Marxist Paradigm and Academic Freedom

Home , Academic freedom, Sociology in Poland

Sociology Faculty Publications Sociology

Summer 1980

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 official 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 historical 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 before. 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 academiclegitimation.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 question 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 controversyover 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 of capitalistsociety. In Horton's graphicwords, the scholar"is hired to do the politicaljob of apology;therein lie the limitsto his academicfreedom . . . ."8 This is a negativeimage of academicfreedom. The question is whetherthis notion has any positivemeaning for a Marxist scholar,or if theterm is meaningfulfor him only as a descrip- tion of an ideologicaldistortion of realityunder capitalism. Put differently,does it make sense to speak of academicfreedom in communistsociety? Soviet Marxistsapparently give a negativeanswer to this question.The verycategory of academic freedomis absent fromthe officialSoviet vocabulary.The recentlypublished editionof the GreatSoviet Encyclopedia does not have an entry under thisheading. Neitherdoes the previousedition, publishedin 1949. The firstand the last timeacademic freedom was spelledout by an authoritativeSoviet source was in 1927, whenthe first edition of theGreat Soviet Encyclopedia informed its reader that the termsignifies "freedom of learningand teaching(autonomy) guaranteed by the statutesof the Higher LearningInstitutions" and refersspecifically to "theprivileges whichwere granted to theuniversities in theWest."9 Given the absence of a directreference to academic freedomin the SovietUnion and thefailure to specifyits meaning in thelater publications,one can assumethat the categoryis a misnomer, insofaras the Soviet Union is concerned.Much of what we knowabout Marxistsocial sciencesupports this impression. 7 A. O. Lovejoy,"Academic Freedom," in Encyclopediaof theSocial Sciences (New York: Macmillan,1930), 1:384-388. at n. 384 8 J. Horton,"The Fetishismof Sociology,"in Colfaxand Roach,Radical 182. Sociology,p. 9 The Great SovietEncyclopedia (Moskva: IzdatelstvoBolshaia SovetskaiaEntsik- lopedia, 1972), p. 769.

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 366 SOCIAL RESEARCH

The social scientistis seen in Soviet societyas a partisan scholarwho willinglybinds himselfto the workingclass and catersto its interestsas stipulatedby the CommunistParty. Technically,he is free to pursue his scholarlyinterests, to discuss and criticizethe establishedideas. Even Stalin en- couragedcreativity and independencein scientificwork. The famousShort Course of the SovietCommunist Party, written under Stalin's personal supervision,insisted that "Marxist- Leninisttheory cannot be seen as a sum totalof dogmas,as a catechism,as a creed,and Marxiststhemselves as pedantsand dogmatists.... As a science,it cannot stand and does notstand in one place- it is constantlydeveloped and perfected."10The principleof "criticismand self-criticism"was advocatedin Stal- in's timeas a guaranteefor the freedomof scientificwork. In practice,it was instrumentalin suppressingany vestigesof academicfreedom in the country.Venturing beyond the for- mulas offeredby the officialorgan of Soviet Marxism,the journal Problemsof Philosophy, entailed a grave personalrisk. Cautiousand defensiveas it is, the testimonyof the official Sovietpress shed somelight on the stateof academicfreedom under Stalin'srule:

Duringthe VASKhNIL (1948) Meeting,throughout the discus- sionof theproblems of linguistics(1950), at thePavlov Congress (1950) some correctjudgements were often dismissed"off hand," certainmistakes magnified and overemphasized.Many scientistswere denied the possibilityto reportand to arguetheir viewsand conclusions.... In thissituation the temptationoften builtup to resortto the authorityof one's officialposition as a finalargument. ... In theatmosphere of distrustand prejudice, labels were sometimesattached to scholarswho were "excom- municated"from Marxism, whereas unprincipled disavowal of one's viewsand conspicuous"repentance" were sometimespre- sentedas a positiveexample of self-criticismand of ideological maturity.11

10Istoriici VKPB. KratkiiKurs (Moskva: Gospolitizdat, 1954), p. 339. 11"Razvivat Leninskii Stil v FilosofshikhIssledovaniiakh," Voprosy Filosofa 4 (1965): 3-8, at p. 6.

