Abstract
Introduction
With the growing readership of Chinese science fiction (sci-fi) such as Liu Cixin's From the speeches given by central government leaders and leaders of the China Association for Science and Technology in past years, we can see that the status of science fiction is improving year by year. At first, ‘science fiction’ was always mentioned together with ‘science popularization’, but now it is often cited as an independent term, which shows that science fiction has moved beyond its subordinate role to science popularization and gained recognition as an important source underpinning scientific and technological innovation and social progress. As a result, the development of science fiction has been elevated to a frontier, strategic and fundamental position. (Yao and Wang, 2022)
Sci-fi elements can often be seen in science popularization (SP) activities, and SP is also frequently mentioned in sci-fi-related activities. Through the decades, sci-fi and SP have often intertwined in different ways.
The question, though, is in how we understand the relationship between sci-fi and SP. A proper appreciation of their relationship gives us a better understanding of their respective positions, communication strategies and management. It also has a potential impact on the smooth development of science education. This complex issue can be explored from multiple angles, such as the influence of different sociopolitical and ideological environments, the influence of the creative community, the mode of generating profits, the understanding of scientific concepts (such as the nature of science, scientism and science and technology studies), and the purpose of science communication.
In this paper, we examine the development of sci-fi and SP in China and aim to explain their relationship through conceptual analysis.
A brief historical review
This section discusses the development of sci-fi and SP based on a literature review.
Science popularization
Liu (2019) discussed the development of the concept of science popularization in China. According to science historian Fan Hongye, the term ‘science popularization’ first appeared in 1950 in China when people referred to the All-China Association for the Popularization of Science and Technology. Fan summarized four major characteristics of this traditional SP that formed in the ideological environment of that time: (1) the concept of SP was derived from the framework of mainstream ideology; (2) the target audience was workers, peasants and soldiers; (3) the policy of SP had to be closely aligned with the actual needs of production; and (4) the SP system was a monolithic organizational structure under the Chinese centralized system (Fan, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). Content-wise, the most prominent feature of traditional SP was the focus on the popularization of specific scientific knowledge. This feature remains part of SP practice in China today.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the notion of ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS), which originated in the West, was introduced into China and had a great impact on people's understanding of SP. After 2000, Chinese scholars studied the theoretical evolution of PUS, tracing the theory from the initial ‘deficit model’, which was mainly aimed at disseminating scientific knowledge from scientists to the public, to the ‘introspection model’, ‘dialogue model’ and other later working models (Li and Liu, 2003; Liu and Li, 2003).
In contrast to the notion of PUS, which represents the position of the scientific community, some scholars in China have proposed the concept of ‘science communication’, which represents the position of the citizens. They think that science communication should replace traditional SP and serve as the third model of SP. Differences in initial motivation and position aside, there are many overlaps in terms of content and concept between science communication and the PUS model in the field of science and technology studies in the West.
As early as the 1990s, China's state leaders had already mentioned that the publicization and popularization of scientific and technological knowledge, scientific thought, scientific spirit and scientific methods should be an important part in promoting cultural advancement. The 2002
In 2006, the State Council issued the
Science fiction
Compared with the development of the relatively simple concept of SP in China, the development of the concept of sci-fi is more complex. The concept of sci-fi came from outside China. Regarding the original source of the genre, some arguments have been influential, such as those that take Mary Shelley's 1818 novel
In the period between the founding of the People's Republic of China (1949) and the beginning of the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), Chinese sci-fi went through a period called the ‘Seventeen Years’. According to Wu (2017), there was not a single original sci-fi novel on the Chinese mainland during this period. Compared with the late Qing Dynasty, sci-fi novels at the time were children's literature and popular science literature. It is worth noting that the Soviet Union's concept of sci-fi had a significant influence on China's sci-fi creation, which was regarded as a branch of scientific literature. At the same time, echoing the call of ‘marching towards science’ issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, and riding on the first wave of SP in China, sci-fi took on the mission of teaching scientific knowledge to young people. The focus on children and the function of SP became its distinctive features.
From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, Chinese sci-fi entered a ‘Golden Age’. In addition to an increase in quantity and quality, sci-fi works gradually moved beyond the model that took SP as the sole purpose of sci-fi, and started to deal with topics related to society or human nature. This led to some sharp criticisms against sci-fi. At first, the crux of the dispute was that the content of sci-fi did not always conform to scientific logic and facts. It was in these debates that the relationship between the literary and scientific natures of sci-fi and the relationship between sci-fi and SP once again captured attention.
