The Big-Bag Tradition of Science Studies in Mainland China

In his general assessment of Chinese research in philosophy of science and STS studies, Professor Li Xia characterizes recent developments as “substantial progress.” I cannot bring myself to agree. Since I suspect that we share a similar perspective on the current scene, I am puzzled by the optimistic generalization Li has offered. After all, Li is the author of many blistering criticisms of current state policy; in bold newspaper articles he has not hesitated to confront scholars he sees as shameless (Li 2009, 2010a, 2010b). Could this apparent change of heart mean that Li wants to avoid offending certain people and institutions in mainland China? In philosophy of science and STS studies, public resources are rarely distributed equitably, and one often hears stories about “the bad driving out the good.” It seems as though administrators prefer to look the other way, while rank-and-file academics suffer in silence. The concept of the “academic demon” (xue yao 學妖) and the “fourth-concubine effect” (si yitai xiaoying 四姨太效應), coined by me and my colleague Tian Song (Liu and Song 2005), who first presented it as an academic crosstalk (xueshu xiangsheng 學術相聲) at a philosophy of science conference held in Changsha, vividly depicts the hidden rules that govern these disciplines. 1 If we compare the studies of twenty years ago to the present, can we really speak of “substantial progress”? Of course, there were only twenty-eight master’s degree programs, four doctoral degree programs, and eight supervisors of doctoral candidates in the entire country in 1981, and now there are perhaps one hundred master’s programs, a dozen doctoral programs, and hundreds of professors. Perhaps Li restrained himself in his recent paper, hoping to display the more promising aspects of mainland China’s academic circles. After all, what does substantial progress mean? Chinese people like to use the term progress. Ever