The Myth of ‘Value-Free’ Social Science: Or The Value of Political Commitments to Social Science
Print This
By James Petras, Axis of Logic
Axis of Logic
Friday, Apr 24, 2015
Introduction
For
many decades, mainstream social scientists, mostly conservative, have
argued that political commitments and scientific research are
incompatible. Against this current of opinion, others, mostly
politically engaged social scientists, have argued that scientific
research and political commitment are not contradictory.
In this
essay I will argue in favor of the latter position by demonstrating that
scientific work is embedded in a socio-political universe, which its
practitioners can deny but cannot avoid. I will further suggest that the
social scientist who is not aware of the social determinants of their
work, are likely to fall prey to the least rigorous procedures in their
work – the unquestioning of their assumptions, which direct the
objectives and consequences of their research.
We
will proceed by addressing the relationship between social scientific
work and political commitment and examining the political-institutional
universe in which social scientific research occurs. We will recall the
historical experience of social science research centers and, in
particular, the relationship between social science and its financial
sponsors as well as the beneficiaries of its work.
We
will further pursue the positive advantages, which political
commitments provide, especially in questioning previously ignored
subject matter and established assumptions.
We will
start by raising several basic questions about scientific work in a
class society: in particular, how the rules of logical analysis and
historical and empirical method are applied to the research objectives
established by the ruling elites.
Social Scientific Research and Socio-political Context
Scientific
work has its rules of investigation regarding the collection of data,
its analytic procedures, the formulation of hypotheses and logic for
reaching conclusions. However, the research objective, the subject
matter studied, the questions of ‘knowledge for what?’ and ‘for whom?’
are not inherent in the scientific method. Scientists do not
automatically shed their class identity once they begin scientific
endeavor. Their class or social identity and ambitions, their
professional aspirations and their economic interests all deeply
influence what they study and who benefits from their knowledge.
Social
scientific methods are the tools used to produce knowledge for
particular social and political actors, whether they are incumbent
political and economic elites or opposition classes and other non-elite
groups.
The Historical Origins of Elite Influenced Social Science
After
World War II, wealthy business elites and capitalist governments in the
United States and Western Europe established and funded numerous
research foundations carefully selecting the functionaries to lead
them. They chose intellectuals who shared their perspectives and could
be counted on to promote studies and academics compatible with their
imperial and class interests. As a result of the interlocking of
business and state interests, these foundations and academic research
centers published books, articles and journals and held conferences and
seminars, which justified US overseas military and economic expansion
while ignoring the destructive consequences of these policies on
targeted countries and people. Thousands of publications, funded by
millions of dollars in research grants, argued that ‘the West was a
bastion of pluralistic democracy’, while failing to acknowledge, let
alone document, the growth of a world-wide hierarchical imperialist
order.
An army of scholars and researchers invented
euphemistic language to disguise imperialism. For example, leading
social scientists spoke and wrote of ‘world leadership’, a concept
implying consensual acceptance based on persuasion, instead of
describing the reality of ‘imperial dominance’, which more accurately
defines the universal use of force, violence and exploitation of
national wealth. The term, ‘free markets’, served to mask the historical
tendency toward the concentration and monopolization of financial
power. The ‘free world” obfuscated the aggressive and oppressive
authoritarian regimes allied with Euro-US powers. Numerous other
euphemistic concepts, designed to justify imperial expansion, were
elevated to scientific status and considered ‘value free’.
The
transformation of social science into an ideological weapon of the
ruling class reflected the institutional basis and political commitments
of the researchers. The ‘benign behavior’ of post-World War 2 US
empire-building, became the operating assumption guiding scientific
research. Moreover, leading academics became gatekeepers and watchdogs
enforcing the new political orthodoxy by claiming that critical
research, which spoke for non-elite constituencies, was non-scientific,
ideological and politicized. However, academics, who consulted with the
Pentagon or were involved in revolving-door relationships with
multi-national corporations, were exempted from any similar scholarly
opprobrium: they were simply viewed as ‘consultants’ whose ‘normal’
extracurricular activities were divorced from their scientific academic
work.