Subsequently, criticism of content that was incompatible with standard scientific knowledge was directed at sci-fi's association with pseudoscience. The dispute over sci-fi was even regarded as a dispute between science and anti-science, and as a dispute over ideological and political preference in sci-fi creation. As a result, sci-fi was swept into the dustbin of ‘cultural pollution’. In this environment of ideology-driven criticism, sci-fi creation buckled under pressure and fell into dormancy.
From the 1990s onward, the development of sci-fi in China has moved onto the right track. Despite the sci-fi boom in recent years, it must be noted that the controversies mentioned above, such as the relationship between sci-fi and SP, and the literary and scientific natures of sci-fi, still exist. The only difference is that they are no longer seen as highly contentious issues worthy of a heated debate.
The identity of science fiction: Is it a literary genre only?
From the above historical overview, we can see that the relationships between sci-fi and SP and between the scientific and literary natures of sci-fi are critical to how we perceive, understand and characterize sci-fi. Moreover, these two relationships are intertwined. Discussion about the scientific and literary natures of sci-fi also implies a departure from traditional SP, which focuses on reliable, fixed and widely recognized scientific knowledge. Characterizing sci-fi as a literary genre implies that the demand for scientific content based on traditional SP can be relaxed, or that it would take a change in the definition or understanding of SP for sci-fi to expand its scope beyond the limits of traditional SP. As one study noted (Li, 2020), criticism of sci-fi in the late 1970s and early 1980s highlighted ‘the heated debate over whether sci-fi belongs to science or literature, or the science‒literature dispute. The science‒literature dispute is indeed a key event that shaped the concept of SP in contemporary China’.
This section discusses the definition of sci-fi, the science‒literature dispute and the characterization of sci-fi based on studies of the history of sci-fi and the history of literature.
Our first question, therefore, is about the definition of sci-fi, which has long been a disputed issue. Many sci-fi writers, editors, critics and scholars have attempted a definition. Our own research on the definition of sci-fi in Europe and America generated 108 different definitions (Feng and Liu, 2022). In practice, whether the works categorized as sci-fi are real sci-fi is also a popular topic among sci-fi fans. The definition of sci-fi has evolved with the development of the genre, and, in return, the development of the genre is also inseparable from definitions proposed and whether writers abide by those definitions. The definitions vary from one generation to another, from one country to another, and from one critic to another. Therefore, it can be said that the relationship between science and fiction in sci-fi works changes continuously with the deepening of people's understanding, and the evolution of the definition of sci-fi reflects changes in people's perception of the world, including the perception of science and the scope of science, the perception of the boundaries of human cognition and the perception of the interactions between science and society and culture (Feng and Liu, 2022). Viewed from the evolution of the concept of sci-fi, the emergence of new definitions has always been accompanied by the re-characterization and imagination of sci-fi.
In the history of sci-fi, the dispute over whether sci-fi belongs to literature or science is an issue that deserves attention. Interestingly, the science‒literature dispute is not unique to China. However, the disputes have different focuses in different countries and different historical periods.
Such a dispute was recorded in
Sci-fi writer Liu Cixin once commented that sci-fi was richer than other forms of literature because it involved both science and literature and was not simply a combination but a ‘multiplication’ of science and literature (Liu, 2018). Perhaps it is the effect brought about by this multiplication that gives sci-fi its unique qualities. This uniqueness, however, puts sci-fi in an awkward position, so much so that it is difficult to find a suitable place for the study of sci-fi history in academic and scientific research institutions, and the legitimacy of sci-fi in the field of literary history or SP history also needs to be substantiated.
In mainstream literary history, sci-fi literature has always had a relatively marginal and niche existence, and for a long time could be classified only as children's literature. Whether sci-fi itself needed to be academicized has also become a controversial issue. Some sci-fi fans believe that sci-fi is destined to be marginalized and cannot enter the classroom. It used to be difficult for sci-fi researchers to give sci-fi lectures or conduct sci-fi research in universities. In the traditional field of the history of science, sci-fi faced the same apathy. In the notions of traditional science historians, sci-fi undoubtedly falls into the category of literature, and the attempt to trace the development of science in sci-fi is tantamount to looking for a fish in a tree. As early as the 1970s, Chinese sci-fi writer Zheng Wenguang described the awkward situation of sci-fi that was called ‘scientific literature’ at the time. In his view, scientific literature was regarded as literature by the scientific circle and regarded as science by the literary circle. It was, he said, just like the bat in the animal world, which was seen as a beast in the eyes of the birds and as a bird in the eyes of the beasts (Zheng, 1978).
