{"id":57035,"date":"2015-04-27T12:00:16","date_gmt":"2015-04-27T11:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=57035"},"modified":"2015-05-05T21:25:49","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T20:25:49","slug":"the-myth-of-value-free-social-science-or-the-value-of-political-commitments-to-social-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/04\/the-myth-of-value-free-social-science-or-the-value-of-political-commitments-to-social-science\/","title":{"rendered":"The Myth of \u2018Value-Free\u2019 Social Science or The Value of Political Commitments to Social Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

In this essay I will argue in favor of the latter position by demonstrating that scientific work is embedded<\/u> in a socio-political universe, which its practioners can deny<\/u> but cannot avoid. I will further suggest that the social scientist who is not aware<\/u> of the social determinants<\/u> of their work, are likely to fall prey to the least<\/u> rigorous procedures in their work \u2013 the unquestioning of their assumptions,<\/u> which direct the objectives<\/u> and consequences of their research.<\/p>\n

We will proceed by addressing the relationship between social scientific work and political commitment and examining the political-institutional universe<\/u> 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<\/u> as well as the beneficiaries<\/u> of its work.<\/p>\n

We will further pursue the positive advantages,<\/u> which political commitments provide, especially in questioning previously ignored subject matter and established assumptions.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Social Scientific Research and Socio-political Context<\/strong><\/p>\n

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<\/u>, the subject matter studied,<\/u> the questions of \u2018knowledge for what?<\/em>\u2019 and \u2018for whom?\u2019<\/em> are not inherent<\/u> in the scientific method. Scientists do not automatically shed<\/u> 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<\/u> they study and who<\/u> benefits from their knowledge.<\/p>\n

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<\/u> classes and other non-elite groups.<\/p>\n

The Historical Origins of Elite Influenced Social Science<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u2018the West was a bastion of pluralistic democracy<\/em>\u2019, while failing to acknowledge, let alone document,<\/u> the growth of a world-wide hierarchical imperialist order.<\/p>\n

An army of scholars and researchers invented euphemistic language to disguise imperialism. For example, leading social scientists spoke and wrote of \u2018world leadership\u2019,<\/em> a concept implying consensual acceptance based on persuasion, instead of describing the reality of \u2018imperial dominance\u2019, which more accurately defines the universal use of force, violence and exploitation of national wealth. The term, \u2018free markets\u2019,<\/em> served to mask the historical tendency toward the concentration and monopolization of financial power. The \u2018free world<\/em>\u201d 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 \u2018value free\u2019<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The transformation of social science into an ideological weapon of the ruling class reflected the institutional basis and political commitments of the researchers. The \u2018benign behavior\u2019 of post-World War 2 US empire-building, became the operating assumption<\/u> guiding scientific research. Moreover, leading academics became gatekeepers and watchdogs enforcing the new political orthodoxy<\/u> 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 \u2018consultants\u2019 whose \u2018normal\u2019 extracurricular activities were divorced from their scientific academic work.<\/p>\n

In contrast, scholars whose research was directed at documenting the structure of power and to guiding political action by social movements were condemned as \u2018biased\u2019, \u2018political\u2019 and unsuitable<\/u> for any academic career.<\/p>\n

In other words, academic authorities replicated the social repression<\/u> of the ruling class in society, within the walls of academia. Their principle ideological weapon was to counterpose \u2018objectivity\u2019 to \u2018values\u2019. More specifically, they would argue that \u2018true social science\u2019 is \u2018value free\u2019<\/u> even as their published research was largely directed at furthering the power, profits and privileges of the incumbent power holders.<\/p>\n

\u2018Objective Academics\u2019: the Manufacture of Euphemism and the Rise of Neo-Liberalism<\/strong><\/p>\n

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<\/u> and language that cloak<\/u> the harsh class-anchored realities, which provoke popular resistance.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Twenty-five years ago, the concept \u2018reform<\/em>\u2019 referred to progressive changes<\/em>: 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, \u2018reform\u2019, to describe regressive changes<\/em>, such as deregulation of capital, especially the privatization<\/u> of public enterprises, health and educational institutions. In other words, mainstream academics transformed the concept of \u2018reform\u2019 into a private profitmaking business. \u2018Reform\u2019 has come to mean the reversal<\/u> of all the working-class advances won over the previous century of popular struggle. \u2018Reform\u2019<\/em> is promoted by neo-liberal ideologues, preaching the virtues of unregulated capitalism. Their claim that \u2018efficiency\u2019<\/em> requires lowering \u2018costs\u2019<\/em>, in fact means the elimination of any regulation over consumer quality, work safety and labor rights.<\/p>\n

