A historical study of the British and American definitions of science fiction and related controversies 1

Abstract

The various definitions of science fiction reflect different understandings of science and fantasy and their relationship. Through a review of the development history of the British and American definitions of science fiction and related controversies, we find that changes in science fiction's definition are often accompanied by the reorientation and reimagination of its position in society and culture. As people's perceptions deepen, the shifting boundary between science and fantasy has important implications for a better understanding of science fiction.

1. Introduction

In recent years, with the increasing popularity of science fiction in China, the study of science fiction has also become a hot topic. However, there are still some uncharted territories, such as the historiography of science fiction. In the philosophy of science, researchers have a strong interest in science's definition or ‘demarcation’. Although they have not yet established a universally recognized definition, they still take much pleasure in defining science. The same is true for science fiction's definition. The definition of science is closely related to the study of its history. It then follows that the definition of science fiction, which is the core issue in its historiography, is not only an important prerequisite for the study of the history of science fiction but also of great significance to people's understanding of science fiction and its history, science, and the relationship between science fiction and science popularization.

The rich diversity of science-fiction definitions is a unique phenomenon in cultural history and is often accompanied by debates on science-fiction works. We have reviewed the literature and identified 108 definitions of science fiction. They have been formulated by numerous science-fiction writers, editors, critics and scholars throughout history. In reality, determining whether a work categorized as science fiction is real science fiction is also a hot topic for discussion among science fiction fans.

The definition of science fiction changes as science fiction changes, and the genre's development is inextricably linked to the emergence of those definitions and whether writers observe them. Definitions of science fiction have taken different forms over time, in different countries, and among different critics. Some definitions assert that science fiction should not violate established scientific knowledge, while others argue that science fiction should focus on challenging static scientific paradigms. Some lay down rules for science fiction in the form of restrictive conditions, while others seek to provide inclusive descriptions of what is already considered science fiction. Given the many definitions of science fiction, some scholars lament that ‘If you ask what science fiction is, you will never know’, while others continue the quest for a definitive answer that can gain wide acceptance.

In reality, the absence of one conclusive definition might not affect science fiction's creation, but different definitions reflect the dimensions in which people are interested as well as their understandings of science fiction and even science. Previous studies have mainly focused on three aspects in defining science fiction. The first is summarizing, sorting and categorizing definitions. The second is complementing or revising definitions from the perspectives of science-fiction history and criticism. However, a scholarly belief persists, unsupported by reflection, that we can ultimately arrive at a conclusive definition or one that, over the span of history, moves closer towards perfection. In fact, science fiction's definition has not always followed a linear progression. Instead, it reveals the lineage of its history as it unfolds in the historical context and even contributes to history from new perspectives and angles. The third aspect that has been studied is reflecting on the act of defining science fiction. Although this categorization temporarily ignores the different positions of various parties, such a historical narrative tends to evade the issue's controversy as well as its essence.

The definition of science fiction is bound to be controversial, and that controversy constitutes an important part of its history. Throughout the twentieth century, the UK and the US dominated the discourse defining science fiction and, even now, they continue to affect people's understandings of science fiction. While there are significant differences between the British and American definitions of science fiction, the debate between the two remains globally relevant. A review of this history provides a broad global perspective that we can use to rethink some of the Chinese-based controversies over science fiction. This review enables us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between science fiction and science popularization. The significance of this paper is that it reflects on the different perspectives on the definition of science fiction and on the controversy, such as how and why the controversy was born and what insights can be drawn from it. Doing so allows us to think deeply about the history of science fiction and about the relationship between science fiction and science popularization. Obviously, listing all of the definitions of science fiction is not possible. Therefore, we analyse and discuss the British and American definitions and their debates with balanced coverage of different historical stages based on the classification of the core genres.

