Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:32:59.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Party Views of Science: The Record from the First Decade

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

R. P. Suttmeier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the Chinese People's Republic (C.P.R.) was established in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) appeared to understand that one of the requisites for modernization was an effective system of scientific research and development. Throughout the 1950s, numerous organizational measures were taken to establish this system. One step removed from actual decisions affecting science, however, was an identifiable and fairly coherent set of perceptions and beliefs which had policy consequences. These I call the CCP's “views of science,” the perceptual and conceptual guides to action on science policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
The China Quarterly , Volume 44 , October 1970 , pp. 146 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In October 1949, Ch'en Po-ta consulted with S. I. Vavilov, President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, about the Soviet system of science and technology and its relevance to Chinese scientific development. Kiselev, I. N., “Scientific Ties Between Two Academies,” Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSR (Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences, U.S.S.R.), No. 9 (09 1969)Google Scholar in United States Joint Publications Research Service (hereafter JPRS)Google Scholar, No. 2139. Following Ch'en's return, the impact of Party/government policies on Chinese science began. In 1950, some 28 conferences were held on the organization of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Also in 1950 the All-China Federation of Scientific Societies and the All-China Association for the Dissemination of Scientific and Technical Knowledge were organized. See the various articles printed in Current Background (hereafter CB) (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate General), No. 153.Google Scholar

2 The phrase “views of science” is used to encompass a cluster of beliefs, theories, opinions, etc., concerning the historical development of modern science, the nature of discovery, the justification of scientific statements, the organization of science and the relationships of science to the political and economic aspects of society.Google Scholar

3 Peake, Cyrus H., “Some Aspects of the Introduction of Modern Science into China,” Isis, Vol. XXII (1934–35), p. 191.Google Scholar

4 V. K. Ting (Ting Wen-chiang) (geologist), Jen Hung-chün (mathematician) and Tang Yueh (psychologist) were notable exceptions. See Danny Wynn Ye, Kwok, Scientism in Chinese Thought, 1900–1950 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), p. 109.Google Scholar

5 Ibid. p. 3.

6 Ibid. p. 12.

7 The interrelationships of theory and practice, productive forces and superstructure were recognized as complicated by Marx and Engels themselves and subsequent attempts at precise explanation have continued to be ambiguous. For a discussion of this problem, see Graham, Loren R., The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party, 1927–1932 (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1967), pp. 34–43Google Scholar. Also, David, Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917–1932 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961)Google Scholar, and “Soviet Views on the History of Science,” Isis, Vol. XLVI (03 1955), pp. 3–13Google Scholar. Since the early 1930s, science was regarded as part of the superstructure in the U.S.S.R., until 1961 when it became a “direct productive force.” Graham, p. 38n. Also Kurakov, I. G., Science, Technology and Communism, Some Questions of Development, translated by Carin Dedijer (Oxford: Permgamon Press, 1966), p. 1 et seq.Google Scholar

8 Ch'en, Po-ta, Speech Before the Study Group of Research Members of Academia Sinica, 18 07 1952 (Peking: Foreign Languages Press). Ch'en at this time was Deputy Director of the Propaganda Department of the CCP Central Committee and was a Vice-President of CAS.Google Scholar

9 An ideological reform committee was set up by Kuo Mo-jo, President of CAS, in 11 1951, but the campaign did not begin until 29 December. It was to last only four months, but was interrupted by the “Three-Anti- and Five-Anti-” Campaigns. See CB, No. 153.Google Scholar

10 Ch'en, , Speech Before Academia Sinica, p. 3.Google Scholar

11 Ibid. p. 5.

12 Ibid. pp. 7–8.

13 Ibid. p. 13.

14 Ibid. p. 14.

15 The terms “internalist” and “externalist” apply to historiography of science. The “internalist” sees scientific development as the product of the internal logic of science itself, and rather independent of sociological or economic factors.Google Scholar

16 See Joseph, Needham, “Science and Society in East and West,” in Maurice Goldsmith, and Alan, Mackay (eds.), Science and Society (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964), pp. 147–149. This question of the internalist versus externalist explanations of the rise of science is surely not only relevant to China, but also to all “late modernizers.”Google Scholar

17 Ch'en, , Speech Before Academia Sinica, p. 26.Google Scholar

18 Ibid. p. 26.

19 “On the basis of the above-mentioned orientation and various problems explained thereunder, we should be able to map out some research plans.” Ibid. p. 26. This is certainly a rather mild call for planning in science, and is characteristic of the early period of scientific development in the People's Republic. Of far more importance to the CCP at this time was the ideological remoulding of scientists.

