China Open Source Observatory

The Space Shuttle Misdirection

Wang Huning

January 1, 1991

航天飞机的误导

Introduction

Note: The following translation is taken from Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Huning’s 1991 book, America Against America. It is one of several excerpts of this book translated by the Center for Strategic Translation. A general introduction to the book, as well as links to the other excerpts, can be found here.

Thus far we have seen Wang Huning marvel at the wonders of American science and ponder the sources of America’s technological might. In the sections of America Against America translated below, Wang Huning turns that last question on its head. Instead of asking what aspects of American society push Americans to build the technologies of tomorrow, Wang instead asks how technological progress has changed the nature of American society. He treats this question in two sections of America Against America. The first is found in a chapter devoted to the American national character, the second in a chapter that describes the various techniques of social control Wang observed while traveling through the United States.1 Both of these passages are translated below. They reach a similar conclusion: Americans’ most abiding faith is in science and technology. There is no authority that Americans trust more. To every social, ethical, or even spiritual problem the American first seeks a technical or scientific solution.

Wang is skeptical of this impulse. He asks his readers to consider the situation faced by Americans with physical disabilities. There is no shortage of American engineers and inventors ready to craft new machinery to ease their difficulties. Thus the infirm may purchase motorized wheel chairs; the blind may buy computers that respond to voice commands. These devices improve the wellbeing of those who use them—within limits. However, no machine can protect them from the prejudice of their countrymen. No device can defend the dignity of the downtrodden. These problems defy technological solutions.

Wang argues that the American love affair with gadgetry can be understood as a convenient diversion from this class of thorny moral and political problems. Thus the space shuttle Discovery, celebrated in other parts of America Against America as the physical embodiment of the American spirit of ingenuity,2 is here described as an expensive boondoggle whose true mission has less to do with new scientific frontiers than with saving the political fortunes of a government agency threatened by potential budget cuts. Science promises to reveal basic truths about physical reality; the aura of science, on the other hand, obscures as much as it unveils.

Most obscured of all is the relationship Americans have with technology itself.  Wang describes modern Americans as “more obedient to the technological than… the political.” Wang finds this disquieting. Science and technology were created to empower human action. However, modern technology is such a powerful force that individual human action seems to shrink in its shadow. Thus “with great techno-scientific development comes an illusion: it seems that the agent ultimately solving a difficult problem is not human. Rather, science and technology become the ultimate power while man becomes their slave.” In a developed economy men do not direct machines so much as accept direction from them.

Technology’s power to “govern man” is partially a function of ideology: science has intellectual authority that other institutions and bodies of knowledge lack. But material realities also play their part. In an advanced economy production is broken up into innumerable stages. Each stage is the product of specialized machinery and expertise. In this mode of production workers are the functional equivalent of specialized equipment; even if they have advanced degrees or decades of professional experience, the scale of technological systems and the importance of specialized technical knowledge ensures that the activities of the vast majority of workers are contained within a narrow ambit. “Techno-scientific development,” Wang concludes, “fragments society into small, interconnected nodes, with each person occupying their own node [in the chain].” Life as an atomized node has predictable psychological consequences:  modern man thinks of himself as the servant, not the master, of the technological systems he operates.

Fears like these have a long history in the Marxist tradition. In the history of technology Marx and Engels saw a dialectic process: each new mode of production further freed the human race from the tyranny of blind natural forces—but at the cost of further subordinating human freedom to blind artificial forces. Modern modes of production are “like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.”3 If, as Engels maintains, capitalism is a system where “the product enslaves first the producer and then the appropriator,” then the purpose of socialist revolution is to “transform [these] master demons into willing servants.”4 Classical Marxist theory thus promises a world where conscious, rational actors—in the form of state planners—wrest control of the blind forces unleashed by the scientific revolution, returning human agency to human history.5

Wang came of age in socialist China. The socialist reality he grew up with did not measure up to these Marxist ideals. Wang understood the limits of state planning—and is accordingly fascinated with the decentralized systems that order American society without central direction. He devotes many pages of America Against America to describing how these systems function.6 But beneath his enthusiasm is an undercurrent of anxiety. He worries that modern men are too easily dominated by their own creations. These fears are hardly Wang’s alone: worries that perverse financial instruments, manipulative algorithms, and addicting digital playgrounds hijack Chinese minds for their own “irrational” agenda are widespread in China, and lay behind the 2021 crackdown on Chinese video game companies, online fandoms, and tech sector monopolies.7

