The Competitiveness of Nations in a Global Knowledge-Based Economy
Science and the Social
Order [1
Philosophy of Science,
5 (3)
July 1938, 321-337.
FORTY-THREE years ago Max Weber observed that “the belief in the
value of scientific truth is not derived from nature but is a product of
definite cultures.” [2]
We may now
add: and this belief is readily transmuted into doubt or disbelief. The persistent development of science
occurs only in societies of a certain order, subject to a peculiar complex of
tacit presuppositions and institutional constraints. What is for us a normal phenomenon which
demands no explanation and secures many ‘self-evident’ cultural values, has been
in other times and still is in many places abnormal and infrequent. The continuity of science requires the
active participation of interested and capable persons in scientific pursuits.
This support of science is assured
only by appropriate cultural conditions. It is, then, important to examine those
controls which motivate scientific careers, which select and give prestige to
certain scientific disciplines and reject or blur others. It will become evident that changes in
institutional structure may curtail, modify or possibly prevent the pursuit of
science. [3]
Hostility toward science may arise
under at least two sets of
1. Read at the American Sociological
Society Conference, December 1937. The writer is indebted to Professor Read
Bain, Professor Talcott Parsons, Dr. E. Y. Hartshorne and Dr. E. P. Hutchinson
for their helpful suggestions.
2. Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze
zur Wissenschaftslehre, Tübingen, J. C. B. Mohr, 1922, 213; cf. P. A.
Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics, New York, American Book Co., 2937,
esp. II, Chap. 2.
3. Cf. R. K. Merton,
Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century
conditions, although the concrete
systems of values - humanitarian, economic, political, religious - upon which it
is based may vary considerably. The
first involves the logical, though not necessarily correct, conclusion that the
results or methods of science are inimical to the satisfaction of certain
values. The second consists largely
of non-logical elements. It rests
upon the feeling of incompatibility between the sentiments embodied in the
scientific ethos and those found in other institutions. Whenever this feeling is challenged, it
is rationalized. Both sets of
conditions underlie, in varying degrees, the current revolts against science.
It might be added that such
reasoning and affective responses are also involved in the social approval of
science. But in these instances
science is thought to facilitate the achievement of approved ends, and basic
cultural values are fe1t to be congruent with those of science rather than
emotionally inconsistent with them. The concrete position of science in the
modern world may be analyzed, then, as a resultant of two sets of contrary
forces, approving and opposing science as a large-scale social
activity.
Since the space at our disposal is
limited, we must restrict our examination to a few conspicuous instances of the
current re-evaluation of the social role of science, without implying that the
anti-science movement is in any sense thus localized. Much of what is said here can probably be
applied to the cases of other countries. [4
The situation in
4. This summary judgment will be
tested in a monograph which the writer is preparing in collaboration with E. Y.
Hartshorne. This study will deal
with the place of science in the modern world in terms of the analysis
introduced in this paper.
322
scientific institutes.
[5] Since
these ‘outcastes’ include a considerable number of eminent scientists, one
indirect consequence of the racialist purge is the weakening of science in
Implicit in this racialism is a
belief in race defilement through actual or symbolic contact.
[6] Scientific research by those of unimpeachable ‘Aryan’
ancestry who collaborate with non-Aryans or who even accept their scientific
theories is either restricted or proscribed. A new racial-political category has been
introduced to include these incorrigible Aryans: the category of ‘White Jews.’
The most prominent member of this
new race is the Nobel Prize physicist, Werner Heisenberg, who has persisted in
his declaration that Einstein’s theory of relativity constitutes an “obvious
basis for further research.” [7
In these instances, the sentiments
of national and racial purity have clearly prevailed over utilitarian
rationality. The application of
such criteria has led to a greater proportionate loss to the natural science and
medical faculties in German universities than to the theological and juristic
faculties, as E. Y. Hartshorne has found. [8] In contrast, utilitarian considerations
are foremost when it comes to official policies concerning the directions to be
followed by scientific research. Scientific work which promises direct
practical benefit to the Nazi party or the Third Reich is
5. See Chapter III of E. Y.
Hartshorne, The German Universities and National Socialism, Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1937, on the ‘purge’ of the universities;
cf. Volk und Werden, 5, 1937, 320-1 which refers to some of the
new requirements for the doctorate.