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 367

I setaside the generally non- Marxist explanation prof erred by thiseditorial that links the plightof a socialinstitution - Soviet science- to the lack of moralsamong scientists and to Stalin's personalityresponse traits. I wish to bring attentionto the heavyburden of dailyface-work that the Sovietscholar must have enduredin his professionalactivities. The editorialonly alludesto thisphenomenon. Its destructivepotential and per- vasiveness,its role as an indicatorof academicfreedom in the country,deserve much closer attention. To retainhis positionin academia,a Sovietscholar had to do an enormousamount of face-work.He had to projectan image of a person totallycommitted to the Marxistcause. Moreover,he had to be readyto denouncehis past selvesand to disavow his stated views as immature,mistaken, non- Marxist,and, in an extremecase, as anti-Marxist.The speed and skillfulnesswith which he could performhis role were importantingredients in the scholar'sacademic career, if not in his physicalwell-being. If thispicture of scienceas a socialinstitution is reminiscent of what Goffmancalled "total institutions,"12it is because Sovietscience in Stalin'stime (and Sovietsociety as a whole) approximateda totalinstitution. Few scientistscould withstand the pressurewhen the authority of a scientificcommunity was mobilizedagainst their "mistaken"views. The scholar was forcedto make an uneasychoice betweenthe roles of hypo- criteand truebeliever or facemoral and physicalharassments. Lookingback, we can findno tracesof academicfreedom in thepartisan Soviet science of thoseyears, except in thenarrow sensein whichHorton defined the term as freedom"to do the politicaljob of apology." The situation changed after Stalin's death. The de- Stalinizationcampaign was launched in 1956. It brought newhopes to manyMarxists. The notionof academicfreedom was not rehabilitated,unlike other conceptssuch as "sociol-

12 E. Goffman,Asylums (New York: Anchor,1961).

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 368 SOCIAL RESEARCH ogy,""quantification," or "verification."But the new spiritin academiawas unmistakable.The breakwith the past was un- derscoredin the numerouspublications that condemned past abuses and proclaimedthat "... the Partyfirst of all opposes everyeffort to imposeany one standpointas the onlycorrect one and denounces rule by decree and incompetentinter- ferencein theoreticaldebates."13 The policystatements issued in post-StalinRussia suggested a definiteshift toward "the ethos of science."14The normof "communism"was underscoredby the recognitionthat "the Marxistpartisan approach to the contestof ideas in science entails. . . dialoguewithout which serious contacts are incon- ceivable"15and was endorsedby the call to strengthenties with foreignscientists, to expand "personal contactsand corre- spondence" which "make for an atmosphereof trustand friendshipbetween scientists."16 "Universalism" was fortified by the rejectionof "therule by decree."17Criticism of "incom- petentinterference in theoreticaldebates"18 and denunciation of the "monopoly"established by certainschools in Soviet science19reinforced the normof "disinterestedness"and "organized skepticism." Perhaps even more indicativeof the improvedclimate for scientificwork were the enhanced quality and the critical overtoneof sociologicalresearch. During the 'sixties,Soviet sociologistsconducted numerous studies that shed new light 13 "Za Razvitie i Ukreplenie Sviazei Mezhdu Filosofami Raznykh Stran," Voprosy Filosofii2 (1958): 3-8, at p. 8. 14 R. K. Merton, "Science and the Social Order," in N. W. Storer, ed., The Sociology of Science (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 254-266. 15 A. M. Rumiantsev, "Gumanisticheskaia Ideologiia i Sotsialnye Nauki," Voprosy Filosofii11 (1968): 3-13, at p. 12. 16"Za Razvitie i Ukreplenie Sviazei Mezhdu Filosofami Raznykh Stran," p. 8. 17 "Razvivat Leninskii Stil v FilosofshikhIssledovaniiakh," p. 6. 18Ibid. 19 N. P. Dubinin, "I. V. Michurin i Sovremennaia Genetica," VoprosyFilosofii 6 (1966): 59-70: V. P. Efroimson and N. M. Iuditskaia, "Nauchnaia Kompetentnost- Nepremennoe Uslovie Filosofskogo Issledovaniia," VoprosyFilosofii 2 (1966): 62-165; A. F. Shishkin,"Ob Etike Uchenogo," VoprosyFilosofii 2 (1966): 14-25.