2. Early attempts to define science fiction

2.1 Science fiction's ‘invention’ as a literary genre

Historians of science fiction hold different views on its origin, and no conclusion has yet been reached. Still, most scholars agree that Hugo Gernsback, a science-fiction magazine editor in the US, turned science fiction into a literary genre and publishing category. Although writers previously attempted to define a similar type of literature, none of their efforts made a comparably large impact. As James Gunn says, ‘Before Gernsback we only had science fiction, and after Gernsback we had the genre of science fiction’ (Gunn, 2020: 190). When we look back at the history of science fiction, we find that many of the works that are now called the founding masterpieces of science fiction did not even have a definite and exclusive name at the time of their birth, and that the authors were generally unaware that they were working in a new literary genre. The concept of science fiction was neither coined nor defined until 1926. In that year, Amazing Stories, a journal on science fiction founded by Gernsback, printed the following ‘Editor's note’:

By ‘scientifiction’ I mean the Jules Verne, HG Wells and Edgar Allan Poe type of story—a charming romance intermingled with scientific fact and prophetic vision … Not only do these amazing tales make tremendously interesting reading—they are always instructive. They supply knowledge … in a very palatable form … New adventures pictured for us in the scientifiction of today are not at all impossible of realization tomorrow … Many great science stories destined to be of historical interest are still to be written … Posterity will point to them as having blazed a new trail, not only in literature and fiction, but progress as well. (Gernsback, 1926: 3)

In this definition, Gernsback offered a progenitor for the literary tradition of science fiction, empowering it with the dual functions of popularizing science and entertaining the masses. Furthermore, he placed special emphasis on the extraordinary foresight with which the genre could contribute to social progress. In the 1920s and 1930s, with the development of public education and the increase in civic literacy, a large number of cheap pulp magazines were founded in the US. Those magazines catered to the entertainment needs of the public, and most of them had crude and vulgar content. By restricting the definition of science fiction, Gernsback intended to separate it from those mediocre legend stories. By establishing rules for science fiction and placing it in a historical lineage with a literary tradition, Gernsback gave the genre a status and dignity it did not previously enjoy.

At that time, the popular-science function of science fiction was only to promote scientific knowledge, and there was a strong utilitarian belief that science fiction should serve modernization. Gernsback's focus on scientific fact and prophetic vision was not unrelated to his predilection for technological inventions and his optimistic attitude towards the future. As an electrical engineer, he was educated at the Luxembourg School of Industry and TH Bingen. He also worked as an inventor, electrical-appliance salesman and scientific-magazine editor. His personal preferences were evident in the novels he admired, especially those with plots that serve scientific facts, crises that are ultimately resolved by inventions, and inventors who have a heroic image. Gernsback represented the type of science fiction fans who are attracted to the spirit of invention and who are motivated by the dramatic changes in society that technology can introduce. As the magazine became more popular, so did Gernsback's definition, and his ideas possibly influenced the framing of the early history of science fiction. However, rather than finding a common home for a group of people who were once unappreciated by the general public and inspiring a passion for technology among science fiction fans, his definition embodied the trend towards techno-progressivism in American society.

2.2 The formation and continuation of a narrowly defined tradition

The Hugo Award, a major prize in science fiction, was named after Gernsback. However, his reputation is not very good in the history of science fiction, and his coinage ‘scientifiction’ was soon replaced by the more syllabically harmonious formulation ‘science fiction’. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction defines ‘scientifiction’ as follows: ‘When used nowadays, it usually refers to the clumsy, technologically oriented fiction published by Gernsback, or its modern equivalent (often used in a pejorative sense)’ (Langford and Nicholls, 2021). Some scholars of the history of science fiction have even more harshly called Gernsback one of the worst disasters in the history of science fiction, noting that his definition unfairly restrains the genre.

Even so, Gernsback inaugurated a narrowly defined tradition by which science fiction was strictly limited to the American popular literary tradition found in Amazing Stories or to works directly derived from that tradition. Samuel Delany, a later American science fiction writer, argues that there is no reason to trace science fiction back to the time before Gernsback coined the term. He also states that only extremely naive historians hail Mary Shelley as the ‘mother of science fiction’ and that seeing Lucian of Ancient Greece as a distant ancestor is even more dogmatic (Delany, 1994).