6. This is one of many phases of the
introduction of a caste system in
7. Cf. the official organ of
the SS, the Schwarze Korps,
8. The data upon which this statement
is based will be published shortly by Dr. Hartshorne.
to be fostered above all, and
research funds are to be re-allocated in accordance with this policy.
[9]
The rector
of
The general tone of
anti-intellectualism, with its depreciation of the theorist and its
glorification of the man of action, [11] may have
long-run rather than immediate bearing upon the place of science in
It would be misleading to suggest
that the new
9. Cf. Wissenschaft and
Vierjahresplan, Reden anlässlich der Kundgebung des NSD-Dozentenbundes,
January 18, 1937; Hartshorne, op. cit., 110 ff.; E. R. Jaensch, Zur
Neugestaltung des deutschen Studentums and der Hochschule, Leipzig, J. A.
Barth, 1937, esp. 57 ff. In the field of history, for example,
Walter Frank, the director of the Reichsinstituts für Geschichte des neuen
Deutschlands, “the first German scientific organization which has been created
by the spirit of the national-socialistic revolution,” testifies that he is the
last person to forego sympathy for the study of ancient history, “even that of
foreign peoples,” but also points out that the funds previously granted the
Archaeological Institute must be re-allocated to this new historical body which
will “have the honor of writing the history of the National Socialist
Revolution.” See his Zukunft und Nation,
Hamburg, Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt, 1935, esp. 30
ff.
10.
Ernst Krieck, Nationalpolitische Erziehung, Leipzig, Armanen Verlag,
1935 (19th Printing), 8.
11.
The Nazi theoretician, Alfred Baeumler, writes: “Wenn ein Student heute es
ablehnt, sich der politischen Norm zu unterstellen, es z. B ablehnt, an einem
Arbeits- oder Wehrsportlager teilzunehmen, weil er damit Zeit für sein Studium
versäume, dann zeigt er damit, dass er nichts von dem begriffen hat, was um ihn
geschieht. Seine Zeit kann er nur
bei einem abstrakten, richtungslosen Studium versäumen.” Männerbund und
12. Hartshorne, op. cit.
106, ff.; cf. Wissenschaft und Vierjahresplan, op. cit., 25-6,
where it is stated that the present “breathing-spell in scientific
productivity” is partly due to the fact that a considerable number of those who
might have received scientific training have been recruited by the army. Although this is a dubious explanation of
the present situation, a prolonged deflection of interest from theoretical
science will probably produce a decline in scientific achievements.
324
(For this reason, any statements
concerning science in contemporary
An analysis of the role of science
in the Nazi state uncovers the following elements and processes. The spread of domination by one segment
of the social structure - the State - involves a demand for primary loyalty to
it. Scientists, as well as all
others, are called upon to relinquish adherence to all institutional norms
which, in the opinion of political authorities, conflict with those of the State.
[15]
The norms
of the scientific ethos must be sacrificed, insofar as they demand a repudiation
of the politically imposed criteria of scientific validity or of scientific
worth. The expansion of political
control thus introduces conflicting loyalties. In this respect, the reactions of devout
Catholics who
13.
Professor Thiessen in Wissenschaft und Vierjahresplan, op. cit.,
12.
14. For example, chemistry is
highly prized because of its practical importance. As Hitler put it, “we will carry on
because we have the fanatic will to help ourselves and because in
15. This is clearly put by
Reichswissenschaftsminister Bernhard Rust, Das nationalsozialistische
Deutschland und die
resist the efforts of the political
authority to redefine the social structure, to encroach upon the preserves which
are traditionally those of religion, are of the same order as the resistance of
the scientist. From the
sociological point of view, the place of science in the totalitarian world is
largely the same as that of all other institutions except the newly-dominant
State. The basic change consists in
placing science in a new social context where it appears to compete at times
with loyalty to the state. Thus,
cooperation with non-Aryans is redefined as a symbol of political disloyalty.
