotransmitters to increase aggression and dominance in zombified humans, thereby causing them the rage which fuels their attacks on humans and the transmission of the parasite. Furthermore, it is likely that this parasite manipulates other neurotransmitters and hormones to inhibit the sense of pain which zombies may feel, thereby causing their seeming immunity to pain, and increase their desire for food in the form of human flesh. Further neuromodulation, albeit in ways not yet discussed or researched, can cause the zombies to specifically seek out non-zombified human beings for attack and prioritize humans as a source of food, ensuring that the parasite thus has the greatest rate of propagation possible.

Further research

The recent spate of zombie attacks have elicited much notice and concern, yet little study. Although the characteristics of the zombies are understood and the way in which the infection is spread is recognized, the specific source of zombification and the method in which humans are zombified has still not yet been discovered. In order to effectively combat the zombies and prevent a disaster on an apocalyptic scale, scientists and government officials must discover this source and study it in order to develop an effective medicine and countermeasures.

This article has outlined the possibility for the source of zombification to be a behaviorally manipulative parasite. The characteristics of the zombies all fit within the scope of symptoms caused by such parasites, and the behaviors of the zombies seem to resemble the behaviors which such parasites could cause. By proposing a possible source of zombification, this article hopes to help scientists more easily and readily pinpoint, or discount, a possible cause to the looming zombie apocalypse. In doing so, they will be more prepared to quickly develop countermeasures which will help halt the spread of the zombies and the zombie infection.

Scientists must now make it a priority to capture a zombie and study its physiology, in particular its brain. They should focus on determining whether there are any parasites located within the brain of the zombified human, and, if so, begin the process of developing an effective medicine or vaccine to combat and prevent the spread of these parasites and their behavioral manipulation. The specific mechanisms and neuromodulators and neurotransmitters which parasite uses, if it is indeed found, will also be an area of study which is necessary. By studying these, scientists will better understand how parasites might control their hosts, how future parasites might attempt to control a human host, and how the human brain works with regards to these functions anyway. Such research will be invaluable for preventing future zombie outbreaks and for better understanding the anatomy and function of the human mind.

References

About Parasites. (2010, November 2).  Retrieved May 10, 2001, from   http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/about.html.

A.C. Chandler. (1955). Introduction to Parasitology: With Special Reference to the Parasites of Man. New York: Wiley.

Adamo, S. A. (2013). Parasites: Evolution’s Neurobiologists. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 3–10.

Helluy, S. and Thomas, F. (2010). Parasitic Manipulation and Neuroinflammation: Evidence From The System Microphallus Papillorobustus (Trematoda) – Gammarus (Crustacea). Parasit.Vectors 3, 38.

Kavaliers, M., Colwell, D., Choleris, E. (1999). Parasites and Behavior: an Ethopharmacological  Analysis and Biomedical Implications. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 23, 1037–1045.

Knight, Katherine. (2013). How Pernicious Parasites Turn Victims Into Zombies. J. Exp. Biol. 216.

Lafferty, K. D. and Shaw, J. C. (2013). Comparing Mechanisms of Host Manipulation Across Host and Parasite Taxa. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 56–66.

McConkey, G. A., Martin, H. L., Bristow, G. C. and Webster, J. P. (2013). Toxoplasma Gondii Infection and Behaviour – Location, Location, Location? J. Exp. Biol. 216, 113–119.

Mogk, Matt. (2011). Everything You Wanted to Know About Zombies. New York:     Gallery Books.

Poulin, R., Brodeur, J. and Moore, J. (1994). Parasite Manipulation of Host Behavior: Should Hosts Always Lose? Oikos 70, 479–484.

Reflections on Gender Normativity

Contemporary discourses on gender normativity, which manifest themselves in both the behaviors characteristic of modern male and female relationships and the perceptions males and females have of themselves and each other, revolve around what has been termed “the double bind;” men and women are socialized with contradictory, mutually incompatible instructions on how to behave toward the opposite sex, and are given equally contradictory requirements for how they must portray themselves. The writers Susan Bordo and Jackson Katz, in their works discussing these norms, demonstrate how these contradictions contribute to a social environment in which sexual violence and aggressiveness is, if not explicitly condoned and encouraged, at least implicitly tolerated and enabled. In this brief analysis of their works, I will detail the discourse of the “double bind of masculinity” as described by Susan Bordo along with the contradictory expectations of female sexuality as described by Jackson Katz. From there, I will set out to demonstrate how these norms affect male and female sexual relationships, and will connect these discourses to my own experiences as a modern-day male.

