China has recently garnered significant attention due to its advancements in various technological fields, such as quantum physics and artificial intelligence. In media discussions and my lectures on China, it is common to encounter objections asserting that the West, particularly the United States, is certainly ahead of China. These assertions appear to be more emotional than factual. However, a more fundamental consideration is whether this question holds any significance.
Cultural Perspective
One aspect that Westerners often overlook is the cultural variation in understanding the relationship between abstract academic insights and practical applications of those insights. To comprehend the origin and significance of discussions on technological superiority, it is essential to acknowledge cultural and social differences between China and the West. I have explored this topic before in some of my previous articles published on the TFF website.
Particularism
On the cultural dimension universalist – particularist, China exhibits a particularistic orientation. In the context of this article, this particularism explains why China implements new technology more swiftly in practice, whereas Western countries tend to prioritise theoretical exploration. Universalists first want to find out exactly how it is; so emphasis lies on theoretical insight. After that, the theory is carefully tested and honed in practice according to fixed protocols. Only at the end of that cycle does work begin on concrete practical applications for the general public. Chinese researchers also start with research, but as soon as potential insights are identified, they immediately consider practical applications. They are proactive in testing these ideas to prevent them from being forgotten.
Publications
Universalist Westerners measure the lead in an academic field primarily by the number of articles in prominent journals. Lists of magazines with a high impact factor (IF) have already been drawn up. I haven’t seen any hard statistics so far, but those who claim that the US is still ahead in areas such as AI and quantum technology invoke a larger number of publications with a high IF. The articles about Chinese advances in those areas tend to appear in journals with a lower IF, or more popular magazines, rather than academic journals, or the news media. Those publications mainly report on advances in practical applications. So they are not about quantum physics, but about quantum computers, quantum communication, quantum radar, etc.
Theory from practice
While devising and developing all these practical applications, Chinese specialists are constantly gathering pieces of new theoretical insight in the field in question. Every now and then they sit down to build all those disordered pieces of new insight into a whole of broader and deeper theoretical insight. From time to time, this is sufficient to process their findings further into an academic article. In China, theory emerges from practice.
Advantage for the general public
It is mainly the ordinary citizens who benefit from this state of affairs. Chinese people can buy, e.g. in a Xiaomi branch, a large number of practical devices for use in and around the house in which AI is incorporated. These devices not only exhibit intelligent behaviour, but can often also communicate with their user and with each other. Such possibilities also become available to Westerners, but usually considerably later. Xiaomi has even launched an intelligent electronic vehicle that is so intertwined with its owner’s mobile phone, that some people joke that driving a Xiaomi SU7 is like driving your cell phone.
Communitarianism
Another difference is that Western researchers want to secure their individual findings against theft by colleagues. Patents are a personal success for them. This also applies if the intellectual property of an invention belongs to the university or other institution where the researcher works. The Chinese system of applying for, granting and using patent law is the same as ours. However, the interpretation and implementation is strongly influenced by another cultural dimension individualist – communitarian. The highly communitarian Chinese are much more likely to share new insights with colleagues than the individualistic Westerners. This is even more true for alumni from the same university, former colleagues of the same research institute, etc., who are often constantly connected to each other via social networks.
Diffuse
The third cultural dimension is specific – diffuse. Westerners usually identify with a specific context. Your current research team in the institute where you are currently employed is such a context. Other researchers working elsewhere on similar topics are primarily perceived as competitors. Chinese social networks are diffuse. They are wider and deeper. An AI researcher from Tsinghua University feels connected to a colleague from a university in Shanghai. Chances are they know each other personally. This also applies to the leaders of the relevant faculties.
Socialism
These cultural differences also have an effect on the way the various governments operate. Chinese often talk about ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’. This is in fact equivalent to ‘socialism embedded in Chinese culture’. This means that Chinese socialism is also particularist, communitarian and diffuse. And it goes further: we can see that China’s enormous progress in recent years is due to that good connection of Chinese cultural values with socialism. Socialism was born as a Western concept, but appears to thrive particularly well in the Chinese cultural context. An important characteristic of socialism is the visible hand of the government. Applied to the subject of this article, we see that the relevant governments (national and regional) play an important role in bringing together research teams in various parts of China that conduct research in the same field. It applies to all academic research, but especially to strategically important areas such as AI and quantum physics. China is in fact one large research team. This is the engine of the nation’s enormous drive to innovate.
Futile
Now that we have made this clear, we can return to the question of who is leading in, e.g. quantum physics. However, I do not base my answer primarily on the above. In my opinion, this question is of no value. Who is leading in a specific area at a specific time cannot be determined, because researchers do not report their findings on a daily basis. The answer is therefore determined on the basis of media publications. The media are usually biased. Editorial offices of Western daily newspapers are hesitant to post positive reports about China. They just don’t report on it. The audience at my lectures is usually not happy with the thought that China is leading in any technical field, so you get comments with a sulking face that the US is ahead anyway, whatever I say, however convincing my arguments.
It is more correct to say that Chinese research is world-class in most academic and technological fields. This automatically means that from time to time, a Chinese research team is ahead and will also soon be behind again. That is the only real reality. If we focus on concrete applications, China is more often in the lead, because Chinese researchers are so practice-oriented.
Then you can conclude that Chinese citizens benefit more and faster from technological innovation than we do in our world. However, that is not entirely true either. Western citizens also benefit from Chinese innovations; witness all those electronic gadgets with the inscription: made in China. Instead of putting so much energy into trying to stay ahead of China, we had better work openly with Chinese researchers to help all of humanity move forward. Hopefully, we will experience such a situation sometime in the future.
This article appeared earlier in Dutch on Chinasquare.be.