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 369 on the social structure,mobility, consumption patterns, and publicopinion in the country.20 Soviet researchersgenerally avoided sweepingconclusions and generalizationsthat could compromisethe validityof Marx's theory.But the criticalthrust of theirfindings could not be concealed. It would be unthinkablein the previous years, for example, to confronta Soviet audience with sociologicaldata indicatingthat "various social groupsin our societyare not yetequal in theireducation, in theirmaterial statusand have unequal opportunityfor obtaining a middle- level education,for consuming cultural goods, fororganizing theirdaily life."21 It musthave come as a revelationto many Sovietreaders that the intelligentsiain Sovietsociety may be self-perpetuatingas a class,that the workersin a socialiststate may be alienated, or that various segmentsof the Soviet populationmay be criticalof existinginstitutions. The new developmentsin Soviet sociologyposed an in- terestingproblem for the sociologyof science. Empirical findingsgathered by Sovietsociologists during the 'sixtiesin- dicatedthat there are anomaliesin Sovietsociety that did not accord well withcertain propositions and predictionsderived from Marx's theory.As these anomalies graduallyaccumu- lated, Soviet Marxistswere confrontedwith the dilemma: eitherto modifythe Marxistparadigm so thatit could explain anomalousevents or to look for a betterconceptual framework. 20 Some of thesestudies are reviewedin S. M. Upset,"Commentary: Social Stratifi- cationResearch and SovietScholarship," in M. Yanovichand W. A. Fisher,eds., Social Stratificationand Mobilityin theUSSR (WhitePlains, N.Y.: InternationalArts and SciencePress, 1973), pp. 355-391; R. B. Dobson,"Mobility and Stratificationin the SovietUnion." Annual Review of Sociology3 (1977): 297-330; D. N. Shalin,"The Developmentof Soviet Sociology, 1956-1976," Annual Review of Sociology4 (1978): 171-191; D. N. Shalin,"Between the Ethos of Science and the Ethos of Ideology," SociologicalFocus 12 (1979): 275-293; I. Zemtsov,IKSI: The MoscowInstitute ofApplied Research. A Noteon theDevelopment of Sociology in theUSSR, Soviet Institutions SeriesNo. 6 (Jerusalem:Hebrew University, 1976). 21 B. Rubinand Iu. Kolesnikov,Student Glazami Sotsiologa (Rostov: Izdatelstvo Ros- tovskogoUniversiteta, 1968), p. 33.

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 370 SOCIAL RESEARCH

The situationwould not pose an insurmountableproblem foran academicbourgeois sociologist, particularly in the age of paradigms.The manifestfunction of academicfreedom is to insurethat the scientistcan followeither path. Not so in the case of a Marxistsociologist. He renouncesthe institutionof academicfreedom because he believesthat its latentfunction is to insurethat any paradigmshift would notjeopardize the existingorder. He also refuses,as a matterof principle,to separate his role as a scientist(that forceshim to be a re- visionist)from his role as an ideologist(that urges him to fight revisionism).As a result,he is leftwith no choicebut to stretch out his paradigm to the utmostlimit and to suppress the findingsthat do not fithis grandtheory. The dramaticevents thathave shakenSoviet sociology in thisdecade can be seen as an unanticipatedconsequence of the Marxistradical attempt to mergethe ethos of scienceand the ethos of ideology. I will not recountthe course of the campaignfor the pro- motionof the class-bound,partisan approach in Sovietsociol- ogy.22The point I want to make here is that the Marxist pictureof academicfreedom as "butan ephemerafostered by the elites which run their institutions"23and academic bourgeoissociology as "theenterprise commonly known as the oldestprofession"24 very aptly describes the currentsituation in Sovietsociology. The remarkabledifference between Soviet and Westernsociologists is thatthe formermake no bones of theirserving a partisancause, the state Party.They readily admitthat "sociology in the USSR is an activeweapon in the

22The detailsof thiscampaign can be foundin D. N. Shalin,"On CurrentTrends in SovietSociology," La CriticaSociologica 38 (1976): 173-184; Shalin,"The Develop- mentof SovietSociology, 1956-1976"; Shalin, "Between the Ethos of Scienceand the Ethosof Ideology";A. Simirenko,"Soviet and AmericanSociology in the Seventies," Studiesin ComparativeCommunism 6 (Spring/Summer1973): 25-50; Zemtsov,IDSI: The MoscowInstitute of AppliedResearch. 23J. D. Colfax and J. L. Roach, "Introduction"in Colfax and Roach,Radical Sociology,PP. 3-21, at p. 7. 24M. Nicolaus,"Why Sociologists?," in Colfax and Roach,Radical Sociology, pp. 45-59, at p. 46.