In “Gentleman or Beast: The Double Bind of Masculinity,” a chapter of  Susan Bordo’s broader work on the social norms affecting men, Bordo describes how men are expected to be “an animal and a gentleman;” that is, society celebrates “untamed male aggression” (Bordo 234) yet also expects it to be “nicely, sexily contained at the same time.” As evidenced by the popularity of aggressive sports such as football and boxing, male violence, “primal aggressiveness,” which drives the equally “primal” male sexuality, is digested and rewarded by society, for it breaks from the taboos of civilization, allowing us to act out, or at the least experience vicariously, the inherent aggressiveness within us all. Figures such as boxers or sports stars are given a significant amount of leeway in their reckless behaviors, or are even allowed to get away with rape, creating a perception in men that they should embody the characteristics which define these individuals. The tremendous admiration and respect placed upon male aggressiveness develops an understanding that the societal taboos against violence need not apply to them. Furthermore, as Bordo puts it, the primitive, aggressive, violent male “turns a girl on” (Bordo 236), bringing out her primal urges as well. Accordingly, men develop an understanding that, to be a “real” man (and therefore a real sexual being), the taboos against violence should not apply to them. Men who do not fit the characteristics of the aggressive male, who display elements of compassion or tenderness, are meanwhile dubbed as “gay” (Bordo 240). From this comes the allowance for the aggressive, primal man to commit acts of violence, and thus sexual violence, with a degree of tolerance, the “boys will be boys” phenomena. Meanwhile, the men who are least likely to commit violence toward women, the ones who are compassionate and nonviolent, find themselves “paralyzed, caught between [their] desire to ‘act like a man’ and fear of giving offense” (Bordo 240). The “double bind” which they experience as a result of contradictory expectations keeps them from actively redefining sexual discourses and norms through action.

Jackson Katz, in “It Takes a Village to Rape a Woman,” a chapter of his book “The Macho Paradox,” discusses the idea of “rape culture,” in which pervasive social norms create an environment conducive to sexual assault. Katz focuses on the norms involving female sexuality, detailing how girls “link their feminine identity with men’s use of their bodies” because of society’s portrayal of a woman’s femininity as being intertwined with her sexuality (Katz 152). Furthermore, women experience a “double bind” in the pressures they feel to present themselves as both sexual beings while also maintaining an air of chastity, forced to be, as Katz puts it, “both a virgin and a whore” (Katz 152). Yet because of elements of victim-blaming in our society, and because of the pressures to present themselves in a chaste manner, women who are sexually aggressive are despised, and are considered not the victim of sexual assault but as the catalyst for it. Because of these two pressures, women find themselves believing that “men have a right” to their body, thereby making them susceptible to accepting unwanted advances, and, when assaulted, often fail to consider themselves as the victims of rape… for society derides the sexualized, sexually active female as a “whore” rather than as a potential victim (Katz 152).

These, then, are two prominent discourses which comprise the cultural norms surrounding male and female sexuality and sexual relationships, from which arises an environment which incubates sexual assault. Because of the discourses surrounding manliness, men feel as though they must be sexually aggressive, violent individuals in order to to portray themselves as “men;” a sexually aggressive, violent man is not one to readily accept “no” for an answer from a woman rejecting his sexual advances. Women, meanwhile, feel that they must act sexual in order to exhibit and embody their femininity, and thus are more susceptible to accepting undesired sexual advances by men lest they appear “prude.” Yet, because women fear being labeled a “whore” due to the contradictory expectations society has placed on them, they are much less likely to consider themselves victims of sexual violence or assault when placed into circumstances that resemble it; if they dressed provocatively (as society expected) and acted sexualized (as society expected), then it must be their fault that they were raped. This, then, is a culture in which men feel that they must be aggressive toward women sexually in order to embody their manliness, and women feel as though they must let men have their bodies yet cannot consider any advances toward them as illegitimate or as assault. Such is a context in which rape can occur, and indeed, such is the context in which rape often occurs without any reporting and with women being put into the position of not even considering the action rape.

My own personal experiences as a contemporary male in this society has reflected, to a degree, these different discourses on sexuality and relationships. I find particularly pertinent to my experiences Bordo’s concept of the “double bind of masculinity,” in that I would consider myself the compassionate, non-violent man who does not embody the traditional characteristics of “manliness” and who therefore does not portray himself as a sexual being. This has left me rather frustrated in the realm of my sexual relationships, where I have not found overwhelming levels of success; after all, it is the aggressive, primal male who “turns women on,” not the intellectual, compassionate male. From this is emergent a degree of disappointment toward women and a degree of tolerance for the aggressive actions “primal” men display, actions which often contribute themselves to rape. If they can “get some” by acting violent and brutish, at least they’re “getting some,” which is more than could be said for me. This degree of tolerance, borne from envy, does not and cannot allow for the changing of broader discourses about sexuality nor does it do much to help end the crisis of rape characteristic of our society.