Their notion of \u2018efficiency\u2019<\/em> fails to recognize that economies, which minimize<\/u> workplace safety, or lower the quality of consumer goods (especially food) and depress wages, are inefficient<\/u> from the point of view of maximizing<\/u> the general welfare of the country. \u2018Efficiency\u2019<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

The concept of \u2018structural adjustment\u2019<\/em> is another regressive euphemism, which has circulated widely among mainstream neoliberal social scientists.<\/p>\n

For many decades prior to the neo-liberal ascendancy, the concept of \u2018structural changes<\/em>\u2019 meant the transformation<\/u> of property relations in which the strategic heights of the economy were nationalized, income was re-distributed and agrarian reforms were implemented. This \u2018classical conception of structural change\u2019<\/em> was converted by mainstream neoliberals into its polar opposite<\/u>: the new target of \u2018structural change\u2019 was public<\/u> property, the object was to privatize<\/u> by selling lucrative public enterprises to private conglomerates for the lowest price. Under the new rule of neo-liberal policymakers, \u2018structural adjustment\u2019 led to cuts in taxing profits<\/u> of the rich and increases in regressive wage and consumer<\/u> taxes on workers and the middle class. Under neoliberalism, \u2018structural adjustments\u2019 involve the re-concentration of wealth and property<\/u><\/em>.<\/p>\n

The scope and depth of changes, envisioned by neoliberal economists, far exceed a simple \u2018adjustment\u2019<\/em> of the existing welfare state; they involve the large scale, long-term transformation of living standards and working conditions. \u2018Adjustment\u2019<\/em> is another euphemism <\/u>designed by academics to camouflage the further concentration of plutocratic wealth, property and power.<\/p>\n

The concept \u2018labor flexibility\u2019<\/em> has gained acceptance by orthodox social scientists despite its class-anchored<\/u> bias. The concept\u2019s operational meaning is to maximize the power of the capitalist class<\/u> to set work hours and freely fire workers for any reason, minimizing or eliminating notice and severance. The term \u2018flexibility\u2019<\/em> is another euphemism for unrestrained capitalist control over workers<\/u>. The corollary is that labor has lost job security and protection from arbitrary dismissal. The negative connotations are obscured by the social scientist\u2019s manipulation of language<\/u> on behalf of the capitalist class: the operational meaning of \u2018labor flexibility<\/em>\u2019 is \u2018capitalist rigidity\u2019<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Our fourth example of the class bias<\/u> of mainstream neoliberal social science is the concept of \u2018market economy\u2019<\/em>. The diffuse<\/u> meaning of \u2018market\u2019<\/em> fails to specify several essential characteristics<\/u>: These include the mode of production<\/u><\/em> 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).<\/p>\n

\u2018Markets\u2019<\/em> have always existed under slave, feudal, mercantile and capitalist economies. Moreover, in contemporary states, small scale local farmers\u2019 markets, co-operative producers and consumer markets \u2018co-exist\u2019 and are subsumed within national and international markets. The \u2018actors\u2019 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 \u2018relatively\u2019 free, competitive local markets and massive international markets dominated by the ten largest<\/u> \u2018monopoly\u2019 conglomerates. Today in the United States, international banks and other financial<\/u> institutions exert vast influence over all<\/u> large-scale market activity.<\/p>\n

By amalgamating all<\/u> the different and disparate \u2018markets\u2019<\/em> under the generic term \u2018market economies<\/em>\u2019, social scientists perform a vital ideological function of obscuring the concentration<\/u> of power and wealth of oligarchical capitalist institutions<\/u> and the role that financial institutions play in determining the role of the state in promoting and protecting power.<\/p>\n

The Question of Political Commitment and Objectivity Reconsidered<\/strong><\/p>\n

By critically examining a few of the major concepts that guide orthodox social science researchers, we have exposed how their political commitments<\/u> to the capitalist system and its leading classes inform their objectives and analysis, direct their research and guide their policy recommendations.<\/p>\n

Once their political commitments define the research \u2018problem\u2019 to be studied and establish the conceptual framework, they apply \u2018empirical\u2019, historical and mathematical methods to collect and organize the data. They then apply logical procedures to \u2018reach their conclusions\u2019. On this flawed basis they present their work as \u2018value-free\u2019 social science. The only \u2018accepted criticism\u2019 is confined to those who operate within the conceptual parameters and assumptions of the mainstream academics.<\/p>\n

Who Benefits from Social Science Research?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the 150 years since its \u2018establishment\u2019 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 \u2018normal\u2019 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<\/u> the world of social science. Fissures and dissent among scientists grow in direct proportion to the \u2018breakdown\u2019 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<\/u> present challenges<\/u> to the dominant academic paradigms. In the beginning, a minority, mostly students and younger scholars form a vanguard of iconoclasts via their critiques,<\/u> exposing the hidden political biases embedded in the work of leading social scientists.<\/p>\n