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 371 hands of the CommunistParty."25 "Marxist sociology clearly and unambiguously,without any hesitation,takes the side of the workingclass, of itsParty. ... It does not hide thisfact. It is proud of it. . . ."26A proponentof thisposition is not likely to be embarrassedby the followingdisclosure: "The Central Committee of the CPSU put the task [before Soviet sociologists]to develop 'historicalmaterialism as the general "27 sociologicaltheory.' Havingtaken this stand, Soviet Marxists are facinga delicate question:How to handle thosesociologists whose views are at variancewith the establishedparadigm? The answer to this questionwas made clear during the ideologicalpurges that Soviet sociologistsunderwent in this decade. Unorthodox scholarswere condemned by the Party for "drifting away from the positionsof classanalysis"28 - read: fordeviating from the Marxistparadigm. Some of the earlierpublished books, con- taining unconventionalideas, were destroyed.29Historical materialismwas declaredthe general sociological theory bind- ing to every Soviet sociologist.Soviet Marxistswere called upon to "maintainthe purityof Marxism-Leninism,of the class-bound,partisan approach in the social sciences."30And Marxismwas once again ossifiedinto a "truththat mustbe believed and enacted against all the evidence to the contrary."31 25G. V. Osipov, Teoriia i Praktika SotsiologicheskikhIssledovanii v SSSR (Moskva: Nauka, 1979), p. 261. 26G. P. Davidiiuk, Vvedeniev PrikladnuiuSotsiologiiu (Minsk: Vysshaia Shkola, 1975), p. 27. 27 Osipov, Teoriia i Praktika,p. 172. The inside quotation is from KPSS v Rezoliut- siiakhi ResheniiakhSezdov, Konferentsii i Plenumov, torn 9 (Moskva: Gospolitizdat,1972), p. 348. To appreciatethe absurdity of trîiifstatement, the Western reader is advisedto replace"The CentralCommittee of the CPSU" by "the State Department"in the above quotation,and "historicalmaterialism" by "structuralfunctionalism." 28G. E. Glezerman,"Istoricheskii Materialism i Problemy Sotsialnykh Issledovanii," Kommunist4 (1979): 76-87, at p. 84. 29B. Rabbot,"A Letterto Brezhnev,"The New York Times Magazine, Nov. 6, 1977; Shalin,"The Developmentof SovietSociology, 1956-1976." 30S. T. Trapeznikov,"Marksistko-Leninskaia Filosofskaia Nauka i Sovremennost," VoprosyFilosofa 8 (1973): 16-30, at p. 28. 31H. Marcuse,Soviet Marxism: A CriticalAnalysis (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,1958), p. 89.

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 372 SOCIAL RESEARCH

It is arguable how far the new trendsin Soviet sociology mighthave led had theynot been blockedby the Party.But one thingis painfullyclear: mostof thegains in the domainof academicfreedom made by Sovietsocial scientists were lost in the'seventies. The shiftback fromthe ethos of scienceto what I have called "the ethos of ideology"32is omnipresent.The timesare gone whenthe editorialswere renouncing as "unac- ceptablethe replacement of substantivearguments in polemics by politicaland ideologicalarguments."33 Instead, we hear the familiar precept that "partisanship in Marxist-Leninist philosophycoincides with the search for scientific truth"34 and an open call to revive the principleof "criticismand self- criticism."35 Those sociologistswho stillinsist that the spiritof partisanshipand bourgeoisacademic freedom are twonames standing forone thingshould examinemore closely the experienceof theircolleagues in communistsocieties.36

MarxistAcademics in theWest

So much for academic freedomin a Marxiststate - the SovietUnion. But is ita Marxiststate, one can ask. Does Soviet experiencehave any value for the testingand developingof Marx's theory?These questions must particularlyinterest neo-Marxists in theWest. For thecredibility of Marxismwith a

32 The ethos of ideology is an ideal-typicalconstruct that is designed to complement Merton's concept of the ethos of science. I consider both concepts as comprising an ideal continuumfor describingpractical scientific enterprise. The concept of the ethos of ideology contrasts to the norms of universalism,disinterestedness, communism, and organized skepticism the values of imperialism, partisanship, privatism, and organized ostracism. For details, see Shalin, "Between the Ethos of Science and the Ethos of Ideology." 33 "Razvivat Leninskii Stil v FilosofshikhIssledovaniiakh," p. 6. 34"S Pozitsii Partiinosti,"Voprosy Filosofii 1 (1974): 47-56, at p. 47. 35 Ibid., p. 55. 36 The confrontationbetween Marxist ideology and Marxist sociology in Poland is documented by Z. Walaszek, "Recent Developments in Polish Sociology," Annual Reviewof Sociology3 (1977): 331-362, and in Yugoslavia by S. Deutsch, "Sociological Currentsin ContemporaryYugoslavaia," The AmericanSociologist 12 (1977): 141-147.