In a liberal order, the limitation
of science does not arise in this fashion. For in such structures, a substantial
sphere of autonomy - varying in extent, to be sure - is enjoyed by non-political
institutions.
The conflict between the
totalitarian state and the scientist derives in part, then, from an
incompatibility between the ethic of science and the new political code which is
imposed upon all, irrespective of occupational creed. The ethos of science [l6] involves
the functionally necessary demand that theories or generalizations be evaluated
in terms of their logical consistency and consonance with facts. The political ethic would introduce the
hitherto irrelevant criteria of the race or political creed of the theorist.
[17]
16. Limitations of space forbid a
thorough discussion of the concept of “ethos” in this connection. Suffice it to say that ethos refers to an
emotionally toned complex of rules, prescriptions, mores, beliefs, values and
presuppositions which are held to be binding upon the scientist. Some phases of this complex may be
methodologically desirable, but observance of the rules is not dictated solely
by methodological considerations. The ethos of science, as every other
social code, is sustained by the sentiments of those to whom it applies. Transgression is curbed by internalized
prohibitions and by disapproving emotional reactions which are mobilized by the
supporters of the ethos. Once given
an effective ethos of this type, resentment, scorn and other attitudes of
antipathy operate almost automatically to stabilize the existing structure.
This may be seen in the current
resistance of scientists in
17.
Cf. Baeumler, op. cit., 145. Also Krieck (op. cit., 5-6),
who states: “Nicht alles, was den Anspruch der Wissenschaftlichkeit erheben
darf, liegt auf der gleichen Rang- und Wertebene; protestantische und
katholische, französische und deutsche, germanische und jüdische, humanistische
oder rassische Wissenschaft sind zunächst nur Möglichkeiten, noch nicht erfüllte
oder gar gleichrangige Werte. Die
Entscheidung über den Wert der Wissenschaft fällt aus ihrer ‘Gegenwärtigkeit’,
aus dem Grad ihrer Fruchtbarkeit, ihrer geschichtsbildenden
Kraft...”
326
Modern science has considered the
personal equation as a potential source of error and has evolved impersonal
criteria for checking such error. It is now called upon to assert that
certain scientists, because of their extra-scientific affiliations, are a
priori incapable of anything but spurious and false theories. In some instances, scientists are
required to accept the judgments of scientifically incompetent political leaders
concerning matters of science. But such politically advisable
tactics run counter to the institutionalized norms of science. These, however, are dismissed by the
totalitarian state as ‘liberalistic’ or ‘cosmopolitan’ or ‘bourgeois’
prejudices, [18] inasmuch as they cannot be readily integrated with the
campaign for an unquestioned political creed.
From a broader perspective, the
conflict is a phase of institutional dynamics. Science, which has acquired a
considerable degree of autonomy and has evolved an institutional complex which
engages the allegiance of scientists, now has both its traditional autonomy and
its rules of the game - its ethos, in short - challenged by an external
authority. The sentiments embodied
in the ethos of science - characterized by such terms as intellectual honesty,
integrity, organized scepticism, disinterestedness, impersonality - are outraged
by the set of new sentiments which the State would impose in the sphere of
scientific research. With a shift
from the previous structure where limited loci of power are vested in the
several fields of human activity to a structure where there is one centralized
locus of authority over all phases of behavior, the representatives of each
sphere act to resist such changes and to preserve the original structure of
pluralistic authority. Although it
is customary to think of the scientist as a dispassionate, impersonal individual
- and this is not inaccurate as far as his technical activity is concerned - it
must be remembered that the scientist, in company with all other professional
workers, has a large emotional investment in his way
18. Thus, says Ernst Krieck: “In the
future, one will no more adopt the fiction of an enfeebled neutrality in science
than in law, economy, the State or public life generally. The method of science is indeed only a
reflection of the method of government.” Nationalpolitische Erziehang, 6.
