Sunday, January 11, 2026: 9:20 AM
Wabash Room (Palmer House Hilton)
The Technological Revolution, a critical component of the Great Leap Forward and the first nation-wide mass science campaign, has so far received little scholarly attention. Spanning the full timeline of the Great Leap Forward and promoted across virtually all fronts of production in Chinese society, the Technological Revolution was envisioned as the vehicle through which China could overtake Britain and the U.S. It was designed to catalyze swift scientific innovation and transform workers into innovators. Drawing from a diverse array of sources, this paper takes the pharmaceutical industry as a case study to scrutinize this movement and the experiences of various groups involved.
From the perspective of science and technology, I argue that the Technological Revolution could be understood as a logical progression in socialist industrialization rather than an irrational deviation. The state’s plan to redistribute scientific capital to workers, however, conflicts with local factory leadership’s objectives of maintaining production and fostering innovation within limited time and resources. Consequently, factory leadership developed a set of strategies such as staging “three-in-one” sessions, which simply worked to redistribute the credit for innovation from technicians to workers rather than offering necessary support and training for workers to become innovators. This movement eventually elevated a select few workers to technicians but fell short in cultivating a culture of innovation among the broader workforces. The movement did initiate the practice of mandating technicians to gain hands-on experience on the shop floor, which effectively integrated workers’ insights into technological advancements. While evaluating and criticizing the Technological Revolution, this paper also wants to call attention to the silence of the workers during this period in the historical records and suggests that we should leave space for their unrecorded experiences in our interpretations of this period.
From the perspective of science and technology, I argue that the Technological Revolution could be understood as a logical progression in socialist industrialization rather than an irrational deviation. The state’s plan to redistribute scientific capital to workers, however, conflicts with local factory leadership’s objectives of maintaining production and fostering innovation within limited time and resources. Consequently, factory leadership developed a set of strategies such as staging “three-in-one” sessions, which simply worked to redistribute the credit for innovation from technicians to workers rather than offering necessary support and training for workers to become innovators. This movement eventually elevated a select few workers to technicians but fell short in cultivating a culture of innovation among the broader workforces. The movement did initiate the practice of mandating technicians to gain hands-on experience on the shop floor, which effectively integrated workers’ insights into technological advancements. While evaluating and criticizing the Technological Revolution, this paper also wants to call attention to the silence of the workers during this period in the historical records and suggests that we should leave space for their unrecorded experiences in our interpretations of this period.