Given these fears, why do Chinese leaders not embrace luddism outright? Once again, Wang Huning may provide an answer. “If the Americans are to be overtaken,” he writes, “one thing must be done: surpass them in science and technology.” American power, prestige, and prosperity are all downstream their advances in science and technology. China must do its best to follow suit. “There is no society that can do without technology,” Wang concludes. “Therefore, as science and technology develop the questions we must consider are not that simple…. The key question is how to make choices under certain historical conditions, and how we bring about the harmonization of society once these choices are made.”

‍—THE EDITORS

1. Wang Huning 王沪宁, Meiguo Fandui Meiguo 美国反对美国 [America Against America] (Shanghai: Shanghai Wenyi Chuban She 上海文艺出版社 [Shanghai Humanities Publishing Co.], 1991), ch. 3, section 5, p. 88-91; ch. 4, section 6, p. 146-150.
2. Wang, America Against America, ch. 3, section 2, p. 47.
3. Karl Marx, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” Marx-Engels Internet Archive, 2000.
4. Frederick Engels, “Historical Materialism,” In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Marx-Engels Internet Archive, 2003.
5. For a history of Marxist theory that traces this concept from Marx through glasnost, see Andrzej Walicki, Marxism and the Leap to the Kingdom of Freedom: The Rise and Fall of the Communist Utopia (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995).
6. Wang, America Against America, ch. 1, section 4; ch. 4 entire, ch. 8 entire.
7. Or at least, these worries were often expressed by Chinese commentators who attempted to explain the logic of the crackdowns (and the related regulations over algorithms, data privacy, and so forth). For the “irrational” comment, see Jun Mai, “‘Irrational Expansion of Capital’ behind China’s Fan Culture and Tech Monopolies,” South China Morning Post, August 31, 2021.
For other prominent examples, see Li Guangman 李光满, “Mei ge ren dou neng gan shou dao, yi chang shen ke de bian ge zheng zai jin xing! 每个人都能感受到，一场深刻的变革正在进行！ [Every Person Can Feel It, a Profound Transformation is Taking Place!], Zhongqin Zaixian 中青在线 [Chinese Youth Online], 29 August 2021. Meiri Jinji Xinwen 每日经济新闻 [Daily Economic News], “Gao bu liang “fan quan” de liangle! Guojia chushou, 4000 duo ge zhanghao bei chuzhi, 800 duo ge huati bei jiesan. 搞不良“饭圈”的凉了！国家出手，4000多个账号被处置，800多个话题被解散 [The improper “fan circles” are in trouble! The country has taken action, more than 4,000 accounts have been dealt with, and more than 800 topics have been dissolved],” Xinlang Xinwen 新浪新闻 [Sina News], 4 August 2021.  Tu Zhuxi 兔主席 [Chairman Rabbit], “Ong zhengdu jiao pei chanye kan zhong guo zhili yu hangye da zhengzhi. 从整顿教培产业看中国治理与行业大政治 [Looking at China’s Governance and Industry Politics Through the Rectification of the Education Industry],” Chairman Rabbit Wechat Account, 24 July 2021.
The Space Shuttle Misdirection航天飞机的误导
Originally Written By
Wang Huning
Translated By
Aaron Hebenstreit; Ethan Franz
Publisher
America Against America

The Space Shuttle Misdirection

The space shuttle Discovery launches successfully, speeding like Pegasus into the blue expanse.1 Live footage of the event was broadcast by all of the television networks. For Americans the successful launch was extraordinary because, for more than two years after January 1986, the country did not launch any space shuttles at all. That year, the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger and the tragic deaths of astronauts on board shook the world.2 One could say that the launch of the Discovery two years later helped realize the dreams of many people.

