Sociology Faculty Publications Sociology Summer 1980 Marxist Paradigm and Academic Freedom Dmitri N. Shalin University of Nevada, Las Vegas, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/sociology_pubs Part of the Politics and Social Change Commons, and the Social Psychology and Interaction Commons Repository Citation Shalin, D. N. (1980). Marxist Paradigm and Academic Freedom. Social Research, 47(2), 361-382. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/sociology_pubs/55 This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Article in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MarxistParadigm / and Academic / * Fr6GQ0m / BYDMITRI N. SHALIN /_ A he RussianOctober Revolution dealt a devastatingblow to Marxism from which Marxist sociologydid not begin to recover until recently.Stalin's "contributions"to Marxist theoryand practicehad a particularlyadverse effecton the fateof Marxismin the West.Whatever hopes were generated by the de-Stalinizationcampaign in the SovietUnion proved short-lived.By the time Soviet tanks entered Prague and Sovietauthorities resumed show trials, few intellectuals in the capitalistWest could speak of Soviet Marxismwithout acute resentmentor at least tacitembarrassment. In Mills'swords, ". marxism-leninismhas becomean offi- cial rhetoricwith which the authorityof a one-partystate has been defended, its expedient brutalities obscured, its achievementsproclaimed."1 Any attempt to revivethe Marxist creed under thesecircumstances must have entaileda denun- ciationof what has come to pass for Marxismin the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly,the Marxistrenaissance in the West was marked by the virtuallyunanimous rejection of Soviet Marxism. The neo-Marxistmovement in the Westis no monolith.It is supportedby social scientistsof various denominationswho may refer to themselvesas radical, humanist,or critical sociologists.What draws them together is: (1) a Marxist-activist image of sociologyas a practicalenterprise and an explicit commitmentto rationalremodeling of societyand human 1 C. W. Mills, The Marxists(New York: Dell, 1962), p. 22. This content downloaded from 131.216.164.152 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:29:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 362 SOCIAL RESEARCH emancipation;(2) readiness to move beyond Marx and to dispensewith those of his propositionsthat failed the histori- cal test;and (3) a criticalattitude toward "official Marxism" as practicedby Soviet-stylecommunists. Onlya decade ago, the prospectsfor the academiclegitima- tionof Marxismseemed negligibleto its proponents.Among others,Ehrlich, Colfax, Horton, and Nicolaus cited various politicaland organizationalobstacles hampering the conver- sion of Marxisminto an academic endeavor.2Despite the gloomyforecasts, Marxist sociology did not go underground. In the 'seventies,the academiclegitimation of Marxismin the United States proceeded at an accelerated pace: Marxist sociologydepartments appeared in the universities;radical and humanistsociologists consolidated their effortsorgan- izationally;a Marxistsection was establishedunder the aus- pices of the ASA; dissertationsfostering Marxist tradition were successfullydefended; some thirtyjournals devoted to the Marxistcause were available to scholarsin the United Statesby the end of the 1970s. Prejudices against Marxistscholars still run high in the UnitedStates. Some incidentswhere Marxists are reportedto be treatedunfairly are genuinecases of discrimination.How- ever, the very nature of complaintsabout hiringpractices, promotional hazards, tenure and salary considerations sounded by Marxistscholars suggest that they move in the mainstreamof academiclife. Many of thesecomplaints can be heard from scholars workingin other, newly established, nonmainstreamsociological traditions. Reviewing the recent progressof neo-Marxistsociology in the UnitedStates, Flacks and Türkei reported"the growingacceptance of Marxism withinthe disciplineand as a featureof graduate training" and expresseda cautiousoptimism that this trend is becoming irreversible.3 2 In J. D. Colfaxand J. L. Roach,eds., Radical Sociology (New York: Basic Books, 1971). JR. Flacksand G. Türkei,"Radical Sociology:The Emergenceof Neo-Marxian Perspectivesin U.S. Sociology,"Annual Review of Sociology4 (1978): 193-238, at p. 234. This content downloaded from 131.216.164.152 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:29:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ACADEMIC FREEDOM 363 It is hard to avoid a sense of irony as one