Melville J. Herskovits and the Racial Politics of Knowledge

5. Objectivity and the Development of Negro Studies

123 chapter five Objectivity and the Development of Negro Studies Objectivity is not neutrality, but alienation from self and society. . . . Objectivity is the way one comes to terms and makes peace with a world one does not like but will not oppose.—Alvin Gouldner Everywhere the learned world is split into ‘‘schools’’ and rare indeed is the savant who does not appear to be at war with himself in his own bosom.— Charles Beard A fter world war i the academy was transformed when many social scientists embraced a detachment from public policy , a development that had a profound influence on Herskovits , who was just beginning his professional career. Before the war, Progressive Era intellectuals had employed science as a way of achieving progress and curing society’s ills. Liberal social scientists pursued research designed to shape public policy in favor of reform, while racist social scientists promoted government policies such as immigration restriction of southern and eastern Europeans. Acting as advocates for education, settlement houses, and political reform, Progressive intellectuals sought to create a more democratic society. The fluidity between social science and reform was demonstrated by the fact that the American Social Science Association (assa), formed after the Civil War, included both social reformers and social scientists.∞ Several complementary developments led many Progressive social scientists to disavow their faith in social reform by the 1920s. During the first two decades of the twentieth century conservative college presidents fired numerous social scientists for advocating political and social reform . In order to safeguard their positions, academics backed away from Objectivity and the Development of Negro Studies 124 advocacy and embraced quantitative research.≤ Meanwhile, social scientists became disillusioned with what they perceived as the futility of Progressive attempts at reform. Political reforms such as the presidential primaries failed in their democratizing mission, with the public being manipulated by electioneering and public relations specialists. Similarly, moral advocacy for social reform had led not to democracy but to the coopting of religion by fundamentalism.≥ The First World War reinforced social scientists’ move away from advocacy, as they exchanged ‘‘moral fervor for reform’’ for ‘‘a reverence for scientific knowledge and technological innovation.’’∂ Psychologists administered intelligence tests to army recruits, economists helped with resource mobilization, and historians, economists, and ethnologists provided expert knowledge in preparation for the Paris Peace Conference.∑ Disillusioned with moral advocacy and reform, many intellectuals placed their hopes in pure science.∏ Progressive reformers and uplifters gave way to detached professionals. A ‘‘language of ‘e≈ciency’ and ‘social control’ gradually eclipsed the humanitarian, moralistic rhetoric of earlier reformers.’’π In this way, social scientists sought to increase their authority by reestablishing their scientific credentials as professionals and by distinguishing themselves from political advocates.∫ Thus, as Barry Karl has observed, ‘‘the new idealists of the twenties chose not to call themselves ‘progressives’ and certainly not ‘reformers.’ They had moved out of the turbulent world of politics into the ordered world of science.’’Ω Objectivist social scientists sought to establish themselves as a knowledge -elite by privileging their knowledge over that of nonprofessional social scientists who did not have the proper credentials or compromised their objectivity by pursuing social reform. As Donald Fisher has observed , however, ‘‘neither science nor social science is separate or distinctive in and of itself.’’ Nonetheless, social scientists acted on the belief that their knowledge was distinctive. They sought to convince others by claiming that they were objective scientists uninterested in the practical implications of their work.∞≠ A minority of social scientists rejected the notion that social science should or could be a value-free endeavor. They insisted that academics admit that their beliefs influenced their research. ‘‘I don’t say that you ought to write history on the basis of your assumptions—but I say you do,’’ maintained political scientist and historian Charles Beard. Others Objectivity and the Development of Negro Studies 125 wholeheartedly embraced research designed to achieve social reform. Sociologist Robert Lynd argued that knowledge must have a social purpose . He maintained that social scientists put too much emphasis on quantification and should concern themselves instead with both normative goals and facts.∞∞ Thus the 1920s and 1930s witnessed a ‘‘crystallization of opposing perspectives,’’ with social scientists dividing themselves into two contentious factions, which Mark C. Smith has labeled purposivists and service intellectuals. Although both groups embraced the scientific method, purposivists believed that social scientists should have definite social policy goals for...