In contrast, scholars whose research was
directed at documenting the structure of power and to guiding political
action by social movements were condemned as ‘biased’, ‘political’ and
unsuitable for any academic career.
In other words,
academic authorities replicated the social repression of the ruling
class in society, within the walls of academia. Their principle
ideological weapon was to counterpose ‘objectivity’ to ‘values’. More
specifically, they would argue that ‘true social science’ is ‘value
free’ even as their published research was largely directed at
furthering the power, profits and privileges of the incumbent power
holders.
‘Objective Academics’: the Manufacture of Euphemism and the Rise of Neo-Liberalism
During
the last two decades, as the class and national liberation struggles
intensified and popular consciousness rose in opposition to
neoliberalism, one of the key functions of the academic servants of the
dominant classes has been to elaborate concepts and language that cloak
the harsh class-anchored realities, which provoke popular resistance.
A
number of euphemisms, which were originally elaborated by leading
social scientists, have become common currency in the world beyond the
ivory tower and have been embraced by the heads of international
financial institutions, editorialists, political pundits and beyond.
Twenty-five
years ago, the concept ‘reform’ referred to progressive changes: less
inequality, greater social welfare, increased popular participation and
more limitations on capitalist exploitation of labor. Since then,
contemporary social scientists (especially economists) use the term,
‘reform’, to describe regressive changes, such as deregulation of
capital, especially the privatization of public enterprises, health and
educational institutions. In other words, mainstream academics
transformed the concept of ‘reform’ into a private profitmaking
business. ‘Reform’ has come to mean the reversal of all the
working-class advances won over the previous century of popular
struggle. ‘Reform’ is promoted by neo-liberal ideologues, preaching the
virtues of unregulated capitalism. Their claim that ‘efficiency’
requires lowering ‘costs’, in fact means the elimination of any
regulation over consumer quality, work safety and labor rights.
Their
notion of ‘efficiency’ fails to recognize that economies, which
minimize workplace safety, or lower the quality of consumer goods
(especially food) and depress wages, are inefficient from the point of
view of maximizing the general welfare of the country. ‘Efficiency’ is
confined by orthodox economists to the narrow class needs and profit
interests of a thin layer of the population. They ignore the historical
fact that the original assumption of classical economics was to provide
the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
The
concept of ‘structural adjustment’ is another regressive euphemism,
which has circulated widely among mainstream neoliberal social
scientists.
For many decades prior to the neo-liberal
ascendancy, the concept of ‘structural changes’ meant the
transformation of property relations in which the strategic heights of
the economy were nationalized, income was re-distributed and agrarian
reforms were implemented. This ‘classical conception of structural
change’ was converted by mainstream neoliberals into its polar
opposite: the new target of ‘structural change’ was public property, the
object was to privatize by selling lucrative public enterprises to
private conglomerates for the lowest price. Under the new rule of
neo-liberal policymakers, ‘structural adjustment’ led to cuts in taxing
profits of the rich and increases in regressive wage and consumer taxes
on workers and the middle class. Under neoliberalism, ‘structural
adjustments’ involve the re-concentration of wealth and property.
The
scope and depth of changes, envisioned by neoliberal economists, far
exceed a simple ‘adjustment’ of the existing welfare state; they involve
the large scale, long-term transformation of living standards and
working conditions. ‘Adjustment’ is another euphemism designed by
academics to camouflage the further concentration of plutocratic wealth,
property and power.
The concept ‘labor flexibility’
has gained acceptance by orthodox social scientists despite its
class-anchored bias. The concept’s operational meaning is to maximize
the power of the capitalist class to set work hours and freely fire
workers for any reason, minimizing or eliminating notice and
severance. The term ‘flexibility’ is another euphemism for unrestrained
capitalist control over workers. The corollary is that labor has lost
job security and protection from arbitrary dismissal. The negative
connotations are obscured by the social scientist’s manipulation of
language on behalf of the capitalist class: the operational meaning of
‘labor flexibility’ is ‘capitalist rigidity’.