Gernsback's definition was inherited by John W Campbell Jr, editor-in-chief of a later magazine, Astounding Science-Fiction. However, through the efforts of this capable science-fiction editor, a more popular and influential model of science fiction was formed. In Campbell's new definition, science fiction was given a status nearly comparable to that of science: ‘Scientific methodology involves the proposition that a well-constructed theory will not only explain every known phenomena, but will also predict new and still undiscovered phenomena’ (Campbell, 1938).

By rejecting mysticism and presupposing an ideal of scientific literacy among the readership, Campbell elevated the status of science fiction despite its numerous restrictions. During Campbell's tenure as editor-in-chief of Astounding Science-Fiction, science fiction flourished, and thus this period is also known as the ‘Golden Age’ of science fiction. Obviously, this phrase implies a preferred value: at this time, a relative consensus emerged globally on the concept and connotation of science fiction, and a relatively consistent writing mode was formed. This tradition continued to influence the public's impression and mainstream aesthetics of classic science fiction and laid the basis for most of the ensuing debates.

3. 1960s: The rise of two opposing camps

When science fiction became trapped in a fixed pattern as writers were reluctant to deviate from set standards, the original definition hindered further development of the genre. Thus, new changes were needed in both the form and content of science fiction. At the same time, some science-fiction critics and writers with a humanities background were dissatisfied with the marginalization of science fiction in literature. They hoped to adjust the definition to elevate science fiction's status in the literary realm so that it could emerge from its shadowy origins in pulp magazines and enter the hall of high literature.

In the 1960s, with the rise of the New Wave movement and the radical assertion of new perspectives, two camps gradually emerged with respect to the definition of science fiction. Also during this period, the demarcation became clearer between so-called ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ definitions of science fiction. To establish new definitions of science fiction was also a process of competing for the mainstream discourse on it, and science-fiction writers, editors and critics were clearly divided into two factions. One faction defended the tradition and uniqueness of Campbellian science fiction, including science fiction's commitment to scientific facts and technical details. This faction preserved the mainstream aesthetics of the ‘Golden Age’, so it rejected new literary experiments and creative techniques. The other faction adamantly opposed inherent rules, advocated the introduction of literary standards, actively promoted changes in forms, and gladly accepted the content of the humanities and social sciences—such as psychology, philosophy, religion and anthropology—in science fiction.

The expansion of the definition of science fiction in this period has many specific manifestations, but the expanded definition acts more like a summary of the actual development of science fiction rather than a completely new definition. In 1964, Michael Moorcock began serving as the editor-in-chief of the British magazine New World Science Fiction, which published a series of writings that differed from traditional science fiction. In the subsequent year, some American authors with close ties to mainstream literature founded the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America organization based on the legacy of the Milford School. In 1965, this new group inaugurated the Nebula Award, which carried the same weight as the Hugo Award, to resist the hegemony of the mainstream science-fiction community. The Milford School originated from the world's first science-fiction writing class, founded in 1956 in Milford, Pennsylvania, by American science-fiction writers and ‘flag-bearers of the New Wave’ Damon Knight, James Blish and Judith Merril. The class participants were predominantly young science-fiction writers who appealed for science fiction's liberation from its fixed pattern. Judith Merril noted that science fiction as a descriptive label lost what little efficacy it may have had long before this moment, so it could mean 10,000 things to 10,000 people (Schotes et al., 2011). By reorganizing the history of science fiction in the US and the UK in the twentieth century, she suggested the use of a more general concept: ‘speculative fiction’. Obviously, this phrase is broader than ‘science fiction’, but it tends to downplay the scientific or technical components of the genre while focusing more on its ideological and philosophical aspects. While science fiction was characterized as popular science or literature, American writers including James Ballard published comments in science-fiction magazines underscoring the importance of the non-scientific element in science fiction. Such authors further noted that the concept of ‘science’ in science-fiction magazines and that in scientific journals such as Nature belonged to two different worlds. Additionally, these authors suggested that science fiction should rise above the old and clichéd narrative plots and say ‘no’ to the elements of space travel and galactic wars that had occupied 90% of its content (James, 1994). Some editors went so far as to say, ‘Get rid of science in science fiction.’