The space shuttle program best exemplifies the American spirit as it was described by Henry Steele Commager: “the American came to believe that nothing was beyond his power, and to be impatient with any success that was less than triumph.”3 The exploration of space embodies precisely that belief. The process of manufacturing, launching, and controlling the space shuttle is extraordinarily complex. One need only see the dizzying array of hundreds of computers in the control center to imagine the technological capabilities required. The United States space administration [NASA] has spent the two and a half years since the Challenger accident improving the space shuttle program, making more than 400 technological improvements in total.

The convictions of Americans are just like [the incident] described above. They are confident that there is always a way, unremitting in their perseverance. That spirit has led them to pursue a great number of extremely bold and daring ideas, such as the Star Wars program and the space shuttle.4 It also prompted them to embrace many smaller, less eye-catching inventions, such as a machine for opening envelopes, a machine for opening cans, an electric pencil sharpener, and so on. It should be noted that such a belief is a very important force for advancing social development.

However, this belief can also have an alienating effect.5 These beliefs have led Americans to come up with numerous ways to resolve the problems they face, the result being a high degree of scientific and technological development. However, with great scientific and technological development also comes an illusion: it seems that the agent ultimately solving a difficult problem is not human; rather, science and technology become the ultimate power while man becomes their slave.

A professor and I were discussing this and we felt the same way. This illusion dominates a large part of [American] society. Faced with various complicated socio-cultural problems, Americans often think about them as if they were scientific or technological problems. Alternatively, they become a problem of money—a result of commercialism—rather than a problem of human beings and their subjective [experience]. The same is true in the political arena. Their approach to dealing with the growing capabilities of the Soviet Union was the desperate attempt to develop equipment that would be superior to Soviet weapon systems, including, eventually, the Star Wars program. Their method for dealing with terrorism is to strike the opponent with advanced firepower. Their solution to handling threats to international waters is a powerful and well-equipped fleet. The way to deal with regimes they do not like is to supply the opposition with vast numbers of advanced weapons. [Other] typical examples of this [attitude] are the devices provided to the disabled, such as the automatically guided wheelchair, the bedside service device that obeys commands, and eyeglasses that can provide orientation. With these aids, persons with disabilities can move freely, but as human beings, their problems are not solved. The same holds true in politics and international relations.

On one hand, [the American] people put excessive faith in technology, and on the other hand, technology is also becoming a part of politics. After the successful launch of the Discovery, Forrest McCartney, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said: “Certainly, every American must be proud today.”6 President Reagan watched the television broadcast in Washington and delivered a speech in which he said “America is back in space.”7 In fact,the space program has been a measure of the geopolitical balance since its inception. In the 1960s, the Soviet Union successfully landed on the moon, sending the Americans into a fury. President Kennedy ordered an all-out effort to develop the space program, and the subsequent landing of a man on the moon with the Apollo missions overtook the Soviet Union. Behind technological competition lies political competition; the political necessitates the technological, which, in turn, supports more political competition.

In the twentieth century, an important trend for humanity is the high degree to which [our] politics and technology are now integrated. Politics without technology cannot become strong politics. Of course, no technology without politic[al support] can become a powerful technology, either.

As a result of the combination of technology and politics, technology itself is alienated. The phenomenon is on particularly stark display in the United States. Sometimes it is not man that masters technology, but technology that masters man.

If the Americans are to be overtaken, one thing must be done: surpass them in science and technology. However, [the situation] many nations find themselves in is not the same [as in the United States]. It is not sufficient for them to simply possess technology; [they also must reach specific] cultural, psychological, and sociological conditions.

The Americans have long been in a position of superiority, having come into their dominant status shortly after World War I. In the 70 years since, several generations have been born in the United States. Those born after World War II are now already in their forties. That generation of Americans is even more steeped in the atmosphere of “America is Number One” This has shaped a certain mentality. The United States is a nation of people who cannot bear the thought of losing. Their sense of technological superiority has gradually developed into a feeling of national superiority. [To them, the idea] that any nation might surpass them is unimaginable.