Our
fourth example of the class bias of mainstream neoliberal social science
is the concept of ‘market economy’. The diffuse meaning of ‘market’
fails to specify several essential characteristics: These include the
mode of production where market transactions take place; the size and
scope of the principle actors (buyers and sellers); and the
relationships between the producers and consumers, bankers (creditors)
and manufacturers (debtors).
‘Markets’ have always
existed under slave, feudal, mercantile and capitalist
economies. Moreover, in contemporary states, small scale local farmers’
markets, co-operative producers and consumer markets ‘co-exist’ and are
subsumed within national and international markets. The ‘actors’ vary
from small-scale fruit and vegetable growers, fisher folk and artisan
markets to markets dominated by multi-billion dollar conglomerates. The
relations within markets vary between ‘relatively’ free, competitive
local markets and massive international markets dominated by the ten
largest ‘monopoly’ conglomerates. Today in the United States,
international banks and other financial institutions exert vast
influence over all large-scale market activity.
By
amalgamating all the different and disparate ‘markets’ under the generic
term ‘market economies’, social scientists perform a vital ideological
function of obscuring the concentration of power and wealth of
oligarchical capitalist institutions and the role that financial
institutions play in determining the role of the state in promoting and
protecting power.
The Question of Political Commitment and Objectivity Reconsidered
By
critically examining a few of the major concepts that guide orthodox
social science researchers, we have exposed how their political
commitments to the capitalist system and its leading classes inform
their objectives and analysis, direct their research and guide their
policy recommendations.
Once their political
commitments define the research ‘problem’ to be studied and establish
the conceptual framework, they apply ‘empirical’, historical and
mathematical methods to collect and organize the data. They then apply
logical procedures to ‘reach their conclusions’. On this flawed basis
they present their work as ‘value-free’ social science. The only
‘accepted criticism’ is confined to those who operate within the
conceptual parameters and assumptions of the mainstream academics.
Who Benefits from Social Science Research?
In
the 150 years since its ‘establishment’ in the universities and
research centers, the funders and gatekeepers of the profession,
including the editors of professional and academic journals, have
heavily influenced mainstream social scientists. This has been
especially true during ‘normal’ periods of economic growth, political
stability and successful imperialist wars. However, deep economic
crisis, prolonged losing wars and social upheavals inevitably make their
impact on the world of social science. Fissures and dissent among
scientists grow in direct proportion to the ‘breakdown’ of the
established order: The dominant academic paradigm is shown to be out of
touch with the everyday life of the academics and as well as the public.
Crisis and the accompanying national, class, racial and gender mass
movements present challenges to the dominant academic paradigms. In the
beginning, a minority, mostly students and younger scholars form a
vanguard of iconoclasts via their critiques, exposing the hidden
political biases embedded in the work of leading social scientists.
For
example, the critics point out that the pursuit of ‘stability’,
‘prosperity’, ‘social cohesion’ and ‘managed change’ are ideological
goals, dictated by and for the preservation of the dominant classes
faced with societal breakdown, widespread immiseration and deepening
social changes.
What would begin as a minority
movement critiquing the ‘value free’ claims of the mainstream, becomes a
majority movement, openly embracing a value informed social science
oriented toward furthering the struggle of popular movements. This
happens through committed social scientists, whose work criticizes the
structures of power, and propose alternative economic institutions and
class, national, racial and gender relations.
Economic
crisis, imperial defeats and rising social struggles are reflected in a
polarization within the academic world: between students and younger
academics linked to the mass struggles and the established
foundation/state-linked senior faculty.