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 373 human face largelydepends on "whetherStalinism follows from Marxismitself or whetherit was simplya contingent aberrationpeculiar to Russian culture."37The problemas- sumes a new dimensionwith the rise of academic Marxism. Havingraised the claimthat Marxism is a scientificparadigm, Marxistsmay be expectedto specifywhat they are preparedto count as evidenceagainst their conceptual framework. Marx and Engels did not hesitateto make empiricalstate- mentsabout the courseof historicalevents. Drawing on their theory,they made severaltheoretical predictions as to where and whenthe proletarianrevolution was to begin.Their fore- castsfailed to materialize.And whenit became clear thatthe proletariatin developedcapitalist countries would not behave in accordancewith theoretical expectations, Marx and Engels turnedtheir attention to therevolutionary process in theEast. In October 1917, the Revolutionstruck czarist Russia. The Bolshevikfaction of Russian Marxiststook power and de- clared Russia the firstsocialist state. From the standpointof Marxismas a politicalideology, that was a significantachieve- ment. From the standpoint of Marxism as a scientific paradigm,that was a disaster.The odds againstrecognizing the Sovietstate as a Marxistsociety were overwhelming:the proletarianrevolution took place in a countrywhere the pro- letariatmade up less than 3 percentof the population;the revolutionoccurred in a predominantlypeasant country that was economicallyand culturallyone of the mostbackward in the capitalistworld system;the revolutionhappened in one countryin spite of Marx's warning,issued specificallyin re- sponse to the question posed to him by Russian revo- lutionaries,that this was theoreticallyinconceivable; the revo- lutionwas disavowedby major Marxisttheoreticians in the West. Bolsheviksbrushed aside all these questionsas irrelevant. They charged Western Marxistswith theoreticaltimidity, 37A. W. Gouldner, "Stalinism: A Study of Internal Colonialism" Telos 5 (1978): 5-48, at p. 7.

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 374 SOCIAL RESEARCH dogmatism,and revisionism,and at the same time they praisedtheir own readingof Marx as a model for a creative developmentof scientifictheory in the face of unique historical circumstances.They staunchlyinsisted and are stillcon- vincedthat theirs is the onlyauthentic Marxist science. I sus- pect thattheirs is neitherMarxist nor science. I challenge Soviet theoreticiansto explain why,in their allegedlyMarxist state, they consistentlyrefuse to publish some of Marx's works,most notably the collectionof Marx's essays SecretDiplomatic History of theEighteenth Century, Under- standably,it wouldbe awkwardto publishthe followingquery that Marx raised about the Russian state: "How did this power,or thisphantom of a power,contrive to assume such dimensionsas to rouse on the one side the passionateasser- tion,and on the otherthe angrydenial of its threateningthe worldwith a rehearsalof UniversalMonarchy?"38 In the era of detenteand SALT, such a testimonyis clearlysubversive (one could easilyget jailed forit in present-dayRussia). But if SovietMarxists find Marx's extensive analysis of Russiaand of itspolitical future unduly polemic and unscientific,they must have the courage to state this openly and let every Soviet Marxistjudge the matterfor himself. As long as theydecline to do this,their Marxism is truncated,at best. Unlikesome workswritten by Marx,Kuhn's The Structure of ScientificRevolutions has been publishedin Russian.Soviet ex- perts'attitude toward Kuhn's theoryof scientificparadigm is mixed.But the veryfact of the translationsuggests that they are ready to grantit some relevance.If so, theymust have noticedthe following thesis, central to Kuhn'sargument: "The veryexistence of sciencedepends upon vestingthe power to choose betweenparadigms in membersof a special kind of community."39Kuhn clearlymeans here "scientificcommunity."Soviet authorities understood the messagecorrectly, in- 38 K. Marx, SecretDiplomatic History of the EighteenthCentury (London, 1899), pp. 74-75. 39 Kuhn, The Structureof ScientificRevolutions, p. 167.

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 375 sofaras the naturalsciences are concerned.The ideological authoritiesno longerdare to issue instructionsto biologistson how to respond to corpusculargenetics. Yet that is exactly what is happening in the Soviet social sciences,where the CentralCommittee of the CPSU instructsSoviet sociologists what theyshould adopt as a general sociologicaltheory. If every social scientistis judged to be an ideologist,every ideologistis entitledto makejudgments about scientificmat- ters.As long as thedivision of laborbetween Marxist sociology and Marxist ideology is not institutionalized,the Soviet sociologistwill remain "a scientificideologist," a craftsman whose trade is to expertlymanufacture false consciousness. The failureof East European countriesto live up to Marx's expectationsdoes not discourageMarxists in the West.They persuasivelyargue thatthe mistakescommitted in communist societiesneed not be attributedexclusively to Marx's theory. Grantedthis, Western Marxists still have to face up to the spectacular fiasco of Marx's predictions about Western capitalism. Neo-Marxist sociologists readily admit that some of the Marxistpropositions can now be certifiedas wrong. Says Mills:"Marx is oftenwrong. . . . Afterall, obsolescenceis part of history;as such it is partof Marxism."40Flacks and Türkei mentionseveral major points where Marx's theory requires a thoroughrevision.41 Among them are the deterministicvision of therelationship between material being, class consciousness, and class action;the simplisticaccount of the stateas a ruling class's executivecommittee; the idealized perceptionof the workingclass; the underestimationof the role played by in- tellectualsin the revolutionarymovement. In the face of these revisions,one is temptedto ask how manycornerstones must be taken fromthe foundationof Marxismbefore the whole buildingis to collapse? To quote again Flacksand Türkei,"departures from Marx's 40 Mills, The Marxists,p. 37. 41 Flacks and Türkei, "Radical Sociology."

