East Asian STS: Some Critical Issues

East Asian STS: Some Critical Issues Sungook Hong Published online: 28 March 2008 # National Science Council, Taiwan 2008 Prof. Fu Daiwie’s paper addresses two important issues: (1) he compels us to reconsider the center-periphery relationship from the perspective of East-Asian historical and social experiences; and (2) he highlights the concept of “new appropriate technology” in connection with the social practices of East Asian STSers. I believe that these two points are very stimulating and give some fresh insights on the scope and activities of our new discipline in the future. Agreeing generally with the spirits embedded in these proposals, I will propose my own opinions on these issues, which I hope will strengthen and supplement Prof. Fu Daiwie’s proposals. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal (2007) 1:233–236 DOI 10.1007/s12280-007-9020-7 S. Hong (*) Program in History and Philosophy of Science, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea e-mail: comenius@snu.ac.kr Roundtable discussion about the position paper of EASTS journal (Taipei, August 7, 2007) On the first issue, Prof. Fu Daiwie has critically examined a recent revisionist trend in postcolonial STS and other academics fields, which has blurred a distinctive boundary between center and periphery. I liked Daiwie’s provisional conclusion that, given the inequality of power, analytical categories like center and periphery, and notions such as dependency and dominion, should not be considered to be totally meaningless or as something that we should abandon. I agree with him, but I also think that we, living in the early twenty-first century, have a reason for using such notions and categories in a more careful and restricted manner. For example, 25 years ago, the notion of the “dependency of science and technology” (科學技術從屬) used to be very popular in Korea, especially among the Korean science movement group and some social scientists. However, the term is now rarely used. Regarding science and technology, the only areas where this notion of dependency is still useful are the following: first, the dependency of scientific instruments on advanced countries, where 67% of the scientific instruments used in Korea are imported abroad, and second, the dependency of science and technology upon capital (not particularly Korean capital but global capital). But these phenomena are not the typical issues discussed in the traditional dependency theory. Traditional categories like center and periphery or the idea of the dependency of periphery on center is not a useful analytical concept today, or at least not so useful as 25 years ago. Of course, in order to avoid whiggism, we should not impose our present interest upon our historical and sociological analysis of the past science and technology. It is, however, also true that all the ideas and conceptual categories that we use in our historical and sociological research reflect our own intellectual, cultural, and social contexts, in which we choose research topics, interpretative ideas and analytical frames. For example, the popularity of the idea of dependency of Korean science and technology on developed countries during the 1980s reflected our deep concern about the dependency of Korean politics and economy on advanced countries like the US. In fact, in the 1980s, social scientists, who were willing to adopt the dependency theory of Latin America, argued that Korean science and technology would not develop much, but would permanently remain stagnant due to its dependency. But even at that very moment, Korean science and technology was being advanced rapidly. Of course, we naturally think that the center–periphery would be valid for the colonial period, but before applying this dichotomical category to colonial science and technology, we need to examine the complexities, diverse influences, various local “centers of calculations” and the inequalities and dominance of power which shaped the science and technology of colonies, and then critically examine whether these complex pictures fit with the center–periphery model. If there is any discrepancy, we should think how we can change the model to fit with the historical realities. From this kind of historical analysis combined with sociological insights, we, East Asian STSers, can contribute to the better understanding of how science and technology took distinctive paths of development in the colonial...