Having lost
ideological hegemony, the elite gatekeepers resort to repression:
Denying tenure to critics and suspending or expelling students on the
basis of spurious charges that political activism and research directed
toward mass struggle are incompatible with scientific work. The emerging
academic rebels counter by exposing the elites’ hypocrisy – their
political activities, commitments and consultancies with corporate and
state institutions.
Movements outside academia and
critical academics and students within the institutions point to the
enormous gap between the elites declared ‘defense of “universal values’
and the narrow elite class, imperial and race interests that they serve
and depend upon.
For example, elite academic claims
of defending democracy through US intervention, coups and wars are
belied by the majoritarian resistance movements in opposition to, as
well as the oligarchies and military juntas in support of, the
intervention. The elite academics, faced with these empirical and
historical facts, resort to several ideological subterfuges to remain
‘loyal’ to their principles: They can admit the facts but claim they are
‘exceptions to the rule’ – amounting to temporary and local
aberrations. Some academic elites, faced with the contradiction between
their embrace of the ‘democratic hypothesis’ and the
authoritarian-imperialist reality, denounce the ‘tyranny of the
majority’ and exalt the minority, as the true carriers of ‘democratic
values’. In this case ‘values’ are superimposed over the quest for
economic enrichment and military expansion; ‘values’ are converted into
disembodied entities, which have no operative meaning, nor can they
explain profoundly authoritarian practices.
Finally
and most frequently, elite academics, faced with overwhelming facts
contrary to their assumptions, refuse to acknowledge the critiques of
their critics. They simply avoid public debate by claiming they are not
‘political people’ . . . but reserve their right to castigate and punish
their adversaries, behind closed doors, via administrative measures. If
they can’t defeat their critics intellectually or scientifically, they
use their enormous administrative powers to fire or censure them, cut
their salaries and research budgets and thus…. ‘end the debate’.
With
these elite options in mind and given that their power resides in their
administrative prerogatives, critical academics, oriented to popular
movements, need to engage in coalition building inside and outside of
academia. First they must build broad alliances with local and national
academic solidarity movements defending freedom of expression and
opposing repression; secondly they must engage in research supporting
popular movements. Any successful coalition must be inclusive among
critical academics, students, university workers and the parents of
students capable of paralyzing the university and negotiating with the
academic – administrative power elite. Finally, they have to strengthen
and build political coalitions with social movements outside of
academia, especially with groups with which academic researchers have
established working relations. These include neighborhood groups, tenant
unions, trade unions, farmers’ and ecology movements and community
organizations fighting urban evictions, which will ally with academic
struggles on the basis of prior working relations and mutual solidarity.
When academics only show up to ask for popular support in their time of
distress effective social mobilization is unlikely to evolve.
The
‘inside and outside’ strategy will succeed if it strikes quickly with
large-scale support. These alliances can go forward through immediate
victories even if they are small scale: small victories build big
movements.
Conclusion
Academic freedom to conduct
scientific research for and with popular, national, democratic and
socialist movements is not merely an academic issue. To deny this
research and to expel these academics creates larger political
consequences. Rigorous studies can play a major role in aiding movements
in arguing, fighting and negotiating in favor of their rights and
interests. Likewise, critical academics, whose studies are disconnected
from popular practice, end -up publishing inconsequential treatises and
narratives. Such social scientists adopt an exotic and obtuse
vocabulary, which is accessible only those initiated into an academic
cult. The elite tolerates this exotic type of critical academic because
they do not pose any threat to the dominant elite’s paradigm or
administrative power.
For the serious critical academic, in
answering the question of ‘knowledge for whom?’: they would do well to
follow Karl Marx’s wise adage, ‘The object of philosophy is not only to
study the world but to change it.’
James Petras is the author of a four volume study of US – Israeli relations. The most recent is The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East (Atlanta: Clarity Press 2014).
© Copyright 2015 by AxisofLogic.com
This
material is available for republication as long as reprints include
verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity.
Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source
including a "live link" to the article. Thank you! |
Print This
|