followsthe progressof Marxistsociology in the West.Despite the Marx- ists' claim to the contrary,academic bourgeois sociology managedto accommodateMarxism within its confines. Marx- ist sociologistscan now enjoythe fruitsof academicfreedom. They occupybetter positions and have greaterresources in theirfight with academic bourgeoissociology than ever be- fore. Are they ready to go on until their paradigm is recognizedas the only humane and rationalway of doing sociology? Most sociologistswould discard such a possibility.Skeptics mayeven argue thatthe Marxistrevival is actuallya degener- ationof Marxismor the newesttrick designed by the old foes to emasculateMarxism under the guise of its academiclegiti- mation.The last argument,favored by SovietMarxists, has a strongfunctionalist flavor. Whatever truth one is ready to accordto thisinterpretation, it cannot answer many important questionsposed by the ascent of academic Marxismin the West. Flacks and Türkei,in theircomprehensive review of neo- Marxistsociology in the United States,repeatedly use the expressions"a definiteMarxist paradigm," "the neo-Marxist paradigm,""the originalMarxist paradigm."4 The authorsdo notmake a directreference to Kuhn'sThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions.But the parallelbetween their usage and Kuhn's theoryof scientificparadigms is not accidental.One wonders how far Flacksand Türkei are readyto go in their(re)vision of Marxistsociology as a setof exemplarystudies and unques- tionedpresuppositions which provide a paradigmfor normal sciencethat keeps functioning"as long as the paradigmitself is takenfor granted."5Should we interpretthe above state- ments to the effectthat the present-dayMarxists accept paradigmpluralism as a sound policyfor sociological research 4 Ibid. 5 T. Kuhn, The Structureof ScientificRevolutions (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,1970), p. 145. This content downloaded from 131.216.164.152 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:29:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 364 SOCIAL RESEARCH and therebyacknowledge a scientificvalue for non-Marxist sociologies? The questionis not onlyrhetoric. For Marx apparentlysaw his theoryas the one and onlyparadigm for doing authentic social science, incompatiblewith bourgeois sociology.The questionis also farfrom academic. For in the countrieswhere Marxism emerged as a dominant sociological paradigm, non-Marxist sociologies and sociologistsall but disappeared. Here we come to the centralissue of thispaper. The ques- tion withwhich this paper is concernedis: "Is the Marxist paradigmcompatible with academic freedom?" I proposethe followingplan forthe discussion.First, I will review the state of academic freedom in one communist state- the SovietUnion. Then I willtry to showhow practical experiencegained by communistcountries feeds back to the Marxistparadigm. Next, I will attemptto show that Soviet experiencehas some relevanceto academic Marxismin the West.And finally,I will share some thoughtsabout the con- troversyover value-partisanshipand value-neutralityas strate- gies for sociologicalresearch. I have some first-handexperience of doing sociologyin the SovietUnion.6 Yet myknowledge as an "eyewitness"is inevi- tablyof limitedvalue and shouldbe treatedcritically. I did not poll Soviet sociologists'opinion about the state of academic freedomin the SovietUnion. My accountneed not be shared eitherby my Soviet or by my Westerncolleagues. I hope, however,that this analysiswill help to stimulatea much- needed discussioninvolving each side. To the extentthat this objectiveis met,I would considerthis endeavor useful. TheEthos of Ideology Academicfreedom is commonlyunderstood in the Westas "the freedomof the teacher or researchworker in higher 6 I received my doctoral (Kandidat Nauk) degree from the USSR Academy of Science Institute of Sociological Research and worked in this Institute on several research projects until I emigrated to the United States in 1976. This content downloaded from 131.216.164.152 on Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:29:42 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ACADEMIC FREEDOM 365 institutionsof learningto investigateand discussthe problems of his scienceand to expresshis conclusions. withoutinter- ferencefrom political and ecclesiasticalauthority . ."7 Marx- ists view this definition as ideological camouflage. In capitalistsociety, they argue, the scholar is bound to serveclass interests.He is paid by academic institutionsas long as he helpsto fortifythe institutions