The rapid rise of Japan during the post-war decades has been characterized by exceptionally fast development in high-tech fields, and it has already surpassed the United States in certain areas, such as electronics and automobiles. Japanese products have poured into the U.S. market, accompanied by a flood of Japanese money into the country. It has been said that a good amount of real estate in Hawaii has fallen into Japanese hands, and as they bought houses in droves it caused land prices to skyrocket. Americans are indignant about it and tend to be dismissive of the Japanese, and often disdainful in the way they talk about them. For a long time, Americans were reluctant to recognize Japan’s success. Harvard professor Ezra Vogel went to great lengths to make Americans understand this success, and his work Japan as Number One: Lessons for America was a real awakening for them.8 I believe Americans will encounter a similar situation again [in the future].

The space shuttle is also related to this intriguing intersection of politics and technology; in fact, this type of advanced technology epitomizes the relationship. Some scholars have come to that realization and have started critiquing “alienation.” As a physics professor by the name of Allen argued, after the Challenger disaster, NASA prioritized successful launches for the purpose of saving face and for political reasons.9

When I say misdirection of the space shuttle, it is really just a metaphor. In fact, I am referring to the misdirection of science and technology, and I believe it may take generations for Americans to recognize this misdirection.

Technology Governs Man

America is a country where everyone reveres individualism. Individualism reigns supreme and there is no power that has the authority to interfere with it. This is the impression one has when asking most people. [However,] those anxious about the excesses of individualism are also numerous. When they interact with Americans those coming from different cultural backgrounds will notice that American individualism is always evident even though not all aspects [of it are always obvious]. At times it is hard to accept.

Given their stance that individual freedom and the sanctity of the private sphere cannot be encroached upon, what force organizes more than two hundred million people, causing them to participate in every part of this great societal machine, allowing it to operate normally? In this lies a paradox: the normal operations of societies, especially large-scale ones, require their members to properly cooperate and act in concert, yet the people [in these societies] pursue values where the individual and the private sphere are paramount.

Political institutions harmonize. Laws harmonize. Gains, losses, and the relationship between them harmonize. Currencies harmonize. Other similar [forces] also harmonize. In all of these kinds of harmonization there is a power that cannot be overlooked: science and technology. The development of science and technology works in two respects.

In one respect, science and technology’s advanced development requires a more meticulous division of labor where every person has their own defined task. Thus science and technology guarantee the values of individualism. Automation and electronification cause every person to complete their designated work in their designated position with no need to depend on other humans, or to obey the commands of another human. They only need to depend on a machine; the only commands they obey are that of a machine. This is the aspect of human alienation analyzed by Herbert Marcuse.10 Applying science and technology–especially advanced technology–in a particular manufacturing process requires splitting this process into innumerable parts. Each and every part requires someone to take charge of it. Even if [any particular] part is minute, replacing the person [tasked with it] without training would be very difficult. The more advanced the technology, the more this is the case.

A seventeenth century artisan crafted their products from beginning to end. Today, circumstances have completely changed. Generally speaking, the development of science and technology has improved the status of individuals, increased individual self-consciousness, and strengthened the sense of individual responsibility. It has caused every individual to find their determined position in the great societal machine. [In contrast], in societies where technology is not as developed, or where traditional methods are used to produce [goods], any given individual’s position in that society is not very explicit, roles are interchangeable, and the probability of chaotic and unstable social organization is greater. The primary reason [for this] is that roles are fungible. This not only has economic implications but also political ones. As long as a large part of the people within a society are unclear about their [respective] roles then that society may find itself in the midst of systemic chaos.

In another respect, techno-scientific development demands exacting organization. On the one hand, science and technology need to be broken into small parts in order to operate. On the other hand, these parts ultimately must be linked together, becoming a complete entity. This is the strongest organizational force in [modern] society. While it lies outside the confines of politics and law, it is [nonetheless] very powerful. Science and technology use rational logic to persuade people to obey strict regulations, a process which curbs the supremacy of individualism. Imagine the space shuttle project and how many people are needed to work on it. Imagine how the company IBM organizes every individual to work for it. This type of command is not political but technological–what John Kenneth Galbraith calls “the imperatives of technology.”11

Contemporary human society is characterized by a peculiar phenomenon: it is immensely more difficult for people to obey political and legal commands than it is for them to obey techno-scientific imperatives. Before taking medicine everyone will cautiously study its “drug facts” label. But [when it comes to] putting an end to racial prejudice, [something that] requires obedience to a single [national] will, compliance with the exhortations of politicians is far less frequent.