f. Baeumler, op. cit.,
252; Frank, Zunft un Nation, 10; and contrast with Max
Weber’s “prejudice” that “Politik gehört nicht in den
Hörsaal.”
of life, defined by the
institutional norms which govern his activity. The social stability of science can be
ensured only if adequate defences are set up against changes imposed from
outside the scientific fraternity itself.
This process of preserving
institutional integrity and resisting new definitions of social structure which
may interfere with the autonomy of science finds expression in yet another
direction. It is a basic assumption
of modern science that scientific propositions “are invariant with respect to
the individual” and group. [19] But in a completely politicalized society
- where as one Nazi theorist put it, “the universal meaning of the political is
recognized” [20] - this assumption is impugned. Scientific ‘findings’ are held to be
merely the expression of race or class or nation. [21] Insofar as these doctrines percolate to the laity, they
invite a general distrust of science and a depreciation of the prestige of the
scientist, whose discoveries appear arbitrary and fickle, This variety of anti-intellectualism
which threatens his social position is characteristically enough resisted by the
scientist. On the ideological front
as well, totalitarianism entails a conflict with the traditional assumptions of
modern science.
One sentiment which is assimilated
by the scientist from the very outset of his training pertains to the purity of
science. Science must not suffer
itself to become the handmaiden of theology or economy or state. The function of this sentiment is
likewise to preserve the autonomy of science. For if such extra-scientific criteria of
the value of science as presumable consonance with religious doctrines or
economic utility or political appropriateness are adopted, science becomes
acceptable only insofar as it meets these criteria. In other words, as the ‘pure
science
19. H. Levy, The Universe of
Science, New York, Century Co., 1933,
189.
20. Baeumler, Münnerbund und
Wissenschaft, 152.
21. It is of considerable interest
that totalitarian theorists have adopted the radical relativistic doctrines of
Wissenssoziologie as a political expedient for discrediting ‘liberal’ or
‘bourgeois’ or ‘non-Aryan’ science. An exit from this cul-de-sac is provided
by positing an Archimedean point: the infallibility of der Führer and his
Volk. (Cf. General Hermann
Goering, Germany Reborn, London, Mathews & Marrot, 1934, 79)
Politically effective variations of
the ‘relationism’ of Karl Mannheim (e.g. Ideology and Utopia) have been
used for propagandistic purposes by such Nazi theorists as Walter Frank, Krieck,
Rust, and
328
sentiment’ is eliminated, science
becomes subject to the direct control of other institutional agencies and its
place in society becomes increasingly uncertain. The persistent repudiation by scientists
of the application of utilitarian norms to their work has as its chief function
the avoidance of this danger, which is particularly marked at the present time.
A tacit recognition of this
function may be the source of that possibly apocryphal toast at a dinner for
scientists in
The exaltation of pure science is
thus seen to be a defence against the invasion of norms which limit directions
of potential advance and threaten the stability and continuance of scientific
research as a valued social activity. Of course, the technological criterion of
scientific achievement has also a positive social function for science. The increasing comforts and conveniences
deriving from technology and ultimately from science invite the social support
of scientific research. They also
testify to the integrity of the scientist, since abstract and difficult theories
which cannot be understood or evaluated by the laity are presumably ‘proved’ in
a fashion which can be understood by all, i.e., through their technological
applications. Readiness to accept
the authority of science rests, to a considerable extent, upon its daily
demonstration of power. Were it not
for such indirect demonstrations, the continued social support of that science
which is intellectually incomprehensible to the public would hardly be nourished
on faith alone.