From a historical point of view, this half-detached, half-attached interaction between sci-fi and literature is affected by their intricate relationship. Sci-fi fans hope that the genre can be accepted by mainstream literature, but also show resistance. On the one hand, sci-fi has always been in a marginal position, wandering outside the realm of mainstream literature. Some sci-fi writers and researchers hope that the genre can be recognized by mainstream literature. On the other hand, sci-fi fans want to maintain its relative independence. People engaged in sci-fi are usually those who are interested in sci-fi, which is a limited group. The aesthetic criteria, evolution and critical theories of sci-fi are also different from those of other literary genres. Therefore, the attempt to provide a normative definition for sci-fi can be seen as an effort to give it respect and define its status. However, every attempt to make a restrictive definition and integrate the genre into the mainstream may always come at the expense of sacrificing some of sci-fi's uniqueness, with the consequence of losing some of its vibrant qualities.
In the history of Chinese sci-fi, there have been heated debates about whether sci-fi belongs to literature or SP. Most sci-fi researchers have held the view that the development of sci-fi in China has gone through a transformation from SP to literature, and believe that, after some twists and turns, sci-fi literature has finally freed itself from the role of a ‘megaphone of science’ to become an independent branch of literature––a metamorphosis towards maturity. Similarly, in the history of American sci-fi, the classification of sci-fi also had some back and forth, and disputes over some issues continue even today.
From the perspective of historiography, the history of sci-fi also differs from the history of literature in general. Thus, it is difficult to describe the history of sci-fi from a literary perspective. The history of literature pays attention to the literary nature of the works themselves, while sci-fi works are often criticized for their lack of literary values. Viewed from the development trajectory of sci-fi, sci-fi works of the past seldom took literary value as their core competitive advantage, and few sci-fi works were praised for their elegant rhetoric or vivid characters. The history of sci-fi has tended to focus more on the world views or novel ideas of science constructed in the works. As a result, sci-fi has been called ‘the literature of ideas’, and it is this scientific core in a work that has determined how people assess it. From the perspective of sci-fi historians, people engaging in sci-fi have tended to have multiple identities of sci-fi fans, sci-fi writers and sci-fi critics. They have usually not studied literary theory, so the history of sci-fi in their writing is quite different from the history of literature.
At the practical level, there are still some problems in introducing literary theory into the history of sci-fi. For example, sci-fi is a type of literature that seeks to change by itself, so some of the sci-fi works that fail to meet this expectation might not be considered as sci-fi even though they may have an important standing in sci-fi circles.
Another factor that makes it difficult to bring sci-fi history closer to the history of literature is that, compared to the classics in literature, sci-fi literature is often considered to be low-class literature. However, in terms of storylines or ideological depth, sci-fi cannot be removed from the list of excellent literature, because we cannot deny that an excellent sci-fi work tells a good story and has strong readability. However, it is difficult for sci-fi literature to get rid of the label of genre literature, and it will always be seen as a plain and commoner's literature as against the elegant, elite-oriented mainstream literature.
When discussing the relationship between sci-fi and literature, it is also important to consider the definition of literature itself. Today, for example, people may think that poetry and novels belong to literature, while history and natural sciences do not. But this dividing line between fiction and reality is not very clear. Historical research (Tong, 1979) has found that the boundaries of literature are not fixed. Literature in the modern sense originated from the end of the eighteenth century, and it was not until the nineteenth century that its meaning came closer to the modern understanding. In this process, the scope of literature has gradually narrowed, and it tends to be limited to imaginative, creative and fictional works. As Eagleton (2007: 179) puts it, literature is ‘a name given to certain types of works at different times and for different reasons’. Therefore, works that have been recorded in the history of literature are only those determined to be literature by the system. This reflects a consensus about literature reached by a certain group of people in a certain period of history, yet such consensus is not static or completely objective. Similarly, literary classics and literary features are also a construction and a specific presupposition formed by certain people at a particular time for particular reasons.
The above analysis shows that the science‒literature dispute can be lessened to some extent. In principle, although sci-fi has the attributes of literature and, due to the science involved, establishes itself as a distinctive literary genre, it does not necessarily have to be categorized as literature only.