I also find myself timid, “paralyzed” even, when dealing with sexual situations, for I find myself recognizing the “double bind” that women are placed in; I often worry whether women I am sexually engaged with are accepting my advances lest they appear they had led me on, or if their “indicators of interest” (flirting, etc.) were simply appearances made to satisfy the requirements of society rather them demonstrators of real interest. Of course, my timidity is likely borne from other reasons as well, yet these discourses about sexuality still serve as a basis in shaping the way I think.

The discourses surrounding male and female sexuality, as demonstrated by Jackson Katz and Susan Bordo in their works about these norms, create an environment which, if not explicitly tolerates, at the least makes possible, sexual violence and rape. Expectations on men to act aggressively and violent makes them more susceptible to committing sexual violence, while expectations on women to act sexualized puts them in the position to be assaulted. These discourses are pervasive, and, as evidenced by the continuing crisis of rape, run deep in our society. Furthermore, in my own experiences as a contemporary male, I’ve found my behaviors and perceptions influenced and shaped by my understanding of these norms.

“Moscow and Chinese Communists,” A Review

Moscow and Chinese Communists. Robert C. North. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963. 310 pp.

The founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 represented the victory of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) over the Kuomintang in the struggle for power in and control over China and culminated decades of civil war and revolutionary intrigue. Western scholarship on the Chinese Revolution has paid particular focus to the leading actors and key events within the Chinese Communist Party during the crucial years between its founding in 1921 and its ultimate ascendency in 1949. So, too, does the contemporary Chinese revolutionary narrative pay reverence to the mythos of Mao, the “Long March,” and the triumph of the Chinese communists against seemingly impossible odds. Yet lost in this narrative is the reality that no revolution exists in a vacuum; indeed,  external actors, events, and circumstances have the potential to fundamentally shape the characteristics of a revolutionary moment along with the character, organization, strategy, and tactics of a revolutionary movement. Such is particularly the case for revolutions framed around Marxist ideology, which is global and transnational in both theory and practice.

In Moscow and Chinese Communists, Robert North explores the external actors and events which came to dramatically shape the origins and character of China’s Communist Party and revolution by detailing the intricate linkages between the Soviet Union and China’s communists. The book progresses through a tracing of the history of Soviet influence on China’s communist party, beginning with the origins of Communist thought in China, the formation of the CCP, and the Kuomintang-Communist alliance, through the Kuomintang-Communist split, Mao’s ascendancy to power, the experiment of the Kiangsi Soviet, and the Sino-Japanese war. Throughout this progression, North breaks from the conventional analysis of the Chinese Revolution as a product of Maoist theory, strategy, and practice, proposing instead that the Soviet Union’s strategy for international communist revolution, along with the individual characters of Soviet leaders, the dynamics of Soviet politics, and the prejudices and perceptions of the advisors sent by the Soviet Union to advise the CCP, shaped the ultimate direction the Chinese revolution would take.

North particularly emphasizes the fluidity and pragmatism of Leninist and Bolshevik revolutionary strategy, directed by the Soviet Union through the Comintern, in the context of the Chinese Revolution, along with the impact they had. The main recurring point in this analysis explains Soviet support for the Kuomintang, which set in motion the circumstance which would eventually lead to an independent, and ultimately victorious, Chinese Communist Party, as a method to influence key political actors in China and undermine anti-revolutionary currents; supporting the Kuomintang was, as North puts it, a supposed “Trojan horse for gaining control of China” for Bolshevik leaders (pg. 66). Crucial to this is North’s other key point, that political events and actors outside of China ultimately played the key role in determining the strategy and direction the CCP would take. He details how the struggle between Trotsky and Stalin for leadership in the Soviet Union manifested itself in China’s revolution, with Stalin’s push for CCP-Kuomintang cooperation, developed to oppose Trotsky’s calls for an autonomous communist movement in China, emerging triumphant with Stalin’s consolidation of power. This point plays into North’s broader conclusion, that the strategies imposed by the Soviet Union on China’s communists were borne not only, and perhaps not even so much, out of a desire to see Communism in China, but as “weapons in personal drives for power” (pg. 30). The challenge of democratic centralism and the dictatorial Leninist system for global Marxist revolution, then, is perhaps most clearly demonstrated through North’s claims that Stalin’s carefully laid plains, and the manifesting Bolshevik influence on the CCP, “had precipitated nothing but near-disaster for the Chinese Communists” through successive failures, setbacks, and deceits (pg. 97).