20 Ibid. p. 16.

21 Ibid. p. 21.

22 Ibid. p. 20.

23 Ibid. p. 21.

24 “Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice, and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. 1 (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 965), p. 308.Google Scholar

25 Ch'en, , Speech Before Academia Sinica, p. 23.Google Scholar

26 Ibid. p. 28.

27 My italics. Ibid. p. 29.

28 Mao, , On Coalition Government, quoted in Ch'en, Speech Before Academia Sinica, p. 30.Google Scholar

29 Ch'en, , Speech Before Academia Sinica, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

30 See Yü, Kuang-yüan, “Two Roads for Developing the Scientific Enterprise in China,” Jen-min jih-pao (People's Daily) (hereafter JMJP), 4 09 1957Google Scholar, in Survey of China Mainland Press (hereafter SCMP) (Hong Kong: U.S. Consulate General), No. 1620.Google Scholar

31 Kuo, Mo-jo, “General Report on 1950 Work and Main Points of 1951, Programme of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,” Hsin-hua yueh-pao (New China Monthly), 05 1951, in CB, No. 153.Google Scholar

32 My italics. Ibid.

33 New China News Agency (hereafter NCNA) (Peking), 21 11 1952.Google Scholar

34 Kuo Mo-jo, in CB, No. 153.Google Scholar

35 There is, of course, justification for any government to want to exercise some control over the research it funds. Party leadership, however, initially at least, took the form of non-scientific meddling in the day-to-day workings of research installations. Such meddling, which was exposed during the Hundred Flowers period, could not be justified as normal government control over government-sponsored research, but rather stems from a doctrine that explicitly calls for the politicization of research. The realities of more rational research administration could not be ignored, however. The discussion below indicates how “Party leadership” came to mean more conventional bureaucratic control over research.Google Scholar

These doctrinal changes were reflected in simultaneous organizational changes. The Scientific Planning Committee, organized in 1956, was reorganized in 1957 and eventually gave way to a new State Scientific and Technical Commission in 1958. In the Academy of Sciences, the establishment of departments and academic committees was partly to replace Party leadership with scientific leadership at the working level.Google Scholar

36 See Kuo, Mo-jo, “Development of Scientific Research in China” (Report delivered to third session of First National People's Congress, 18 06 1956), NCNA, 18 June 1956, in CB, No. 400.Google Scholar

37 My italics. “The Beginnings of a New Stage of Our Scientific Undertakings,” Kuang-ming jih-pao (hereafter KMJP) editorial discussing and praising the establishment of departments at CAS, 3 06 1955, in SCMP, No. 1068.Google Scholar

38 Kuo, Mo-jo, in CB, No. 400.Google Scholar

39 Ibid.

40 This blame, and the special treatment given intellectuals after January 1956, gave rise to some bitter resentment among experienced Party cadres. A typical complaint was “… the people who conquered the empire do not sit on the throne, and those who sit on the throne did not win the empire.” See Lo, Lung-chi, “The Question of Higher Intellectuals,” NCNA, 26 06 1956, in CB, No. 402.Google Scholar

41 See Chou, En-lai, On the Question of Intellectuals, in Communist China, 1955–1959: Policy Documents with Analysis by Bowie, Robert R. and Fairbanks, John K. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 128–144.Google Scholar

42 See the various translated articles opposing “rightism” in science appearing in SCMP, Nos. 1581 and 1594.Google Scholar

43 Yü, Kuang-yüan, in SCMP, No. 1620.Google Scholar

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Wei, I-ching, “The Party Leadership in Science,” JMJP, 1 07 1958, in Joint Publications Research Service (JPRS) (Washington, D.C.), No. 601 D.Google Scholar