At the same time, this stress upon
the purity of science has had other consequences which threaten rather than
preserve the social esteem of science. It is repeatedly urged that scientists
should in their research ignore all considerations other than the advance of
knowledge. [22]
Attention
is to be focussed exclusively
22. For example, Pareto writes: “The
quest for experimental uniformities is an end in itself.” See a typical statement by George A.
Lundberg. “It is not the business of a chemist who invents a high explosive to
be influenced in his task by considerations as to whether his product will be
used to blow up cathedrals or to build tunnels through the mountains. Nor is it the business of the social
scientist in arriving at laws of group behavior to permit himself to be
influenced by considerations of how his conclusions will [coincide with existing notions, or what the
effect of his findings on the social order will be.” Trends in American Sociology, (edited
by G. A. Lundberg, R. Bain and
HHC: [bracketed]
displayed on p. 330 of original.
on the scientific significance of
their work with no concern for the practical uses to which it may be put or for
its social repercussions generally. The customary justification of this tenet
- which is partly rooted in fact [23] and which,
in any event, has definite social functions, as we have just seen - holds that
failure to adhere to this injunction will encumber research by increasing the
possibility of bias and error. But
this methodological view overlooks the social results of such an
attitude. The objective
consequences of this attitude have furnished a further basis of revolt against
science; an incipient revolt which is found in virtually every society where
science has reached a high stage of development. Since the scientist does not or cannot
control the direction in which his discoveries are applied, he becomes the
subject of reproach and of more violent reactions insofar as these applications
are disapproved by the agents of authority or by pressure groups. The antipathy toward the technological
products is projected toward science itself. Thus, when newly discovered gases or
explosives are applied as military instruments, chemistry as a whole is censured
by those whose humanitarian sentiments are outraged. Science is held largely responsible for
endowing those engines of human destruction which, it is said, may plunge our
civilization into everlasting night and confusion. Or, to take another prominent instance,
the rapid development of science and related technology has led to an implicitly
anti-science movement by vested interests and by those whose sense of “economic
justice” is offended. The eminent
Sir Josiah Stamp and a host of less illustrious folk have proposed a moratorium
on invention and discovery, [24] in order
that man may have
23.
A neurological justification of this view is
to be found in E. D. Adrian’s essay in Factors Determining Human Behavior,
Harvard Tercentenary Publications,
24. O course, this does not
constitute a movement opposed to science as such. Moreover, the destruction of machinery by
labor and the suppression of inventions by capital [have
also occurred in the past. Cf.
R. K. Merton, “Fluctuations in the Rate of Industrial Invention,”
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 49, 1935, 464 ff. But this movement mobilizes
the opinion that science is to be held strictly accountable for its social
effects. Sir Josiah Stamp’s
suggestion may be found in his address to the British Association for the
Advancement of Science,
HHC: [bracketed]
displayed on p. 331 of original.
330
a breathing spell in which to adjust
his social and economic structure to the constantly changing environment with
which he is presented by the “embarrassing fecundity of technology.” These proposals have received wide
publicity in the press and have been urged with unslackened insistence before
scientific bodies and governmental agencies. [25] The opposition comes equally from those
representatives of labor who fear the loss of investment in skills which become
obsolete before the flood of new technologies and from the ranks of those
capitalists who object to the premature obsolescence of their machinery. Although these proposals probably will
not be translated into action within the immediate future, they constitute one
possible nucleus about which a revolt against science in general may
materialize. It is largely
immaterial whether these opinions which make science ultimately responsible for
undesirable situations are valid or not. W. I. Thomas’ sociological theorem – “If
men define
25. Possibly because humanitarian
sentiments are more deeply rooted among them or for other unascertained reasons,
English scientists have especially reacted against the “prostitution of
scientific effort to war purposes.” Presidential addresses at annual meetings
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, frequent editorials
and letters in Nature attest to this movement for “a new awareness of
social responsibility among the rising generation of scientific workers.” Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, Sir John
Orr, Professor Soddy, Sir Daniel Hall, Dr. Julian Huxley, J. B. S. Haldane and
Professor L. Hogben are among the leaders of the movement. See, for example, the letter signed by
twenty-two scientists of
situations as real, they are real in
their consequences” - has been repeatedly verified.
