But the rationality of this kind of social science appears in a different light if the given society, while remaining the frame of reference, becomes the object of a critical theory which aims at the very structure of this society, present in all particular facts and conditions and determining their place and function....
The criteria for judging a given state of affairs are those offered by (or since they are those of a well-functioning and firmly established social system, imposed by) the given state of affairs. The analysis is "licked"; the range of judgment is confined within a context of facts which excludes judging the context in which the facts are made, manmade, and in which their meaning, function, and development are determined.
RESEARCH on the techniques of counter-insurgency warfare could be viewed as neutral so long as there were a general consensus on the framework of American foreign policy. Once a radical perspective became established and challenged this consensus, however, the value assumptions and political effects of the counter-insurgency research became clearer.
The value judgments that are implicit in research which is considered technical within its own social context can be seen most easily when that research is applied outside its own consensus. Hoffman, again in Gulliver's Troubles. discusses an example:
Optimistically, Americans have contrived a new notion- that of political development- which assumes that in the realm of economics there is a clear direction, and a set of norms, measurements, and strategies for moving in that direction. This notion rests on the shallowest reading of history and corresponds to a belief that the curses honors of advancing societies must be that of the United States; the criteria adopted by political scientists are all a transfer of American standards.
American political scientists have considered stability to be an important feature of social and political systems, or at least one important enough to be studied extensively. It seems possible, though, that with a different notion of "political development," different types of research would be conducted.
For example, social scientists who believe that "social justice" is a significant feature of "developing" societies might be interested in finding what social and cultural factors lead peasants to join a social revolution. Given the commonly accepted American notion of political development, however. studies like Project Cambridge- which seeks to find what factors make a peasant patriotic- appear to be neutral or objective.
This kind of reasoning suggests that it is at least highly probable that some kinds of research in the social sciences are biased in favor of certain value assumptions. Such bias naturally has political effects, although these might not be apparent until a new perspective challenges the general consensus in the society's frame of reference.
A thoughtful, reasoned dialogue between practicing social scientists and radicals who challenge their assumptions and perspective should help make the problem clearer. But the dialogue would not consist of another trip to the zoo, and the solutions probably would not include either closing down research institutes like the Center or ignoring political criticism from students.
Rather, it should become even more apparent that social scientists must make their frames of reference explicit in order to understand their own assumptions. It should also become clear that academic freedom consists of assuring that all political viewpoints are represented in the world of scholarship. To safeguard academic freedom, the University should recruit and support social scientists who can transcend the common American framework by producing admittedly "political" research.