Societies with advanced techno-scientific development generally have higher degrees of social organization, whereas in areas without advanced science and technology the degree of social organization and rationalization will be lower. A large part of American social organization is performed by large companies and corporations implementing the logic of science and technology. In a society where the economy is not as developed, a strange phenomenon can often be seen. In areas [of that society] where advanced technology has developed, the degree of organization is much higher than the general societal standard.

Scholars have also researched this problem. The famous economist [John Kenneth] Galbraith voices this viewpoint in his work The New Industrial State. He argues that the widespread implementation of technology will bring about six outcomes:

First, the use of science and technology will split the beginning and ending phases [of production]. Second, capital used for production will increase. Third, time and financial resources expended in production will [become] more regular and be used for completing specific jobs. Fourth, technology will require specialized manpower. Fifth, science and technology [will] require a high degree of organization. Sixth, due to the use of time and financial resources, the need for large-scale organization, and the market conditions under high technology, society will require planning.

Therefore, Galbraith’s view is that the development and use of science and technology will necessarily lead to greater social organization. Various economic and techno-scientific systems will be decided by professional managers  who administer the  system in its entirety. Galbraith calls this the “technostructure.” The final result of this technological development is that a portion of the population  assumes managerial functions automatically, [acting as] non-political  administrators. This kind of management can alleviate the burden placed on political systems to a great degree. One of the functions of a political system is to harmonize human behavior. If one mechanism can keep this behavior within the scope of rational behavior, society will be easier to govern.

Another contemporary author, John Naisbitt, described the same phenomenon in his book Megatrends: The New Directions Transforming Our Lives. [His analysis] is more human, more psychological, and more physiological. He uses [the terms] “High Tech” and “High Touch” to describe this process. He uses the phrase “Forced Technology” to describe the great power that comes when technology governs man.12 As advanced science and technology is used it binds man ever more firmly into the techno-scientific process, leading to alienation. This causes [people] to resist this kind of governing power. They resist both the technology for electronic transfers and the technology used in automatic inquiry. Naisbitt attributes this to [the fact] that the techno-scientific causes man to lose [human] contact and interaction, thereby producing a rebellious mentality.

In fact, another layer can be added [to this]: the giant strides in techno-scientific development have perfected the means for governing man, possibly breaking through ordinary technological management and penetrating the inner world of every person, infiltrating people’s private sphere. In present-day America, there is generally no power that can break through faith in individualism and the barriers [surrounding] the private sphere. [But] science and technology have this power. They guarantee material rewards, which is another condition [for their success].

Man yearns for “high touch.” This is  a sign of resistance against being governed [by technology] this way.  [But this resistance itself] demonstrates the potency of governing men through technology.

That technology governs man is an outcome which completely contradicts mankind’s [earlier] expectations. [It is much like the saying] “as flowers planted carefully fail to bloom, a branch stuck thoughtlessly in the mud grows into a willow.”13 Those that advocated using science and technology in times past did not have a clear understanding of how they would eventually become a method for managing men, yet the use of science and technology has now become one of society’s greatest methods for managing men. To a great degree, American society is managed by a technological order. Man is more obedient to the technological than he is to the political. Techno-scientific development fragments society into small, interconnected nodes, with each person occupying their own node [in the chain]. Entering a node requires specialized technical expertise. The educational system also fundamentally revolves around this aim. Hence, education is also incorporated into this governing process. Education ceaselessly gives rise to and develops the power and culture of technology governing man.

Radicals criticize this phenomenon as alienation. From a human perspective, this [position] is tenable. However, there is no society that can do without technology, and the logic of technology has no other conclusion. Clearly, assigning value to science and technology, venerating science and technology, or even using science and technology are in no ways simply questions of production, economics, or technology itself. Therefore, as science and technology develop the questions we must consider are not that simple. All things have their advantages and disadvantages. The key [question] is how to make choices under certain historical conditions, and how we bring about the harmonization [of society] once these choices are made.