In short, this basis for the
re-evaluation of science derives from what I have called elsewhere the
“imperious immediacy of interest.” [26] Concern with the primary goal, the
furtherance of knowledge, is coupled with a disregard of those consequences
which lie outside the area of immediate interest, but these social results react
so as to interfere with the original pursuits. Such behavior may be rational in the
sense that it may be expected to lead to the satisfaction of the immediate
interest. But it is irrational in
the sense that it defeats other values which are not, at the moment, paramount
but which are none the less an integral part of the social scale of values.
Precisely because scientific
research is not conducted in a social vacuum, its effects ramify into other
spheres of value and interest. Insofar as these effects are deemed
socially undesirable, science is charged with responsibility. The goods of science are no longer
considered an unqualified blessing. Examined from this perspective, the tenet
of pure science and disinterestedness has helped to prepare its own
epitaph.
26.
Robert K. Merton, “The Unanticipated
Consequences of Purposive Social Action,” American Sociological Review,
2, 1936,
894-904.
332
scientists to assume that the social
effects of science must be beneficial in the long run. This article of faith performs the
function of providing a rationale for scientific research, but it is manifestly
not a statement of fact. It
involves the confusion of truth and social utility which is characteristically
found in the non-logical penumbra of science.
Another relevant phase of the
connections between science and the social order has seldom been recognized.
With the increasing complexity of
scientific research, a long program of rigorous training is necessary to test or
even to understand the new scientific findings. The modern scientist has necessarily
subscribed to a cult of unintelligibility. There results an increasing gap between
the scientist and the laity. The
layman must take on faith the publicized statements about relativity or quanta
or other such esoteric subjects. This he has readily done inasmuch as he
has been repeatedly assured that the technologic achievements from which he has
presumably benefited ultimately derive from such research. Nonetheless, he retains a certain
suspicion of these bizarre theories. Popularized and frequently garbled
versions of the new science stress those theories which seem to run counter to
common sense. To the ‘public mind,’
science and esoteric terminology become indissolubly linked. The presumably scientific pronouncements
of totalitarian spokesmen on race or economy or history are for the uninstructed
laity of the same order as announcements concerning an expanding universe or
wave mechanics. In both instances,
the laity is in no position to understand these conceptions or to check their
scientific validity and in both instances they may not be consistent with common
sense. If anything, the myths of
totalitarian theorists will seem more plausible and are certainly more
comprehensible to the general public than accredited scientific theories, since
they are closer to commonsense experience and cultural bias. Partly as a result of scientific advance,
therefore, the population at large has become ripe for new mysticisms clothed in
apparently scientific jargon. This
promotes the success of propaganda generally. The borrowed authority of science becomes
a powerful prestige symbol for unscientific doctrines.
Another feature of the scientific
attitude is organized scepticism, which becomes, often enough, iconoclasm.
[27] Science may seem to challenge the “comfortable power
assumptions” of other institutions, [28] simply by
subjecting them to detached scrutiny. Organized scepticism involves a latent
questioning of certain bases of established routine, authority, vested
procedures and the realm of the ‘sacred’ generally. It is true that, logically, to
establish the empirical genesis of beliefs and values is not to deny their
validity, but this is often the psychological effect on the naïve mind. Institutionalized symbols and values
demand attitudes of loyalty, adherence and respect. Science which asks questions of fact
concerning every phase of nature and society comes into psychological, not
logical, conflict with other attitudes toward these same data which have been
crystallized and frequently ritualized by other institutions. Most institutions demand unqualified
faith; but the institution of science makes scepticism a virtue. Every institution involves, in this
sense, a ‘sacred area,’ which is resistant to ‘profane’ examination in terms of
scientific observation and logic. The institution of science itself
involves emotional adherence to certain values. But whether it be the sacred sphere of
political convictions or religious faith or economic rights, the scientific
investigator does not conduct himself in the prescribed uncritical and
ritualistic fashion. He does not
preserve the cleavage between the sacred and the profane, between that which
requires uncritical respect and that which can be objectively analyzed.