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 376 SOCIAL RESEARCH

expectationsare to be viewed not simplyas refutationsof a theorybut as occasionsfor deepeningunderstanding of the dynamicsof contemporarysociety."42 This statementwould probablydo more than raise the brow of a Popperian fal- sificationist.For it sounds like an invitationto multiplyauxil- iaryhypotheses. A sophisticatedfalsificationism, such as advo- cated by Lakatos,43may be more tolerantto theoreticalad- justments.But it would demand an unambiguousanswer to the questionof whethera givenparadigm shift is progressive or degenerative.44 The logic of Kuhn's and, even more to the point, of Feyerabend'sargument may come to the rescueof the Marxist paradigm. Followingthis logic, Marxistscould argue that whetheror nota paradigmshift is degenerativeor progressive can be determinedonly retrospectively;that a judgment of this matteris itselfparadigm-bound; and that none of the currentlyoperating sociological paradigms could claimserious in vivo predictivepower. It is not my objectivehere to evaluate the validityof the Marxist paradigm or to discuss the meritsof competing philosophiesof science.My pointis thatMarxist academics in the West find themselvesprogressively involved in the language game played by theirbourgeois colleagues. They demand the same privilegesfor themselves,compete for the same scarceresources, and expecttheir works to be judged by the same standardsof excellenceas do membersof other scientificparadigms. Given all the revisionsalready accepted by neo-Marxists, is it too much to expect thatthey take one more step, acknowledgingthat academic freedom is more

42 Ibid., p. 209. 43 1. Lakatos, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Pro- grammes,"in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, eds., Criticismand theGrowth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1970), pp. 91-196. 44 This question is very much to the point in the case of Soviet Marxism. The "vestigesof the past" theoryaimed to explain the failuresof a socialistsociety and the thesis of "insufficientutilization of the advantages of the socialist system" are paradigmatic cases of a degenerative paradigm shift.

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 377 thanan ideologicalfiction and thatacademic bourgeois sociology does more than a job of politicalapology? To some Marxiststhis question must appear undulyrhetori- cal. It does not do justice to a great diversityamong neo- Marxistsin the West.Indeed, Millsand Birnbaum,Althusser and Gouldner,Colfax and Bottomoreare all associatedwith Marxisttradition, but thingsthat draw themapart are more salientthan those drawingthem together.While some neo- Marxistsdenounce academic freedom as a trick,others take it forgranted. Yet thatis exactlywhat one should not do. One cannottake for grantedone's freedomto conductsocial in- quirywithout accepting the obligationto protectthe oppo- nent'sright to pursuehis research and acknowledgingscientific value for alternativeways of doing sociology. The idea of a dialogue betweenMarxist and non-Marxist scholarsis stillanathema to orthodoxMarxism. But therecent advancesof Marxismin the West suggestthat academic and Marxistsociologies can peacefullyco-exist. To the extentthat neo-Marxistsare willingto fortifythe established trend, Marx- ism becomes one of the paradigms in the contemporary sociologicalcommunity. In my view, the academizationof Marxismdoes not mean,as Gouldner'sthesis about academic legitimationof sociologyimplies,45 that Marxistsare surren- deringtheir right to criticizeand remodelthe existinginstitutions.What it impliesis thatMarxists accede to workingbeside and, wheneverpossible, together with non-Marxist humanists and criticsof the presentorder without giving up theirspecial commitmentto human emancipationor denyingtheir oppo- nentsthe rightto argue theircause. To be sure, this is a difficultstep. To take it means to dispensewith the monopolyon criticaland humanistinsight into the institutionsof the establishmentclaimed by Marxist scholars.The mostunsettling thing for a Marxistin thisoption is thatit threatensto erode his identity.Like mostof us, he 45 A. W. Gouldner, The ComingCrisis of WesternSociology (New York: Basic Books, 1970).