47 Yü, Kuang-yüan, in SCMP, No. 1620.Google Scholar

48 Kuo, Mo-jo, “Development of Scientific Research in China,” NCNA, 18 06 1956, in CB, No. 400.Google Scholar

49 “Draw Up Well the 15-Year Long-range Plan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,” KHTP editorial No. 11 (1955), in Extracts from China Mainland Magazines (Hong Kong), No. 20.Google Scholar

50 Kuo, Mo-jo, “On Coordination of Scientific Research,” JMJP, 20 03 1957, in SCMP, No. 1515.Google Scholar

51 “Give Support to Scientific Research Work,” JMJP editorial, 16 November 1956, in SCMP, No. 1426.Google ScholarPubMed

52 See Kuo, Mo-jo, in SCMP, No. 1515, for concrete examples of this.Google Scholar

53 The actual consequence of the introduction of planning was to give priority to areas where China originally had limited competence. These areas also were particularly relevant to atomic energy and missile development.Google Scholar

54 See Hagstrom, Warren O., The Scientific Community (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965).Google Scholar

55 For a discussion of planning as an instrument of social control in Soviet science, see Alexander Vucinich, The Soviet Academy of Sciences (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, The Hoover Institute Studies, Series E: Institutions, No. 3, 1956), pp. 81–89.Google ScholarPubMed

56 See Yü, Kuang-yüan, “The Path of China's Technological Revolution,” Hsueh-hsi, No. XXV (18 07 1958), in JPRS, No. 501D.Google Scholar

57 “Mass science” is used to include the ideas that science has its basis in the masses, that scientific discovery comes from the masses, that scientific justification must also come from the masses and that uneducated but innovative peasants and workers can legitimately be thought of as “scientists.”Google Scholar

58 See Wang, Shih-hao, “On the Promotion of New and Different Things,” JMJP, 16 07 1958, in JPRS, No. 601D.Google Scholar

59 “JMJP says ‘Science is No Mystery’,” NCNA, 22 05 1958.Google Scholar

60 See Wang Shih-hao, as in note 58, above.Google Scholar

61 The CCP characterizes this bargaining by scientists as follows: “The Party cannot afford losing me, and the nation cannot afford losing me as I have such great knowledge.” See Ch'en Ch'i-wu, “Casting Off Capitalist Individualism,” Wen-hui pao, 31 05 1958, in JPRS, No. 472D.Google Scholar

62 Wang Shih-hao, as in note 58, above.Google Scholar

63 Chang, Chin-fu, “For the Liberation of Thought and the Determined Followthrough of the Main Party Line Concerning the Construction of Socialism in the Tasks of Science,” JMJP, 7 06 1958, in JPRS, No. 472D.Google Scholar

64 Ibid.

65 Yü, Kuang-yüan, “On Mass Movements in Scientific and Technological Work,” Hung-chi (Red Flag) (Peking), No. 3 (1 02 1960).Google Scholar

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

68 “Li Fu-chun on Importance of Popularizing Science,” NCNA, 30 10 1956, in SCMP, No. 1403.Google Scholar

69 Ibid.

70 Yü, Kuang-yüan, in SCMP, No. 1620.Google Scholar

71 Ibid.

72 Chang, Chin-fu, in JPRS, No. 472D.Google Scholar

73 “Jen-min jih-pao says ‘Science is No Mystery’,” NCNA, 22 05 1958, in SCMP, No. 1780.Google Scholar

74 Article 43 of the Common Programme states, “Efforts shall be made to develop the natural sciences and place them in the service of industrial, agricultural and national defence construction. Scientific discoveries and inventions shall be encouraged and awarded and scientific knowledge shall be popularized.”Google Scholar

75 “Li Fu-chun on Importance of Popularizing Science,” NCNA, 30 10 1956, in SCMP, No. 1403.Google Scholar

76 Yü Kuang-yüan, , in SCMP, No. 1620.Google Scholar

77 The elements in a scientific tradition would include the way that research goals are established (and what they are), the way research is organized and managed, and the way the “role” of a scientist is defined.Google Scholar