By Kevin D. Williamson
Saturday, May 06, 2017
Progressives claim to love science, but what they truly
love is power.To be a good progressive is to adhere simultaneously to two incompatible
notions: one, that science provides the final word on any question about which
scientists offer any opinion; two, that the scientific method is illegitimate,
a tool of the sundry atavistic forces conspiring to keep down the female, the
black, the brown, the poor, the gay, the disabled, the gender-fluid — everybody
except Mitt Romney.
If you were looking at the college campuses with the
right kind of eyes in the Eighties and Nineties, you could have seen this
coming.
The more philosophically self-aware progressives have
long been ensorceled by the belief that science — or, really, Science — could
be pressed into service bearing loads of social management too heavy for a mere
bureaucracy. The Soviet Union invested a great deal of its scarce capital in
something it called “Soviet cybernetics,” a sort of Stone Age attempt at using
what we’d now call Big Data to analyze and solve social problems, especially
those related to the management of economic production. The old Marxists took
their “scientific socialism” seriously.
In the English-speaking world, progressives, under the
influence not only of political philosophers such as John Dewey but also of the
engineer and management theorist Frederick Winslow Taylor, fell into something
like a cult of expertise. Experts under the tutelage of Science could, would,
and should decide . . . almost everything. How much steel should U.S. firms
produce? How should they produce it? What should the line workers at the
factory be paid? What about their supervisors? Taylor’s Principles of
Scientific Management, published in 1911, provides a testament to the ambitions
of the Progressive Era: He and his contemporaries believed that, using such new
technological tools as stopwatches and motion-picture cameras, one could study
industrial processes at the most granular level — how a certain employee turns
a certain screw — and produce a single, best way of performing any task.
There is a great deal of ideology embedded in that
belief, along with a great many political assumptions, but Taylor and the
others denied that they were engaged in any sort of politics at all: Their
business, as they saw it, was Science. There is a reasonably straight line from
early-20th-century progressivism to contemporary, Barack Obama–style “pragmatism,”
which is dishonestly and glibly characterized as simply “doing what works.” In
reality it means “doing what I want done, in the most convenient way.”
But managerial progressivism, with its implicit faith in
hierarchy and its inescapable elitism (not everybody gets a Ph.D. from
Harvard), was always set for conflict with the more populist and emotional
tendencies on the left that came to prominence in the Sixties, political
currents originating largely in issues of identity (from black power to Chicano
power to what we used to call “women’s liberation”). Such concerns exist
uneasily alongside a managerial progressivism based on the wisdom of people who
were — and are — overwhelmingly white, male, and highly educated, working in
institutions built by (and, the identity Left would argue, for) people who were
overwhelmingly white, male, and highly educated. For years, this played out as
old-fashioned progressive elites’ exercising a kind of managerial veto over the
wilder ambitions of the identity Left: Bernie Sanders proposes reorganizing the
American economy around the cultivation of organic hemp, and somebody
responsible tells him, “No.”
This gave the identity Left a very strong incentive to
work to undermine the prestige of Science, a project that was undertaken with
great enthusiasm back during the heyday of postmodernism. The academic world
endures a lot of voguish nonsense about “African science” and “feminist
mathematics” and “queer physics” (“My early postulate is that queer physics
speaks about knowledge-making in physics that takes the form of subverting the
hegemony of a dominant and mainstream discourse”). The extreme, Foucauldian
version of that analysis was ridiculous and lame and easy to write off if you
were not an academic. But the more moderate version of that view became quite
mainstream: We may not hear very much about feminist physics, but we hear about
“women’s ways of knowing,” gay perspectives on this, black perspectives on
that, etc., as if there were not as many black perspectives as there are black
people. Michel Foucault’s lurking malice was reinvented as the motive force in
the rhetoric of “intersectionality,” the belief that the oppression of people
with certain characteristics (black, gay, disabled, etc.) isn’t a matrix of
attitudes and discrete episodes but a complex nest of social relationships that
can, conveniently, explain anything — the phlogiston of identity politics.
The Indiana Jones heuristic — the search for fact is
science, the search for Truth is philosophy — can go only so far in finessing
the inherent conflict between science, which is organized around assumptions of
objectivity, and the poisonous identity politics holding as its fundamental
principle that everything is subjective. The scientific view is that true is
true and false is false, irrespective of any particular demographic or
political characteristics of the speaker. (Though these of course may provide
grounds for skepticism: “Who paid for your study?” is not an entirely unreasonable
question.)
