Power is the ability to influence what people think, how they feel, and how they act. Power can be direct or indirect, explicit or implicit. Like money and technology, power in itself is morally neutral. Power can be harnessed for good or for evil. Power can be used to protect the weak and to enact justice. It can also be used by the strong to cause untold suffering and injustice.
How does the concept of power play out in science and in the academy? Science and universities are human institutions. Hence, their activities and organisation inevitably involve the exercise of power. Power affects what people believe is true, the narratives they live by, how the social context shapes academia, and whether the strong triumph over the weak. Below I discuss the power of ideas, the power of narratives, how economic power shapes the academy today, and the paradox of the power of the powerless. The latter gives hope in a situation in which it is easy to despair.
Power of ideas
Universities are primarily about thinking. Teaching an academic discipline is ultimately about training students to think in a particular way about a subject, whether physics, sociology, or theology. Research is concerned with thinking about a topic, gathering data, analysing the data, and formulating concepts and theories that make sense of the data.
Ideas are powerful, for better or worse. Ideas can enable us to synthesise and understand vast amounts of information. Academic disciplines begin with new ideas and accelerate when these ideas provide an understanding of a dimension of reality. For example, genetic information is encoded in the biomolecule DNA.
On the other hand, disciplines stagnate and may become dangerous, when ideas become ideology. Then, an idea becomes an assumption that should never be questioned and is claimed to have universal applicability and validity. For example, Freud's view that the subconscious is shaped by repressed sexual desires and this determines behaviour. Ideology can frame discussions about economics, from both left-wing and right-wing perspectives. Free markets are efficient and produce the best outcomes for everyone. Or, the only way to produce a fair and just society is for the state to control capital and the means of production.
Power of narratives
Stories are powerful. They capture our imagination and frame what we believe is true, what is possible, and how we should live. Individuals, families, institutions, and nations all have narratives that they live by.
Here are three powerful narratives involving science. These three narratives are interrelated.
a. Over the past two thousand years, Christianity has consistently been opposed to scientific progress.
Promotion of this narrative began about 150 years ago with the publication of an influential book by John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874). This was followed by Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).
Scholars of science and religion today accept that this narrative (known as the conflict thesis) is false. See for example, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, Edited by Ronald L. Numbers. In contrast, it is accepted that Christianity did not hinder but facilitated the rise of modern science.
Nevertheless, this narrative is still promoted by prominent public intellectuals, such as the New Atheists, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.
b. Science makes possible certain knowledge and is the ultimate authority on what is true.
This idea began with Rene Descartes and continued with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827). Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the first philosopher of modern science and a founder of sociology (social physics). He was the founder of positivism, claiming that societies progress through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. These correspond to eras of primitive (Christendom), Enlightenment, and modern science.
This narrative of increasing certainty through a universal scientific method achieved power and legitimacy due to the successes of Newtonian mechanics. It gave an accurate quantitative description of the motion of the planets and cannonballs. It was even able to predict the existence of a new planet, Neptune, in 1846.
This narrative led to pressure for the biological, social, and human sciences to be more like the physical sciences and use statistical and quantitative methods. It has led to a marginalisation of the humanities in universities. It promoted liberal theology and doubts about traditional Christian doctrines and the modern relevance of the Bible.
This narrative promotes the idea that science is the ultimate authority concerning what is true and important. In a desire to seek greater legitimacy in the modern world, attempts are made by apologists for major religions that their ancient texts are actually scientific and even predicted modern scientific discoveries.
c. Progress. Increasing scientific knowledge results in greater human flourishing and less human suffering.
A current proponent of this narrative is the Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker in his book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Below is the publishers blurb.
Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? In this elegant assessment of the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.
This narrative promotes the idea that all social problems have scientific and technical solutions and that any limits on scientific research and the development of new technologies will be bad for humanity.
The problem with all of the three narratives above is that they are not true. Yet they are appealing and powerful as they promote particular political and philosophical agendas.
Economic power shapes the academy today
All institutions are located in a historical, social, political, and economic context. Today that context is dominated by economic ideology, which has labels such as globalisation and neoliberalism. This ideology promotes the idea that "free" markets produce the best outcomes for all. Briefly, this means that decisions should be made in terms of economics. Students are consumers, faculty are human resources, and universities are businesses. Resources (capital, infrastructure, personnel, influence) are allocated based on what will generate the most income for an institution. The goal of scientific research is to generate technology that will promote economic growth. Researchers are competing with one another to obtain resources. Research is to be managed like a factory production line with well-defined timelines, measurable outcomes, and techniques. Everything has to be efficient.
This all leads to the marginalisation of the humanities and curiosity-driven scientific research. Awe, wonder, collegiality, doubt, and play are cute irrelevancies.
Universities are dominated by money, management, marketing, and metrics.
Like the culture, life in a university is dominated by the relentless pressure of individualism, immediacy, functionalism, and secularism.
This is a dramatic shift from the seven core values that shaped medieval universities, one of which was the notion of "scientific and scholarly knowledge as a public good transcending any economic advantage it might bring".
Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard University, has documented the problem of commercialisation in his book, Universities in the Marketplace, published in 2003.
There are multiple problems with letting economic ideology control universities and science. First, it is inhumane, diminishing the value of people and knowledge, reducing both to economic commodities. Second, it promotes economic inequality and injustices. Universities have become another means for the rich and powerful to increase their wealth and power. Third, this approach will fail to produce the putative desired outcomes of graduates who contribute to society through their creativity, expertise, and service or to produce new scientific knowledge that leads to technologies that benefit humanity. Countless examples of discoveries in science resulted from pure curiosity and had no clear practical application. However, some [but far from all] of these discoveries eventually led to unanticipated industrial applications in computing, communication, materials, or medicine.
The paradox of the power of the powerless
In the long run, the mighty do not triumph. The proud are humbled. All empires fall. This is because of the judgement of God. It is also because they cannot accept the way that the world really is and live by lies. Ultimately, they come up against reality and truth. God has made people and the world in a certain way and to function in a certain way. For those who do not accept this eventually their world unravels. This does not just apply to those with military, political, or economic might. Intellectual rulers (Freud, Marx, Plato, Dawkins) also have clay feet that eventually crumble. Intellectual fashions pass.
I find inspiration in the story of the early church. Their triumph over the mighty Roman Empire has been documented beautifully by Rodney Stark in a fascinating book he published in 1996, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries
Other inspirations for counter-cultural resistance are provided by Walter Brueggemann in The Prophetic Imagination and by Vaclav Havel, in Power to the Powerless.
This might capture our imagination as to the way forward. I believe it is to form counter-cultural informal academic communities that live by the truth.
This post is part one the session that I will be leading in a Seminar course on Power that my fellow "holy" scribbler is giving this week at Asian Theological Seminary in Manila.