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 378 SOCIAL RESEARCH

longsfor a clear-cutidentity, for a distinctcause thatwould set up a sharp boundarybetween "them" and "us." And as most humans,he can experienceanxiety when he findsthe bound- aryblurred. But ifhe takesinto account that social boundaries are man-made and man-sustainedabstractions, that no boundariescan hedge offsocial particularsof one denomina- tion fromthose in the next taxon,the Marxistscholar may find it easier to face up to the erosion of his theoretical identity.After all, identitycrisis is germaneto livingbeings as longas theykeep growing,and, if anything,it signifiesmatur- ity. I am fullyaware thatthe peacefulco-existence of Marxist and bourgeoissociologies can be viewedin a quite different perspective.An alternativescenario would pictureacademiza- tion of Marxismas a means to augmentthe resourcesin the Marxiststruggle with bourgeois sociology and capitalistsociety.This tacticwas advocatedby Lenin and is popularamong modern communists.They do not miss the opportunityto publicizetheir views through The New York Times, to lecturean Americanpublic about the stateof humanrights in the Soviet Union,or to invokethe Freedomof InformationAct in order to receiveneeded informationfrom the State Department. All thisdoes notoblige them to reciprocateor to stopdenouncing the lack of freedomin the West. I do not knowhow manyneo-Marxists favor this scenario. Some of themare definitelymoving in thisdirection. When I read about Marxistscholars "jamming" their bourgeois coun- terpartsin the conferencehall and subjectingthem to public ostracism,46I am vividlyreminded of the militantscientific partisanshipin the SovietUnion. When I hear abouta Marxist sociologydepartment that bars non-Marxist sociologists from its rank, I cannot help rememberingmy Soviet colleagues

46W. A. Gamson,"Sociology's Children of Affluence,"in Colfaxand Roach,Radical Sociology,pp. 450-459; P. M. Hauser,"On Actionismin theCraft of Sociology,"ibid. , pp. 425-439; R. H. Robins,"Up Againstthe Statler-HiltonWall: Politicsin the ScholarlyAssociations," ibid. , pp. 440-449.

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 379 censuredfor adopting improper views. No, I am not tryingto establish"guilt by association."The pointI am tryingto make is this:critics of academicsociology and of bourgeoissociety can pursue theircriticism and therebycontribute to human emancipationas long as theyare protectedby, and are able to protect,the bourgeois institution of academicfreedom. This is one of the mostimportant lessons that Western Marxists can learnfrom the experienceof theirEast European colleagues.

Value-Neutralityand Value-Partisanship

Weber once noticed that the honestyof a contemporary scholarcan be judged byhis attitudetoward Marx. I takeit to mean thatthe scholarmust not let his ideologicaland substan- tivedifferences with Marx blind him to the intellectualhori- zons opened by Marx.A man of rare sociologicalimagination, Marx broughtto life powerfulconceptual frames which sur- vivedlong afterhis generalconceptual framework shared the fateof the Hegelian system.The latterfact should not be a cause fordistress: as the foundingfathers of Marxismliked to stress,"system" is the most conservativepart of a scholar's intellectualcontribution. As happened withHegel's grandsystem, Marx's theoretical edificewas takenapart by his disciples.Contemporary Marx- istsoften disagree on whichreading is closer to the original spiritof Marxism.But thereis a solidconsensus among them thatsociological research is a value-bound,partisan enterprise. This visionsets them apart from those who, following Weber, advocatevalue-neutrality as a strategyfor social research. The controversyover value-partisanshipand value-neutralityhas become a standard theme of twentieth-centurysociological discourse.What is oftenoverlooked in thispolemics is thatthe same author who rejected scientismand the idea of an ideologicallyuncommitted science prided himselfupon dis- covering"natural laws . . . workingwith iron necessityto in-

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 380 SOCIAL RESEARCH

evitableresults."47 It is not also fullyappreciated that Weber groundedsocial knowledgein human values,and almostin- variablyignored that the founder of positivism,Auguste Comte,was a passionatepropagandist of the religionof hu- manity. It seems to me thatvalue-neutrality and value-partisanship representa perfectdialectical contradiction, a thesis and anti- thesisrequiring a theoreticaland practicalsynthesis. An attemptto radicallyseparate them or to subordinateone to the otheris self-defeating.An encounterof value and truth,of pure and practicalreason, is a major stimulusto sociological research.Their creativetension can be sustainedonly if there is enough room forconflict between the individual'srole as a scientistand his role as an ideologist. Elsewhere,I have hintedthat it mightbe possibleto com- bine value-neutralityand value-partisanshipin a third approach which I tentativelycalled value-tolerance.48The value-tolerantorientation is predicatedupon the special role played .by a scholar in contemporarysociety. Mannheim sensed very acutely this special position of a scholar- intellectual.49Yet I wouldargue thatthe intellectual'sposition is peculiarnot because he is chronicallyunattached, as Mann- heim believed,but because he can attachhimself to several causes simultaneously.50He develops to the utmostlimit the social mechanismof intelligence51by takingthe value per-