Discussion and conclusion
When we talk about the relationships between sci-fi and SP, and between the scientific and literary natures of sci-fi, the concepts involved are not fixed, so it is necessary to clarify how people define these concepts.
If we stick to the traditional understanding of SP and insist that SP means to disseminate fixed, universally recognized and accurate scientific knowledge, then sci-fi is obviously inconsistent with this type of SP. Just as sci-fi researcher Wu Yan put it when he reviewed the science‒literature dispute: What is science popularization and what is science communication? In my eyes, it is very simple: science popularization works use the popular discourse system based on the hegemony of science, and once there is a contradiction in the text, science is the ultimate ruler. Both the writing and the writer are slaves of science. But science fiction is a type of literature, and neither the writing nor the writer is the slave of science. Sci-fi works follow the rules of literature, and scientific activities are only part of the content. Under such circumstances, sci-fi writers who are locked in the realm of science popularization are bound to break out of the encirclement. What happened at that time was how sci-fi writers took advantage of the emancipation movement to make a break with traditional science popularization. Their rallying call was that science fiction is literature, and if a work conflicts with literature, it must be decided by the laws of literature. (cited in Liu, 2021)
If we examine sci-fi from the perspective of social management, we may conclude that the science‒literature dispute in the 1970s was a product of sci-fi writers’ struggle for freedom. It was not a purely philosophical dispute, but a ‘breakout’ aimed at breaking through the confinements of the management system and creation model under science writers’ associations. Sci-fi, as a cross-cutting genre, is a variable within the system of clearly defined responsibilities. In terms of institutional set-up, sci-fi is administered by science and technology associations, not science writers’ associations, so the view of the ‘literature school’ that considered sci-fi as literature naturally ‘crossed the line’. The management system at that time adopted a method of criticism that carried strong characters of emergency response, mobilization and administrative management. It can be said that, in this debate, there are elements of both ‘criticism’ and ‘counter-criticism’, and roles of both ‘administrator’ and ‘administrated’ (Li, 2020).
Currently, when the concept of SP is upgraded to one that focuses on scientific knowledge, scientific methods, scientific thinking and scientific spirit, it moves beyond the traditional concept of SP, which focuses on the dissemination of scientific knowledge and may be insufficient to cultivate scientific spirit, scientific methods, scientific thoughts (and scientific thinking that is underscored in formal education nowadays) and scientific literacy.
The current definition of SP also contains an implicit dimension of science ethics—an issue that is often emphasized in theoretical research regarding SP and PUS. In the history of sci-fi, we can always find traces of ideas that are in conflict with each other. For example, the optimists are full of confidence in science and technology, while others worry about the overdevelopment of science and technology; some people use scientific discourse to break the old world of magic and mystery, while others wrap magic and mystery in scientific discourse to try to answer questions that cannot be answered by modern science. From this perspective, the histories of sci-fi and SP do not always follow a linear, simple or progressive pattern, but move forward in parallel along multiple complex tracks.
The relationship between sci-fi and SP has often been reduced to the differences of opinion between different schools of thought at a single historical stage. However, this narrative obscures the consensus-based structure that is deeply rooted in our society and culture and is shaped by the dominant social ideology. The perception of sci-fi and the perception of SP are both based on different perspectives of science. Liu (2021) advocated a pluralistic perspective on science that enables us to be more forward-looking in SP practice. Recently, academia has begun to pay closer attention to the uncertainty of science in the real world and the fact that science is constantly evolving. If we have noted this trend, we will find, with a pluralistic outlook on science, that sci-fi can be included in the realms of scientific methods, spirit and ideas in a broad sense. In other words, it is not the different opinions that are truly divisive, but rather the inability to recognize and embrace those differences.
Therefore, if we accept a more broadly defined understanding of what SP encompasses rather than the restrictive bounds of traditional SP, the long-disputed question regarding the relationship between sci-fi and SP dissolves naturally. There are, of course, still differences in the functions of different sub-genres of this broader SP, but sci-fi earns a place as an integral part of that work.
Coming back to Zheng's (1978) bird or beast analogy when he discussed whether sci-fi should be seen as literature or science, a broader concept of SP can cover both. Sci-fi, therefore, does not need to be pinned down as one or the other because it has a unique and irreplaceable position in this more open universe of SP.