Knowledge Production in Mao-Era China represents a watershed in a rapidly growing field: the history of science and technology in Mao-era China. To my knowledge, Rui Kunze and Marc Andre Matten are the first to attempt a comprehensive analysis of the subject, rather than taking a specific scientific field as a case study. The authors are a research fellow and professor, respectively, at Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), the home of a dazzling collection of primary sources donated by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in 2006 (www.sass.phil.fau.de). In the space of about 150 pages, the book offers a sample of some of the many gems to be found in that collection, a serious effort to synthesize the relevant secondary literature, and an original interpretation of the historical significance of Mao-era science and technology. It may well be the most useful introduction to the subject currently available, and I expect it will remain essential reading in years to come.
The Introduction and the first chapter, titled “Defining Correct Science,” advance a fresh interpretation of Mao-era knowledge production as “pluralist.” Eschewing any notion of Mao-era China as pathological, Rui and Matten demonstrate that the intertwining of science and politics is found throughout the history of science. They further argue that even as the Mao-era state embraced an authoritative view of science as the source of universal truth, it faced significant development challenges, and so actively adopted a pragmatic variety of pluralist strategies. The authors thus emphasize the “disunity” of science, referring both to the nature of science everywhere (an analytical insight derived from the literature on science and technology studies), and to the history of knowledge production in Mao-era China (an outcome of specific historical processes).
The second chapter describes “people's science” (renmin kexue), which the authors argue combined three elements: the dissemination of basic knowledge; claims regarding the “universal truthfulness” of science and socialism; and the celebration of the “creative potentials” of “ordinary peasants and workers” (pp. 29–30). Here the riches of the FAU collection are particularly foregrounded, with vivid examples of science dissemination in three areas: exhibitions, films and magazines.
Chapters three through five offer case studies in agricultural mechanization, industrial innovation and veterinary medicine. The variations in the three cases showcase the multiple forms pluralism took. In agricultural mechanization, the need to serve the people in diverse localities enabled the consideration of “indigenous knowledge and practices that did not necessarily conform” to accepted standards (p. 71). In industrial innovation, the emphasis was instead on synthesizing the knowledge of experts and workers to increase production and so achieve national self-reliance. Chapter five charts the creation of a “bifurcated knowledge system” in veterinary medicine: driven by “pragmatic” concerns along with the value placed on experience in Maoist epistemology, veterinary handbooks included knowledge derived from both Western and folk-Chinese sources “without seeing them as mutually exclusive” (p. 117).
The final chapter examines the reform era and argues for recognizing the continued significance of Mao-era approaches to knowledge production, rather than over-emphasizing the historical ruptures brought by Deng Xiaoping's rise to power. Most illuminating here is the insight that knowledge pluralism in China predated the cultural turn: “science in the Mao era was characterized by an epistemological flexibility to accept a plurality of knowledges shaped by the political and social transformations in that era – before culture became a central argument” (p. 134).
In addressing the secondary literature, the authors are generous to a fault. They waste no time with claims about what previous scholars have failed to do or with straw-man arguments. Instead, they strive to synthesize previous contributions and so arrive at an understanding of the state of the field. (Although they miss some of my favourites, the breadth and depth of their engagement is hard to reproach.) The only downside to this constructive attitude is that we miss exploring some of the important differences of perspective – e.g. on the role of the state and on the legitimacy of mass science – that inform the distinct scholarly works to date. If future publications can sharpen our understanding of these disagreements while maintaining Rui and Matten's thoughtful attention to each author's contributions, we may consider our field truly mature.
Indeed, this volume departs from existing interpretations in a number of ways. By taking seriously Maoist forms of knowledge production, Rui and Matten join what has become a strong (but by no means universal!) anti-positivist current in the history of science in the PRC, along with the history of science more generally. However, in characterizing Mao-era science itself as “pluralist,” and in consistently emphasizing the adoption of such pluralism as a “pragmatic” choice, they downplay the role of ideology to an unusual extent – even Le Tianyu, usually represented as a Lysenkoist ideologue, appears as a pragmatist (p. 107). Moreover, in adopting the term “people's science” as an analytical frame, they present Mao-era science popularization as a considerably more coherent project – incorporating both science dissemination and mass science – than earlier works have suggested. Here and elsewhere, Rui and Matten advance important, original arguments that future scholars should seriously consider.
This extremely valuable book deserves far better production values and a much more accessible price. I hope someday to see a new edition with better editing, sharper images and a fuller index, at a price that will attract a wider audience. Given the significance of Rui and Matten's efforts to advance the field while showcasing a world-class library collection, FAU should be strongly encouraged to subsidize their future publications.
