'A Profound Crisis of Purpose in Social Science'

Among the many social scientists who entered the discipline in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it is easy to observe a fundamental disenchantment with the profession. For many of these people, the attraction of social science lay in its potential relevance to the process of social transformation, whether they conceived of it in terms of radical political change or individual self-realization or "liberation." They looked back upon the 1950s and 1960s, when social scientists were engaged in conducting surveys, offering economic advice, and other activities that were clearly understood to be a part of the larger project of social reconstruction. That age of moral and political consensus in social science is dead and gone. Today there is a profound crisis of purpose in social science and related disciplines. The onset of the economic recession of the late 1970s, and the emergence in many Western societies of a self-consciously reactionary right, has had a disorienting and disorganizing effect on the sense of purpose of academic social scientists. There is no longer a clear idea of the rationale for the work that is done, over and above its utility in the pursuit of individual careers. There are ways out of this impasse, ways that involve a scrutiny and retrieval of some elements of the social science of the period 1930-1950. It is not that the social, political and economic realities of the 1980s can be reduced to those of the 1930s and 1940s, which was not an exemplary era, for example, for the advancement of women or for the pursuit of peace. But the social scientific work undertaken then was interesting for three reasons, all of which could be inspirational for contemporary social science. A Lost Commitment First, the social scientists of the 1930s and 1940s were—both by necessity and by choice—embedded and engaged in the broad society in a way that very few of today's professionally secure and tenured social scientists can claim to be. Certainly, in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand the class position and social role of the social scientist in those days was little different from that of the surrounding lower middle class. Not surprisingly, the social science of that period was much more connected to the real problems of living and to the urgent need for social reconstruction than is much of what passes for social science today. Second, the social science of that period was unafraid of the essentially political nature of its subject matter and, in most cases, of its responsibility to speak to a democratic and social reformist purpose. This was particularly clear in Britain (in the work of Harold Laski and others at the London School of Economics) and in Canada (in the work of the so-called League for Social Reconstruction). In the United States, the overwhelming mood of social science during the 1930s and 1940s (the "Red Decade") was that of progressive liberalism. Third, social scientists of this period felt a responsibility to participate in a broad-based, but practical and realistic, program of social reform. This commitment emerged out of their close observation of the crippling effects of unemployment and the other expressions of social and economic inequality that were evident in that period. One does not have to resurrect the specific reform programs of that period to recognize the pressing need for such a commitment on the part of social scientists in the late 1980s, especially in countries like Britain, which has been socially and politically decimated by the unemployment and urban conflicts of the Thatcher period. It probably is fruitless to expect the tenured professionals of social science departments or government bureaucracies to take a lead in the retrieval of the kind of social science that was practiced in this earlier period. But it is interesting to note the kind of work now being published by younger scholars who are by no means in secure professional positions. Especially in Britain and Australia, there is evidence of an emerging young social scientific intelligentsia (for example, Angela McRobbie in the United Kingdom and Mike Presdee in Australia) that is much closer to the reality of contemporary economic relations and social life than are those middle-aged scholars now in secure university or government positions. Their work is not tied to individual careers; indeed, most work at social science only part time, or are "overemployed" at technical colleges or other institutions of mass education. It is from these marginal or part-time scholars that some of the most illuminating and committed work of the 1980s on unemployment, racism and social conflict, the "hidden economy," music and popular culture, and the role of women has emerged. It is this group of social scientists—whose work is done in close proximity to everyday lived experience and out of commitment to realistic social reform—that is responsible for the predominance of feminist work and cultural studies in contemporary social science. Like their predecessors in the 1930s and 1940s, they are the real carriers of a critical, useful and realistic program for social scientific endeavor. Taylor is professor of sociology at Carleton University, Ottawa K1S 5B6, Canada. This is adapted from the keynote address at the Social Science Section of the January 1987 meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science.

'A Profound Crisis of Purpose in Social Science'

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of