At the same time, the identity Left has its uses for
Science. For one thing, it was a convenient cudgel to use against
conservative-leaning Christians distressed by certain implications of evolution
or discombobulated by the possibility that homosexuality is a phenomenon with
roots that are biological rather than diabolical. That sort of thing is usually
the stuff of low-value conversation: A certain kind of eternal adolescent never
stops getting a thrill out of scandalizing his retrograde Lutheran grandmother.
But if you have a sufficient number of such interactions — and we have no
shortage of them — they can become a part of the tribal identity that is the
real basis of our politics, however much we might pretend that what we are
really talking about is public policy. As the identity Left moved out of the
communes and into the suburbs and progressivism became much more strongly
associated with the interests and habits of affluent, educated, coastal elites,
professing one’s love of Science became an exercise in telegraphing status.
But if it were really about science, we’d be hearing more
from scientists and less from people who have batty, superstitious attitudes
about modern agriculture and evidence-based medicine. You will not hear
Democrats complaining about the fact that the Affordable Care Act clears the
way for subsidizing such hokum as acupuncture and homeopathy. Seventh-day
Adventists may make some claims about the world that sound ridiculous from the
scientific point of view, but so do practitioners of yoga and sweat-lodge
enthusiasts. The public adoration of Science isn’t about science.
Which brings us to the recent March for Science and the
popular poster boy for all things Science, Bill Nye. The March for Science was
no such thing; in the main, it was a march for the one thing almost every
faction of the Left can agree on: a larger public sector. Progressives are
culturally at home in large institutions (universities, federal agencies,
Fortune 500 HR departments), and they have learned how to game those systems
pretty well. More funding for “science” means a lot of funding for things
tangentially related to science and a lot of comfortable sinecures related to
science in the vaguest way: A great many people with degrees in women’s studies
or Latino studies have jobs in “science” as community-outreach coordinators and
program officers with responsibilities that might charitably be described as
“light.” It’s a safe bet that $100 spent on “science” gets you about $17.50
worth of astrophysics with the balance going to “community development,” paid
political activism, and overhead. That is not an argument against spending on
science — it is an argument for better and more responsibly run programs.
And that would be a fine argument to have, if we could
have an argument. Which we can’t.
Charles Murray, who wrote one of the world’s most famous
books bringing scientific research to bear on social questions, has in effect
been forbidden to speak at college campuses. In one of the most shameful
spectacles of contemporary academic malfeasance, Bert Johnson, the chairman of
the political-science department at Middlebury, has apologized for the episode
in which Murray was prevented from speaking on campus by rioters: Professor
Johnson apologized to the rioters for having had the poor judgment to invite
someone to campus whose views are at variance with their own. It could be that
Murray’s work represents poor science; some respected parties have made exactly
that argument. But what does Science have to say about the disputation of
claims?
The postmodernists were correct in one thing: There is
some politics built into the scientific method, in that the scientific method
assumes an environment in which people are at liberty to speak, debate, and
publish — a liberty with which the American Left, particularly on college
campuses, is at war. They are not interested in debate or conversation. They
are interested in silencing those who disagree with them, and they have
high-profile allies: Democratic prosecutors around the country are working to
criminalize the holding of nonconformist views about global warming (some
prominent activists have openly called for jailing “climate deniers”), and
Howard Dean has taken up the novel argument that the First Amendment does not
actually protect political speech with which he disagrees. (It is, he insists,
“hate speech,” a legally null term in the American context.) Dean has argued
that the federal laws governing the conduct of political campaigns could and
should be used to regulate all public speaking.
The partisans of Science believe themselves to be part of
an eternal war between Galileo and the Inquisition, but they have in fact
chosen the Inquisition’s side. They have chosen the side of the Censor and the
Index — so long as they get to choose who serves as Censor and who manages the
Index. That is how they have reconciled Science and its claims of objective
fact with identity politics and its denial of the same: They are engaged in
neither the pursuit of fact nor the pursuit of Truth — only the pursuit of
Power.
No comments:
Post a Comment