The controversy also involved the two different traditions of science fiction in the UK and the US. British science-fiction writer Brian Aldiss, in his 1973 book Billion Year Spree: The History of Science Fiction, traces science fiction back to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. He thus places its origin in the context of the scientific revolution and the Gothic literature of the early nineteenth century. This celebrated assertion not only rewrote the history and definition of science fiction but also succeeded in transforming it from an American phenomenon developed in the pulp magazines of the 1920s into a global literature originating in the nineteenth century. Aldiss's subsequent book, Trillion Year Spree: The History of Science Fiction, defines science fiction explicitly as ‘the search for a definition of man and his status in the universe which will stand in our advanced but confused state of knowledge (science), and is characteristically cast in the Gothic or post-Gothic mode’ (Aldiss and Wingrove, 2011: 4).

A deeper difference between this definition and the traditional one is that Aldiss insists that science fiction in the UK and the US belongs to two different traditions: the former targets a middle-class readership with a higher level of cultural intelligence, while the latter originates in a magazine tradition oriented towards a simpler population with a lower cultural level. That difference has its roots in the different exposures and experiences that the two populations had in the two world wars, which produced different perspectives on science and the future of humanity (Aldiss and Wingrove, 2011). Aldiss cares about the deep human fears reflected in science fiction and its ability to question reality. These qualities were lost in the rise of commerce and technocracy in the US. Therefore, Aldiss wants to revitalize the important tradition of science fiction.

At this point, the connotation of science in science fiction encompassed richer dimensions that went beyond a mere reflection of scientific knowledge and technological elements, or rational attitudes and realism in the guise of the scientific method. Instead, the genre also represented a rebellion against scientific and technological optimism and positivism, even an aversion to science and a fear of technological overdevelopment, as well as mockery of humanity as a hubristic whole. The new definition included many science-fiction works that challenge mainstream values. Those works often implied a strong rebellion against the mainstream, capitalist cultural ideology dominated by scientific rationality.

In fact, not everyone was willing to accept the definition's expansion. In reviewing this history, the British science-fiction critic Kingsley Amis criticized the New Wave movement for diverting science fiction from its original form. He noted that the new paradigm abandoned the signature elements of traditional science fiction and became more concerned with style than with content. The restraint of fantasy was instead cast in logic, intent and common sense, and science fiction was filled with metaphorical and typographical gimmicks, one-line chapters, unnatural metaphors, obscurity, drugs, Eastern religions and left-wing politics (Amis, 1981). Clearly, science fiction has never been a definitive concept with a single criterion. However, if we simply think that such criticisms are directed only at the excessive pursuit of form and the denial and abandonment of traditional elements in the New Wave movement, then we would miss the critics’ adherence to the narrowly defined tradition and their nostalgia for Campbellian science fiction. Such a narrow focus also misses the deeper values hidden behind the loyalty of the massive number of science fiction fans. Some authors of the history of science fiction divide the timeline into periods such as the ‘Golden Age’ and the ‘New Wave’ movement, but such a division has never been accepted universally by science-fiction authors and readers. Even today, classic science fiction in the Campbellian style attracts a sizeable audience, reflecting the resurrection of the narrowly defined tradition in science-fiction definition. For example, Gary Westfahl, an American science-fiction critic and engineer, redresses the expansion of science fiction by emphasizing science fiction as a twentieth-century literary genre. He analyses how the Gernsback tradition was adopted and modified by later magazine editors and critics and states that Gernsback initiated and influenced the entire science-fiction genre. Westfahl thus suggests that all the contemporary debates and disagreements over what constitutes science fiction can be resolved by returning to Gernsback's critical theory (Westfahl, 1998).