The analysis North provides of the Chinese Communist Party, and the influence had on it by the Soviet Union, puts into global perspective the narrative told about the Chinese Revolution, one which often overlooks or undervalues such key linkages. His detailing of the personalities, prejudices, and perceptions of the numerous actors who took part in the connections between the Soviet Union and the CCP reveals political action and intrigue far broader and more complex than what is usually given by simply analyzing Mao and his key lieutenants. Indeed, for this, North’s book sheds much needed light and insight into the formation and character of the Chinese Communist Party, insight which is lost when credence isn’t paid to the multitude of individuals who helped shape its direction.

Regarding Mao as the sole face, character, and strategist of China’s Communists removes from consideration the significant roles played by others, especially Soviets, in defining Chinese communist strategy and organization. Similarly, regarding China’s Communist Revolution as an isolated, insular event neglects the global political and broader communist context in which it existed. Doing such provides an incomplete, and even incorrect, understanding of not only China’s revolution, but the contemporary characteristics of China’s Communist Party. North’s work represents an admirable attempt at combating such simplistic explanations.

Though North focuses his analysis on the Soviet Union’s influence on China’s communists, emergent from his work is an equally valid and intuitive critique of the strategies of Bolshevism and the role played by the Comintern in inciting global communist revolution. By demonstrating the role played by the Soviet Union in structuring, and sometimes dictating, the organization and revolutionary strategies of the CCP, he reveals how the Comintern was, far from being only a tool used to further the revolutionary current, a tool used to secure Soviet leadership and hegemony in the communist world. His critique of the pitfalls in the role played by the Soviet Union in the communist world, such as Stalin’s utilization of the Comintern and shaping of Bolshevik strategy for his furthering of personal power and the inefficiencies and challenges facing a centralized yet transnational communist organization, readily support the historical reality of the Comintern’s failure to develop a unified, cohesive communist bloc. His analysis can thus be used to effectively and insightfully analyze communist movements and their relations to the Soviet Union in countries other than China.

However, despite the attention North dedicates to the often overlooked actors crucial to China’s Communist Revolution and the insights gained from such, North neglects to spend focus on what are conventionally considered the key actors. He dedicates only a brief chapter to Mao’s life, rise, and influence on Chinese Communism. Focusing his attention on the Soviet influence on the characteristics of Chinese communism, he further fails to consider deeply the origins of, and significance of, Maoist thought and theory. By doing so, North commits an error equally dangerous to overlooking less significant actors in the CCP; without providing ample consideration of Mao or Maoism, North is unable to provide a rounded, complete analysis and understanding of the Chinese Communist Revolution and all the sources of influence which brought about its ultimate success. Attention could have been directed toward the influence of Bolshevism and Bolshevik theory on the formation of Maoist thought, or the interplay between the development of Maoism and the application of Leninist strategy in the context of the CCP’s strategy; North, however, does not attempt such an analysis, narrowing his focus instead largely on the application of Soviet practices in the CCP’s strategy.

Another issue, though one not necessarily emergent as a result of North’s work, is when his book was published; in 1963, the year of publishing, the Sino-Soviet split was only just beginning, and little access to documents detailing the intricacies of Soviet-CCP cooperation was available. Accordingly, North, as an American living in the height of the Cold War, laces his analysis with a detectable concern about the prospects of a Sino-Soviet bloc; indeed, he frames his analysis of international communist cooperation as enabling Western audiences to “perhaps be less inclined to behave precisely as the Bolshevik strategists and tacticians expect – and, for Communist purposes – want them to behave” (pg. 8). This prejudice undermines his analysis of the Chinese Communist Party, which should otherwise be an objective analysis of a case study in political developments and international cooperation, by framing it as a global conspiracy rather than as a product of historical circumstances. As such, the reader is left wondering whether the characteristics and perceptions ascribed by North to the Soviet Union’s various advisers and China’s developing communist thinkers are indeed borne from reality, or if they have been construed to convey to the reader a fear of a growing and perhaps impending global communist victory. Meanwhile, without access to a breadth of documentation on the topic of his analysis, North falls short of providing a full and complete, and likely even substantial, understanding of the true depth of the cooperation between the Soviet Union and China’s communists. Further work is left to be done by other researchers and authors to expand and refine upon the analytical framework North has provided.

Robert North’s Moscow and Chinese Communists provides a reader with a fuller picture of the development of China’s Communist Party and the eventual Communist Revolution, one that would otherwise be impossible if focus was only paid to Mao and the elements of communist theory indigenous in China. Despite the issues raised by this review, he admirably sets forward to depict China’s Revolution as an event created by, and often directly influenced by, outside forces and outside actors. Developing a true understanding of the Chinese Revolution, or any revolution influenced by Marxist ideology, necessitates knowledge of the various international forces and actors in play and the influence they had. The reader will finish this book feeling more confident in that knowledge, and therefore have a more nuanced and rounded understanding of how and why the Chinese Communist Party took and used the character, organization, and strategies that came to define it.