# Text-Function Codebook v0.1 This codebook defines coding rules for the four text-function types used in the Xu Ben project. It turns the conceptual model into reproducible coding decisions. Status: working codebook. Based on 6 close-read articles. Will be revised as more texts are coded. ## How To Use For each article, assign one **primary** type and optionally one **secondary** type. If the text genuinely splits evenly, mark both as co-primary. Do not assign more than two types to one text. Coding is done by human close reading, not by keyword automation. The `text_function_manual` field in article-level data records this judgment. ## Type 1: institution_building ### Definition 制度 is used as a **constructive framework**: the text discusses how to build, reform, or maintain democratic governance, civic education, public life, or rule of law. The underlying question is "what kind of institutions do we need?" ### Positive indicators - Explicit reference to democratic political systems, constitutionalism, civic culture, public reasoning - Reform proposals or normative prescriptions ("好的公共生活需要……", "公民教育应该……") - Invocations of positive models (American civics, Tocqueville on democracy, Arendt on citizenship) - Vocabulary: 公民社会, 民主政治, 法治, 公民教育, 制度保证, 政体改革, 公共说理 ### Negative indicators (not this type) - If 制度 appears mainly as an object of critique/exposure (→ institution_failure_analysis) - If the text focuses on why intellectuals failed to defend institutions (→ public_intellectual_failure_diagnosis) - If 制度 is largely absent (→ humanistic_meaning_diagnosis) ### Canonical example **Slot 1: 好的公共生活需要价值共识和公民启蒙 (2012)** 制度 is the structural condition for good public life. The text asks how to form citizens, not how institutions oppress. ### Easily confused with - **institution_failure_analysis**: both mention 制度 heavily. Distinguish by direction: building asks "what should we build?"; failure_analysis asks "how does this system dominate?" - Some texts do both (→ mark as co-primary or primary + secondary) --- ## Type 2: institution_failure_analysis ### Definition 制度 is used as a **domination or control mechanism**: the text analyzes how propaganda, totalitarian education, authoritarian rule, or institutional structures produce obedience, suppress thought, or manufacture consent. The underlying question is "how does this system work on people?" ### Positive indicators - Analysis of propaganda techniques, totalitarian education, censorship mechanisms - References to how institutions shape behavior, manufacture consensus, or eliminate dissent - Historical cases of institutional domination (Nazi education, Soviet propaganda, Mao-era campaigns) - Vocabulary: 宣传, 极权, 统治, 全能, 控制, 服从, 灌输, 党化教育, 前宣传 ### Negative indicators - If the text proposes constructive alternatives as its main thrust (→ institution_building) - If the focus shifts to intellectuals' personal failures rather than systemic mechanisms (→ public_intellectual_failure_diagnosis) ### Canonical example **Slot 5: 解剖宣传——读雅克·埃吕的《宣传》(2010)** 制度 is the machinery of totalitarian propaganda. The text dissects how propaganda works, not what to build instead. ### Easily confused with - **institution_building**: slot 4 (专制教育) has very high institutional density but mixes both — it diagnoses authoritarian education AND invokes democratic models. Primary: institution_building (because the normative direction is reform). Secondary: institution_failure_analysis. - **public_intellectual_failure_diagnosis**: some texts analyze both the system and the intellectuals who serve it. If the system's mechanism is the focus, it's failure_analysis; if the intellectuals' moral/psychological failure is the focus, it's the next type. --- ## Type 3: public_intellectual_failure_diagnosis ### Definition 制度 is **background**: the text focuses on why public intellectuals fail, go silent, become cynical, or lose their public role. The underlying question is "what happened to the people who were supposed to speak?" ### Positive indicators - Discussion of cynicism, silence, intellectual complicity, loss of faith - Diagnosis of why intellectuals collaborate, self-censor, or retreat into professionalism - References to the "failure" of the public intellectual as a social type - Vocabulary: 犬儒, 沉默, 知识分子失败, 信仰丧失, 公知污名化, 平庸之恶 ### Negative indicators - If the text is mainly analyzing the propaganda/institutional system itself (→ institution_failure_analysis) - If制度 barely appears (→ humanistic_meaning_diagnosis) ### Canonical example **Slot 2: 犬儒主义是弱者的抵抗 (2016)** 制度 is mentioned (极权, 专制), but the focus is on why intellectuals are cynical, silent, and failing in their public role. ### Easily confused with - **institution_failure_analysis**: both involve critique. Distinguish by subject: if the text asks "how does the system produce obedience?", it's failure_analysis; if it asks "why don't intellectuals resist?", it's this type. - **humanistic_meaning_diagnosis**: some 2020s texts combine intellectual failure with AI-era meaning crisis. If the intellectual-failure frame dominates, code it here. --- ## Type 4: humanistic_meaning_diagnosis ### Definition 制度 **largely exits the frame**. The text centers on human subjectivity, meaning, civilisational crisis, AI-era self-reflection, or existential diagnosis. The underlying question is "what does it mean to be human (now)?" ### Positive indicators - AI, technology, civilisation, meaning, loneliness, autonomy as primary topics - Absence or near-absence of institutional vocabulary - Philosophical/literary framing (existentialism, literary criticism, cultural diagnosis) - Vocabulary: 人类, 文明, 意义, 主体性, 孤独, 空虚, 自由选择, 人之为人, 自我反思 ### Negative indicators - If institutional vocabulary is still prominent (→ one of the first three types) - If the text proposes concrete political reforms (→ institution_building) ### Canonical example **Slot 3: AI与人类自毁的文学反思 (2025)** 制度 is virtually absent. The text uses AI as a mirror for human self-destruction and asks what literature can do about it. **Slot 6: AI 时代，"自由选择"如何成为真正的重负？(2025)** Same frame, but more moderate — behavioral economics + existentialism, "meaning prescription" rather than "catastrophe diagnosis." ### Easily confused with - Texts that use humanistic language to frame political critique may look like this type but are actually institution_failure_analysis with humanistic rhetoric. - Close reading must distinguish: does the text use 人类/文明 to diagnose a political system, or does it genuinely leave the institutional frame behind? --- ## Coding Procedure 1. Read the full text (not just title or keywords). 2. Ask: what is this text primarily trying to do? Build institutions? Expose how they dominate? Diagnose intellectual failure? Diagnose the human condition? 3. Assign primary type. 4. If a substantial secondary thrust is present, assign secondary type. 5. Record in `text_function_manual` field as: `primary` or `primary+secondary`. 6. If uncertain, flag for discussion rather than forcing a category. ## Revision Notes - v0.1 based on 6 close-read articles (slots 1-6). - The four types emerged from multi-round AI-assisted close reading and may need subdivision or recombination as more texts are coded. - Mixed-type texts are expected and should be coded as such, not forced into a single category.