World Polit Sci 2016; 12(2): 175–194 Yuko Sato* Criticising Einstein: Science, Politics, and International Relations during the Chinese Cultural Revolution DOI 10.1515/wps-2016-0008 Abstract: In China during the Cultural Revolution (CR), physicist Albert Einstein became one of the main targets of criticism. Why did China criticise him, while it was developing nuclear weapons based on his theories? This article argues that basic research in China then was entangled in power struggle which con- tained a controversy over China’s handling of intellectuals and its conception of the West. Even during the CR, however, scientists’ struggle for building a high- energy accelerator continued. Zhou Enlai supported it for his own power struggle as well as China’s nuclear development. The Lin Biao incident and the Sino-US rapprochement provided Zhou and his group opportunities to undermine the CR’s logic. Thus, this article argues that rebuilding of basic research in China was intertwined with both domestic and international politics. Keywords: Albert Einstein; China; China’s nuclear development; high-energy accelerator; the Lin Biao incident; the Sino-US rapprochement. Original reference: Sato, Yuko (2015). “Bunkadaikakumeiki Chugoku ni okeru Ainshutain hihan – kagaku, seiji, kokusaikankei,” Kokusai Seiji, 179:126–41. 1 Introduction During the Cultural Revolution (CR) in China, a wave of criticism of physicist Albert Einstein and his Theory of Relativity (TR) as ‘bourgeois, reactionary, aca- demic, and authoritarian’ rapidly spread in both Beijing and Shanghai. Einstein had been a revered scientist in China since his theories were intro- duced. After the conclusion of the Sino-Soviet alliance in 1950, however, follow- ing the Soviet Communist Party, China began to criticise Einstein and his theory as ‘spiritualism’. Even though criticism was temporarily slowed when Sino-Soviet relations deteriorated in the early 1960s, it became revitalised during the CR, *Corresponding author: Yuko Sato, Project Research Associate, Graduate School for Law and Politics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, e-mail: [email protected] 176 Yuko Sato which began in 1966. In the period of the CR, criticism of Einstein was given another meaning in the context of two interweaving power struggles in domestic politics: the struggle over the reconstruction of the theoretical study of natural science and the struggle over the CR itself. How could theoretical study be an issue in a power struggle? The CR denounced the value of Western science and professionals trained in the West. However, China’s nuclear development was based on Einstein’s theory, and the promotion of basic theoretical study was needed for improving China’s existing nuclear weapons. Thus that led to a dilemma for political leaders. Among the literature on Einstein criticism during the CR, the article by Ju Zuoshi and Xu Liangying must come first.1 Ju and Xu used the neibu (limited to the insiders) documents of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), precisely describ- ing the ups and downs of the criticism in Beijing and Shanghai from 1968 to 1976. Xu himself had been forced to join the criticism, and he critically described what was written and said for the duration of the criticism. Danian Hu traced how China received Einstein’s theories by way of Japan and began criticising him.2 Hu’s book precisely described contemporary Chinese scientists welcoming the new theories in the 1910s and 1920s; however, China drastically changed its attitude toward Einstein in the 1950s. With regard to the period of the CR, Hu’s book mainly based on Ju and Xu’s article and the interviews with Xu and its main focus is on the words and actions of the critical groups. Present literature precisely describes the contents of the criticism. Con- versely, it obscures the huge changes in both domestic and international politi- cal settings. For example, within almost a year after Chen Boda, who played a central role in the criticism of Einstein in Beijing, fell out of favour with the party leadership, the Sino-US rapprochement and the Lin Biao incident occurred. The Sino-US rapprochement enabled scientists of both countries to communicate with each other. It meant the end of the criticism of ‘bourgeois academicism’. Moreover, Lin Biao’s alleged attempt at coup d’état made people sceptical of the CR. This article argues that both domestic and diplomatic political upheaval played a crucial role in the rise and fall of the criticism of Einstein. That enabled 1 Ju, Zuoshi and Xu, Liangying (1984). “Guangyu woguo ‘Wenhuadageming’ shiqi pipan Aiyinsi- tan he xiangduilun yundong de chubu kaozha”, Ziran Bianzhengfa Tongxun 6:6 December, 32–41 [hereafter ‘Ju and Xu (1984)]; Ju and Xu (1985). “Guanyu woguo ‘Wenhuadageming’ shiqi pipan Aiyinsitan he xiangduilun yundong de chubu kaocha (xuwan)”, Ziran Bianzhengfa Tongxun 7:1 February, 36–42 [hereafter ‘Ju and Xu (1985)]. 