47 K. Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (New York: International Publishers, 1967), p. 8. 48 Shalin, "Between the Ethos of Science and the Ethos of Ideology." The theoretical and methodologicalrationale for the followingideas is given in D. N. Shalin, "The Genesis of Social Interactionismand Differentiationof Macro- and Microsociological Paradigms,"Humboldt Journal of Social Relations6 (Fall/Winter1978): 3-38, and "On Things Themselves and the Art of Their Accounting; Or How We Go About Assign- ing Individuals to a Class and Ascribinga Class to Individuals," unpublished manu- script, 1979. 49 K. Mannheim,Ideology and Utopia (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1936). 50 The macrostructuralistcan reasonably argue that the development of the mech- anism of taking the role of the other in the twentiethcentury has been facilitatedby the structuralchanges in society. 81 G. H. Mead, Mind, Self,and Society(Chicago: Universityot Chicago Press, 1934).

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 381 spectiveof the other. Drawing on differentparadigms for makingsense of reality,the social scientistcan bridgethe gap betweenconflicting and incommensurableuniverses of discourse.Tolerance to multiplerealities, simultaneous member- shipin differentparadigms, and relativeindependence of any particularreference frame - these featuresof scientificwork in academicinstitutions are centralto value-tolerantscience. As a politician,the individualcan declare: "Here I stand; I can do no other."52He can lend his face to dramatizingany particularcause and use it as a singlesource of his identity.As a scholar,the individual is doomed to be alienated,is bound to oscillatebetween alternative frameworks, and is deprivedof theright to takerefuge in a "real me." He mustbe readyto act as a devil'sadvocate or, if you will,to take the role of "the deviousother." The principleof value-tolerancesuggests a new perspective on academicfreedom. The lattercan be conceptualizedas the freedomof self-alienation,or to put it in the language of Goffman'sdramaturgical analysis,53 as the freedomof face- work.The scholarmust be free to dramatizeany cause and dispensewith any contingentself-indentity pressed upon him by a class. Academicfreedom is thefreedom to alienateoneself from theinherited class commitmentsand officialself -identities. Looked at in thisperspective, academic freedom is not so mucha license as a yokethat the scholarimposes upon himself.He is always temptedto evade his responsibility,to escape into the clearly defined,unambiguous "authentic self." But the authenticity affordedby a givenpartisan cause is an unreflexivemode of being in the world-taken-for-granted,and as such it is an- titheticalto freedom. The "authentic"social researchthat Horton contrastedto 52 M. Weber, FromMax Weber:Essays in Sociology,edited by G. H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1946), p. 127. 53 E. Goffman,"On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interac- tion,"Psychiatry: Journal for theStudy of Interpersonal Processes 18 (1955): 213-231, and The Presentationof Self in EverydayLife (New York: Anchor, 1959).

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 382 SOCIAL RESEARCH

the "alienated"sociological labor in a capitalistsociety is fully realizablein a totalitariansociety.54 The totalitarianstate es- tablishesa monopolyon the individual'sface-work, turning it intoface-labor. It forcesthe individual to dramatizean official realityas objectiveand meaningfuland persecutespublic dis- playof alienationas a federalcrime. A socialscientist in such a statehas no choicebut to lend his faceto the Party-controlled productionof ideologicalsurplus meaning or quit sociologyas a vocation(if he can) and leave the countryaltogether (if he can). A moderncommunist state confronts the scholarwith such a choice. Capitalismmay be an evil but, compared to any known societyclaiming Marx's legacy,it is a mild one. Bourgeois academicfreedom is preferableto proletarianscientific par- tisanshipbecause the formerprotects the freedomof self- alienationand encouragesvalue-tolerance, whereas the latter suppresses them, and thus impedes the ongoing tran- scendenceof the ossifiedsocial structures. It mustbe difficult to live in a world where one's identityspills over the clas- sificatoryborderlines. But ifwe realizethat, contrary to Marx's belief,démystification cannot be achieved once and for all, that dereificationis not an instantaneousrevolutionary achievementbut an ongoing accomplishment- a Sisyphian labor- we mayfind the courage to shoulderthe heavyburden of academic freedom.

54 Horton, "The Fetishismof Sociology."

* I wish to thank ProfessorLewis A. Coser for his commentson an earlier draft of this paper.

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