Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1865–1905 by Mary O. Furner (review)

356 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW dence.Thustheveryscope of theproblemasdefinedbySewardandAdamsbefore the war'send wassufficientto dissuade Britishstatesmen from discussing it in the firstflushof theUnion'striumph. Indeed,AdamshadreportedtoSewardalmost two yearsearlier,in September1863,that Russell wasbecoming'a littlesensitive to the multiplication of the claimsfor damagedonebythe Alabama.'Then again,to what extentwastheBritishpublicpreparedto admitthattheyandtheir government had notbehaved correctly, thushowfar wouldtheyhaveallowedthe government to go? Thesearesomeof the considerations whichmight,hadtheybeendeveloped, saved Cookfrom unreservedly condemning Russell for notsettlingin 1865andfoolishly dismissing himas'stupid.' BRIAN JENKINS Bishop's University, Lennoxville Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisisin theProfessionalization of American SocialScience, •865-• 905. M^I•¾ o. vt•I•EI•. Lexington,UniversityPress of Kentucky,1975.PP.xvi, 357.$17'5ø' In 1897, three yearsbefore he wasforcedto resignhis positionasprofessorof economics at Stanford University,EdwardAlsworthRosswasgentlychidedby a fellowprofessor: 'Haveyounotbeengivinga littletoomuchtimeto politics lately?' Professor Ross, 'a politicaleconomist of thepeople,'wasanoutspoken supporterof WilliamJenningBryan'scampaignfor the U.S. presidency, a criticof monopolies andanadvocate of publicownershipof utilities.He thusarousedtheireof Mrs.Jane Stanford,widowof LelandStanfordtherailroadmagnateandfounderof Stanford University,andshehaddemandedhisdismissal. Professor Furner'sbookisa studyof therise- in thelatenineteenthcentury-of thenewprofessional disciplines of economics, politicalscience andsociology. Staking out anareaof knowledge wheretheirwrit wouldbesupreme,thesenewdisciplines alsoexercisedpowerful sanctions againstthe styleof outspokenpoliticaladvocacy favouredbymenlikeRoss. The historical background andthesociological dynamics of thisprocess arethe subjects of Professor Furner'sstudy. ProfessorFurner's theme doubtlessly emergedout of the heated-uppolitical atmosphere of thelatesixties andearlyseventies - thoseyearswhenacademics inthe United Stateswere deeply divided over whether their professional associations shouldmix in politics by takinga standon thewar in Vietnam.In thatperiodthe radicalcontentionthat established institutions - of whichthe universitywasoneservedthe interests of dominationmadeitsmark. Canonsof scholarly objectivity cametobeconsidered a maskfor politicaldisengagement. Professor Furner'scallto scholars tostudythemselves withthesame resourcefulness theyhadhithertoshown in studyingpoliticalpartiesandlabourunionsbearsthe stampof thatera.Though her bookisa studyin t•shistory,her attemptto plumbthe dynamics of academic professionalism makesit of interestto academics in otherfieldsaswell. Professor Furner'sbookbeginsby evokingan earlier era - the mid-nineteenth century- a time when the amateursocialscientist reigned supreme.Reformers, REVIEWS 357 whose claimto authoritywasbasedupontheir sharpenedsense of social obligation andbreadthof view,theseamateurs spokedirectlyto theconscience of their fellow citizens, seekingto influencethe politicsof a widelay public.Uninhibitedabout political advocacy, theirworkwasguidedbywhattheydefinedastheburningissues of the day.Practicalin their approach,they workedin areasof cryingneed- the treatmentof theinsane, penology, education, disease andnutrition,thecondition of immigrantlife in thecities - collecting datato awakentheconscience of the nation andunderpinconcreteproposals for social reform. Professor Furner'sglowing depiction ofasocial science innocent ofprofessionalizationserves asacounterpoint towhatfollows: thetransition toanerainwhichsocial science becamefragmentedbyspecialization, spawning the moderndisciplines of economics, politicalscience, sociology, andpublicadministration. Professor Furner prepares tomoveusfrom Edentoman'sFall. Tracing the socialdynamicsof professionalism, ProfessorFurner arguesthat economists, politicalscientists, and sociologists basedtheir claimto authorityon the possession of a scientific methodology that madetheir pursuitof knowledgeinto something higherthanmereopinion,freedit of thedross of passion, andwasboth objective andscientific. Likepriests in theMiddleAges,academics claimedtopossess 'esoteric knowledge' (thetermistheauthor's) or anesoteric methodology, requiring longyearsof trainingand thusinaccessible to laymen.Ethicalconcerngavewayto passionless investigation andtheconviction thatpoliticaladvocacy subverts thequest for knowledge. Breadthof viewgavewayto expertisein the minuteinterstices of reality.The claimto possess a scientific methodology unleashed avicious dialectic. It wasclearthataprofession enlivened byvehement controversy onfundamentalissues of approachand methodology wouldforfeit itsclaimto scientific expertise.Only a fundamentalconsensus within the disciplinewould establish the credibilityof its pretensions totrueandvalidknowledge. Hencethestrong pressui•es against outspoken politicaladvocacyand the new climateof cautionand deliberateness. The controlledand productiveindignationof reformersnow yieldedto the dry and passionless enterpriseof academic careerists. If this was all there was to Professor Furher's thesis, it would not be half so interesting asit is.But sheisfar toogoodanhistoriantobesatisfied withanabstract sociological modelofthedynamics ofprofessionalism thatreduces history toataleof angels andsinners. After promotingthethesis thatprofessionalism wasa sell-out to careerism, shechanges courseand offersa rather different picture.As shepoints out, the achievement of consensusin economicsmeant the formulation of a middle waybetweenthe deductiveapproachof classical economics and the empiricalapproachof the German School,with its stress on positivestateintervention.This meantthatwhiletherangeof acceptable doctrinewasnarrowed,themainstream in economics endorsed a mix of laissez-faire economics alongwithmoderate- though significant - stateintervention. Achieved consensus amongeconomists endowed this position withscientific sanction. Furrieradmitsthatthe newstance of professional expertise gainedeconomists far moresocial importancethantheyeverhadbefore. Theynowbecame quietexpertsratherthanvociferous partisans. Claimingthattheir expertise placedthemabovethenarrowselfishness of interestgroups,economists, in 358 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW theirroleasadvisers andtechnical experts, helped shape anewconsensus favouring moderate reformandpositive state action, thetrademark ofAmerican progressivism attheturn of thecentury. Professionalism meantthatachievement wasnowtobejudgedbyinternal scholarlystandards ; members ofadiscipline insisted thatonlytheywerequalified tojudge theirpeers.Thiswasnotmereself-serving butaboldattempttoliberateacademics from externalpressures at a time when universitytrustees believedthemselves empowered tooversee theactivity andopinions of academics. The passionless and cautious pursuitof knowledge did not,by andlarge,fostera rigidseparation of thought and action; it promoted academicfreedom. The claim to value-neutral...