2 Hu, Danian (2006). China and Albert Einstein: the reception of the physicist and his theory in China, 1917–1979 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Criticising Einstein 177 Zhou Enlai to move on to rebuild theoretical study of science and to allow scientists to build a high-energy accelerator. This article uses the diaries of Zhu Kezhen, a vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), meteorologist and educator, to incorporate the per- spectives of his and his fellow scientists who were engaged in building nuclear weapons and a high-energy accelerator. 2 Prelude to the Criticism – Permeation of ‘Two Sciences’, Zhou Peiyuan and Zhou Enlai After signing the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance in February 1950, China began insisting on the existence of classes in the fields of the natural sci- ences. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) published a translation of an article entitled ‘Bourgeois Science and Proletarian Science’ on its second issue in 1951.3 This piece insisted that natural science had two classes: ‘bourgeois science’ was not compatible with ‘proletarian science’. In 1953, an article by Stalin’s son-in-law, Yuri Zhdanov, which also criticised Einstein, was translated into Chinese by Gong Yuzhi and appeared in The People’s Daily (Renmin Ribao).4 Thus, criticism of Einstein in China began in the form of an import from the Soviet Union. On the other hand, China lacked human capital, particularly in the field of the natural sciences. Most scholars there had returned from studying in the United States or Europe. The most famous example was Zhou Peiyuan, a physi- cist who had joined Einstein’s lab at the Institute for Advanced Studies (IAS) in Princeton in the United States. Zhou was born in 1902 in Yixing, Jiangsu Province. He first entered Qinghua School (later Qinghua University) and then transferred to the University of Chicago, where he got a master’s degree. He obtained his Ph.D. summa cum laude at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). He then studied quantum mechanics in both Germany and Switzerland, returning to China to assume a professorship at Qinghua University at the age of 27. During a 1-year sabbatical in 1936–1937, he joined a team researching the theory of relativ- ity led by Einstein at the IAS. During the Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, he stayed in the United States from 1943 to October 1946, and conducted 3 Desandi Daxier Fansaiyi (Xu Jizeng trans.) (1951). “Zichan jieji kexue yu wuchan jieji kexue”, Kexue Tongbao 2: 2, 120–128. 4 Hu, op. cit., 143. 178 Yuko Sato research on turbulence at Caltech.5 He taught many distinguished students, such as Peng Huanwu, Yang Zhenning, Qian Sanqiang, and Hu Ning.6 In PRC, Zhou Peiyuan formed a patron-client relationship with Premier Zhou Enlai who was in charge of intellectual policy. Zhou was selected by Zhou Enlai to visit Britain in 1950. Zhou, on returning, reported to Zhou Enlai.7 In November 1956, on Zhou Enlai’s initiative, he was elevated to the vice-presidency of Beijing University.8 Three days after the death of Albert Einstein on April 18, 1955, Zhou Peiyuan published an obituary in The People’s Daily, upon Zhou Enlai’s request.9 Zhou Enlai also made a comment on Einstein’s death, describing it as ‘very sad’.10 In January 1956, Zhou Enlai made a speech titled ‘A report on the question of the intellectuals’, claiming that intellectuals were already a part of the working class and those who had studied in Western Europe and the United States should be utilised in building science and technology.11 Lu Dingyi, the Head of the Depart- ment of Propaganda of the Communist Party, noted that Einstein’s physics could not be described as ‘capitalistic’ in April, and in May, Lu further commented that natural science itself had no class.12 Thus the notion of ‘two sciences’ was clearly negated. This revaluation of scientific policy was slowed down with the Anti-Right- ist movement that began in summer 1957, but around the early 1960s, with the aggravating Sino-Soviet relations and the failure of the Great Leap Forward (GLF) policy, the revaluation resumed. Articles appeared in The People’s Daily which showed the change. For example, Hu Ning, who had studied the TR at the IAS, described Einstein as a ‘great physicist’.13 Zhou Peiyuan wrote an article entitled ‘The meaning of the Theory of Relativity in natural science’ 5 Guoji liuti lixue he lilun wuli kexue taolunhui zuzhi weiyuanhui ed. (1992). Kexue Jujiang Shibiao Liufang (Beijing: Zhongguo kexue jishu chubanshe.)(hereafter Kexue Jujiang), 1–21. 6 Li, Linglan ed. (1996). Zhou Peiyuan (Beijing: Zhongguo heping chubanshe), 40. 7 Ibid., 72–73. 8 Ibid., 77. In the early 1950s, the departments for natural sciences at Qinghua University were transferred into Beijing University.