The richness of science fiction makes it difficult to avoid the error of one-sided conclusion in any abstract definition, and debates about the definition cannot be understood by simple binary narratives. When looking back on the history of science fiction, we can notice the natural and artificial gulfs between scientific and humanistic or between popular and refined cultures. It is precisely those huge but often neglected divisions and tensions under the binary framework that require the most reflection.

4. 1970s: Towards an academic definition of science fiction

Among the categorization methods is the simple division of science-fiction definitions into the popular tradition (represented mainly by critics, editors and writers) and the academic tradition (dominated by literary researchers). In the early days, however, the boundaries between the two traditions were relatively blurred, and early studies on the history of science fiction were mostly initiated by science-fiction writers or enthusiasts who sometimes held the dual role of scholars. Additionally, because science fiction held a marginal position in mainstream literature, most of these scholars were driven by their special interest in science fiction to engage in the research.

Although Marjorie Nicholson and others made pioneering attempts to study the genre, most of these studies were fragmented and did not form an influential science-fiction theory or academic school. Science fiction did not gain a formal academic status until the 1970s, when academic science-fiction journals (such as Foundation in the UK and Science Fiction Studies in the US) were founded. One of the important researchers at that time is the Canadian scholar Darko Suvin, whose definition of science fiction has had a significant impact in the field of science-fiction definition in both the UK and the US and continues to be regarded as a guideline by most scholars. In addition to providing a research framework, the significance of Suvin's definition lies in the practical and instrumental concepts that it introduces. According to Suvin (2011: 70), science fiction is ‘a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author's empirical environment’.

In this definition, science fiction is primarily a literary genre, and the presence of ‘estrangement’ and ‘cognition’ constitutes an important criterion for science fiction. Each science-fiction story must modify the current reality upon which it is based while being logically consistent with people's current perceptions. Estrangement separates science fiction from realist literature but must be explained by cognition; otherwise, science fiction would be no different from fantasy.

The definition of science fiction can also be divided into another two modes: one is the normative definition that touches the essence of science fiction, and the other is the encyclopedia-style, descriptive definition. The extremist form of the first mode is a particular understanding of so-called ‘real science fiction’ imbued with a strong personal preference. That of the second mode implies a broad perspective that is practically infinite. Most definitions of science fiction fall somewhere in between these two modes. Early definitions of science fiction tended to be normative and restrictive, while later definitions have been more inclusive and conciliatory. The reason for this difference is that early researchers often held a unique, emotional attachment to science fiction, so they focused much of their energy on elevating its status by giving it a proper definition, thereby securing the legitimacy of their academic studies. Whether as a branch of popular science or literature or even as an object of independent study, science fiction has long been a subject of discrimination. Early definitions were formulated to solve this problem. In doing so, those definitions sacrificed some of science fiction's attributes to gain the recognition of a particular community. As people gradually see the value of science fiction as a cultural phenomenon, they stop including as many value judgements in its definition.

Suvin's definition is normative. Compared with Suvin's restrictive framework, a more inclusive framework was proposed by the British scholar Adam Roberts. Roberts's definition emphasizes science fiction's dialectical existence between rationalism and mysticism. In his view, Giordano Bruno's execution by burning by the Roman Inquisition in 1600 is a key point in the history of science fiction. The contradiction between positivist science, represented by Protestantism, and occult magic, represented by Catholicism, gives birth to science fiction. All science-fiction works lie somewhere along the spectrum between these two poles (Roberts, 2010). Adopting a similarly broad cultural vision, British scholar Andrew Milner argues that science fiction is an ever-changing and selective tradition. As such, it cannot be pigeonholed as either elegant literature or popular culture but should be seen as sharing elements of both (Milner, 2012).