[29]
It is this which in part lies at the
root of revolts against the so-called intrusion of science into other spheres.
In the past, this resistance has
come for the most part from the church which
27.
Frank H. Knight, “Economic Psychology and
the Value Problem,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 39, 1925, 372-409. The unsophisticated scientist,
forgetting that scepticism is primarily a methodological canon, permits his
scepticism to spill over into the area of value generally. The social functions of symbols are
ignored and they are impugned as ‘untrue’. Social utility and truth are once again
confused.
28.
Charles E. Merriam, Political Power,
29.
For a general discussion of the sacred in
these terms, see E. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life,
334
restrains the scientific examination
of sanctified doctrines. Textual
criticism of the Bible is still suspect. This resistance on the part of organized
religion has become less significant as the locus of social power shifted to
economic and political institutions which in their turn evidence an undisguised
antagonism toward that generalized scepticism which is felt to challenge the
bases of institutional stability. This opposition may exist quite apart
from the introduction of certain scientific discoveries which appear to
invalidate particular dogmas of church, economy and state. It is rather a diffuse, frequently vague,
recognition that scepticism threatens the status quo. It must be emphasized again that
there is no logical necessity for a conflict between scepticism, within the
sphere of science, and the emotional adherences demanded by other institutions.
But as a psychological derivative,
this conflict invariably appears whenever science extends its research to new
fields toward which there are institutionalized attitudes or whenever other
institutions extend their area of control. In the totalitarian society, the
centralization of institutional control is a source of opposition to science; in
other structures, the extension of scientific research is of greater importance.
Dictatorship organizes, centralizes
and hence intensifies sources of revolt against science which in a liberal
structure remain unorganized, diffuse and often latent.
In a liberal society, integration
derives primarily from the body of cultural norms toward which human activity is
oriented. In a dictatorial
structure, integration is effected primarily by formal organization and
centralization of social control. Readiness to accept this control is
instilled by speeding up the process of infusing the body politic with new
cultural values, by substituting high-pressure propaganda for the slower process
of the diffuse inculcation of social standards. These differences in the mechanisms
through which integration is typically effected permit a greater latitude for
self-determination and autonomy to various institutions, including science, in
the liberal than in the totalitarian structure. Through such rigorous organization, the
dictatorial state so intensifies its control over non-political
institu-
335
tions as to lead to a situation
which is different in kind as well as degree. For example, reprisals against science
can more easily find expression in the Nazi state than in
The main conclusions of this paper
may be briefly summarized. There
exists a latent and active hostility toward science in many societies, although
the extent of this antagonism cannot yet be established. The prestige which science has acquired
within the last three centuries is so great that actions curtailing its scope or
repudiating it in part are usually coupled with affirmation of the undisturbed
integrity of science or “the rebirth of true science.” These verbal respects to the pro-science
sentiment are frequently at variance with the behavior of those who pay
them. In part, the anti-science
movement derives from the conflict between the ethos of science and of other
social institutions. A corollary of
this proposition is that contemporary revolts against science are formally
similar to previous revolts, although the concrete sources are
different. Conflict arises when the
social effects of applying scientific knowledge are deemed undesirable, when the
scientist’s scepticism is directed toward the basic values of other
institutions, when the expansion of political or religious or economic authority
limits the autonomy of the scientist, when anti-intellectualism questions the
value and integrity of science and when non-scientific criteria of eligibility
for scientific research are introduced.
336
This paper does not purport to
present a program for action in order to withstand the current threats to the
development and autonomy of science. It may be suggested, however, that as
long as the locus of social power resides in any one institution other than
science and as long as scientists themselves are un-certain of their primary
loyalty, their position becomes tenuous and uncertain.
337