For example, the critics point out that the pursuit of \u2018stability\u2019, \u2018prosperity\u2019, \u2018social cohesion\u2019 and \u2018managed change\u2019 are ideological goals,<\/u> dictated by and for the preservation of the dominant classes<\/u> faced with societal breakdown<\/u>, widespread immiseration and deepening social changes.<\/p>\n

What would begin as a minority<\/em> movement critiquing<\/u> the \u2018value free\u2019<\/em> claims of the mainstream, becomes a majority<\/em> movement, openly<\/u> embracing a value informed social science oriented <\/u>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.<\/p>\n

Economic crisis, imperial defeats and rising social struggles are reflected in a polarization<\/u> within the academic world: between students and younger academics linked to the mass struggles and the established foundation\/state-linked senior faculty.<\/p>\n

Having lost ideological hegemony<\/u>, the elite gatekeepers resort to repression<\/u>: Denying tenure to critics and suspending or expelling students on the basis of spurious charges<\/u> that political activism and research directed toward mass struggle are incompatible with scientific work. The emerging academic rebels counter by exposing<\/u> the elites\u2019 hypocrisy \u2013 their political activities, commitments and consultancies with corporate and state institutions.<\/p>\n

Movements outside<\/u> academia and critical academics and students within<\/u> the institutions point to the enormous gap<\/u> between the elites declared \u2018defense of \u201cuniversal values<\/em>\u2019 and the narrow<\/u> elite class, imperial and race interests that they serve and depend upon.<\/p>\n

For example, elite academic claims of defending democracy through US intervention, coups and wars are belied<\/u> by the majoritarian<\/u> resistance movements<\/u> 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<\/u>, resort to several ideological subterfuges to remain \u2018loyal\u2019 to their principles: They can admit the facts but claim they are \u2018exceptions to the rule\u2019 \u2013 amounting to temporary and local aberrations. Some academic elites, faced with the contradiction between their embrace of the \u2018democratic hypothesis<\/u>\u2019 and the authoritarian- imperialist reality<\/u>, denounce the \u2018tyranny of the majority\u2019<\/em> and exalt the minority, as the true carriers of \u2018democratic values\u2019. In this case \u2018values\u2019 are superimposed over the quest for economic enrichment and military expansion; \u2018values\u2019 are converted into disembodied<\/u> entities, which have no operative meaning,<\/u> nor can they explain profoundly authoritarian practices.<\/p>\n

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 \u2018political people\u2019 . . . but reserve their right to castigate and punish their adversaries, behind closed doors, via administrative measures<\/u>. If they can\u2019t 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\u2026. \u2018end the debate\u2019<\/em>.<\/p>\n

With these elite options<\/u> in mind and given that their power resides in their administrative prerogatives, critical academics, oriented to popular movements, need to engage in coalition building<\/u> inside<\/u> and outside<\/u> of academia. First they must build broad alliances with local and national academic solidarity movements<\/u> 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 \u2013 administrative power elite. Finally, they have to strengthen and build political coalitions<\/u> with social movements outside of academia<\/u>, especially with groups with which academic researchers have established working relations.These include neighborhood groups, tenant unions, trade unions, farmers\u2019 and ecology movements and community organizations fighting urban evictions, which will ally with academic struggles on the basis of prior<\/u> working relations and mutual solidarity. When academics only show up to ask for popular support in their<\/u> time of distress effective social mobilization is unlikely to evolve.<\/p>\n

The \u2018inside and outside\u2019 strategy will succeed if it strikes quickly<\/u> with large-scale support<\/u>. These alliances can go forward through immediate victories<\/u> even if they are small scale: small victories build big movements.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Academic freedom to conduct scientific research<\/u> for and with popular, national, democratic and socialist movements is not merely an academic<\/u> issue. To deny<\/u> this research and to expel<\/u> these academics creates larger political consequences<\/u>. 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<\/u> from popular practice,<\/u> 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\u2019s paradigm or administrative power.<\/p>\n

For the serious critical academic, in answering the question of \u2018knowledge for whom?<\/em>\u2019: they would do well to follow Karl Marx\u2019s wise adage, \u2018The object of philosophy is not only to study the world but to change it.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n

________________________________<\/p>\n

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, <\/em>La Jornada<\/em>, and previously, for the Spanish daily, <\/em>El Mundo<\/em>. He received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 petras.lahaine.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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. For the serious critical academic, in answering the question of \u2018knowledge for whom?\u2019: they would do well to follow Karl Marx\u2019s wise adage, \u2018The object of philosophy is not only to study the world but to change it.\u2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[200],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-academia-knowledge-scholarship"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57035","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57035"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57035\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}