Despite the rich ambiguities and room for discussion, Suvin's definition remains a groundbreaking and practical one, with a lingering impact on most of the subsequent discussions on science fiction's definition. Over time, the academic definitions formulated subsequently to Suvin have given science fiction more diverse social values and functions. For example, some scholars see in science fiction an attempt to create a modern conscience for humankind and note that science fiction exists in every medium of artistic creation, rather than being limited to one literary genre. Science fiction is a major force sustaining cultural advancement (Scholes and Rabkin, 1977). Similarly, some scholars argue that the most influential science fiction is a popular culture movement that develops and spreads potentially influential ideologies (Bainbridge, 1986). Some others think that science fiction is a cultural instrument to help people think, a thought experiment that explores possibilities, and a mind game on the theme of ‘what if’. Additionally, some scholars have observed the involvement of science fiction in modern life. For example, the American scholar Landon Brooks proposes replacing the definition of science fiction with a more sophisticated concept of ‘science fiction thinking’. He suggests that science fiction in the twentieth century was no longer a literary genre but a series of attitudes and expectations about the future, and that these attitudes are expressed in almost every medium and are pervasive in contemporary culture (Brooks, 1997).

5. The focus of controversy: Science and fantasy in the definition of science fiction

The historical examination of the definition of science fiction reveals that the central focus of the controversy is the different understandings of science and fantasy in science fiction. That is, what constitutes the science part in science fiction and what constitutes the fantasy part? Moreover, what distinguishes science fiction from fantasy?

In Suvin's definition, cognition embodies the science side of science fiction, while estrangement identifies the fantasy side. After Suvin, the American scholar Carl Freedman revised the concept of cognition, arguing that it is not the truly defining element of science fiction, and the key is something called ‘cognitive effect’ (Freedman, 2000). The distinction between the two concepts implies that what is central to science fiction is the attitude to knowledge conveyed in the text; that knowledge does not absolutely conform to any general cognition outside the text. This explains why science fiction contains content that has been disproven by science. In this sense, what is necessary for science fiction is not accurate knowledge but the command of the language of science. That is, even without a corresponding cognitive logic in reality, the unique authority of the language of science creates a cognitive effect that can generate an ‘atmosphere of science’.

Some common views on the difference between science fiction and fantasy can be outlined here. Science fiction takes nothing for granted, while fantasy requires no explanation; science fiction addresses unlikely possibilities, while fantasy addresses seemingly possible impossibilities; science fiction must make honest, prophetic inferences from what is known, while fantasy need not. Traditional definers of science fiction tend to believe that science fiction should be clearly differentiated from fantasy, and that it represents higher values when compared with fantasy. This has to do with value judgements about science. For example, in Suvin's definition, standardized science fiction is a very idealized existence. While he acknowledges that the line between science fiction and fantasy is often blurred in writing and marketing, he interprets such blurring as a serious contamination of science fiction. In Suvin's understanding, science is a definitive and unchanging norm of supremacy. Therefore, he relentlessly uses science against superstition, natural law against the supernatural and reason against magic in an effort to defend science fiction's purity as compared to fantasy. In reality, however, this understanding ignores science's status as an ever-changing, uncertain and even multidimensioned pluralistic concept.

As British science-fiction and fantasy writer China Miéville notes, the science- or reason-based depiction purported in science fiction is merely an ideological self-justification based on capitalist modernity (Bould and Miéville, 2009). The capitalist tradition offers a highly one-sided and ideological understanding of rationalism and science. Meanwhile, fantasy can permit the rediscovery of the most unique and humane aspects of human consciousness through the construction of a potentially subversive and radical world view. Miéville's analysis points to the so-called ‘cognitive effect’ created by science fiction. In Freedman's view, cognition remains the source of the cognitive effect. However, in Miéville's view, what matters is neither cognition nor the cognitive effect, but whose cognitions and cognitive effects such cognition reflects (Bould and Miéville, 2009). Thus, a deeper critical understanding of science fiction's cognitive properties can provide more insights into the artificial boundaries between science fiction and fantasy.

It is obvious that the relationship between science and fantasy in science fiction changes continually as people's knowledge deepens. In other words, the evolution of science fiction's definition reflects changes in people's cognitions of the world. Such cognitions include those of science, of the boundary of human cognition and the scope of science, and of the interaction between science and social culture. On this basis, this paper offers a new understanding of science fiction: science fiction is inseparable from both science and fantasy. We thus recognize the interplay between the two factors. Science reflects a mode and image of scientific thinking that is widely recognized in a specific historical period and cultural environment. Meanwhile, fantasy, within the restrictions of science, reveals the powerful impact generated by this mode of scientific thinking that is unlike anything in the real world.

6. Conclusion

The historical process of the formation and transformation of science-fiction definitions reveals that the emergence of new definitions has always been accompanied by a repositioning and reimagining of science fiction. The historical contexts in which science fiction is produced decide how far back in history to look for a definition; that is, any definition should address science fiction's anxieties over its own position in the cultural context. Therefore, a prominent feature of the definition of science fiction is that the debate over the definition is usually initiated by practitioners of science fiction or popular science. Their discussions mostly concentrate on the status of science fiction, and the main area of divergence often concerns science fiction's history and scope. The act of adopting a normative definition for science fiction can be seen as an attempt to find the rightful place for science fiction and to elevate its status to the mainstream. However, due to the unique qualities of science fiction, such attempts are usually unsuccessful. Science fiction aspires to achieve dignity and status by defining itself but, each time it attempts to adopt a restrictive definition and integrate into the mainstream, it denies a part of itself. The consequence is the loss of its most vigorous attributes in the process of standard-setting. In reality, science-fiction creators are constantly seeking newer changes, so new definitions begin to pile up over the old ones. However, overly broad, descriptive definitions cannot highlight the uniqueness of science fiction. In fact, most of the definitions wander between the normative and the descriptive, relentlessly searching for and confirming the position of science fiction in society and culture.

At the same time, the meanings and interrelations of science and fantasy in science fiction are constantly changing. This provides us with a reference for contemplating the debate on the relationship between science fiction and science popularization in China. Early in its history, science fiction was assigned the functions of popularizing scientific knowledge and predicting the future. Those functions are rooted in the requirements of modernization and in the uncertainty it brings to humanity's future. This situation is similar to the positioning of science fiction in the early days in China. As our understanding of science fiction deepens, its definition begins to carry more social criticism and philosophical functions, which helps to fill the deficiencies of realist literature and science. The understanding of science popularization in Chinese academic circles is no longer limited to the popularization of scientific knowledge but includes a variety of content in multiple dimensions, such as the scientific method, the scientific spirit and scientific thinking. The historical and real controversies often stem from the fact that the concepts of science fiction and science popularization are usually derived from the definer's instinctive, simple and rough understanding and judgement of science. This situation has resulted in the public's divergent perceptions of science fiction and science popularization. Recently, in the field of science popularization, people are increasingly paying attention to the uncertainty of science and the fact that science is constantly evolving. They begin to adopt a pluralistic view of science and consider the aspects reflecting the cognition or cognitive effect of science or scientific atmosphere in British and American definitions of science fiction, as well as the critical reflections of reality in these definitions. If we have noticed these changes, we will see that the characteristics of science fiction in such definitions can be included in the broader category of scientific method, scientific spirit and scientific thinking. Therefore, if we can accept broader definitions of science and science popularization, the long-disputed questions regarding whether science fiction belongs to science popularization and what kind of relationship exists between science fiction and science will naturally be resolved (Liu, 2022). Science fiction in the real world naturally becomes a legitimate part of science popularization.

Our historical review reveals that controversies related to the definition of science fiction are often characterized by opposing phrases, which imply a relationship that is both antithetical and interdependent. That is, neither side can exist in separation from and beyond the other side. Any definition of science fiction will have its detractors and opposites, as such definitions always represent new and infinite possibilities. The formulation is constantly in motion, connecting humans to the universe and the future.