650
PARTISAN REVIEW
Still, as they identified as social scientists, they had to give some
thought to what social science might be. Their image of science was any
layman's idea of physics and biology. So they concluded that it was the
application to social questions of the characteristic procedures of
physics and biology, namely, observation of material phenomena, which
could be seen, touched, counted, and measured, and the formulation of
statements, if at all possible, using mathematical equations, numbers,
and esoteric and highly abstract terminology, which due to their math–
ematical appearance and abstract character could be called "scientific
laws." They did not consider the possibility that procedures of physics
and biology may not be applicable to the study of social reality; social
reality was defined by what made these procedures applicable, which
left out virtually everything that distinguished humanity from animals.
By and large, social scientists used their authority as scientists to vent
their grievances against the worthless society which so obviously lacked
judgment by allowing base businessmen to get socially ahead of lofty
characters such as themselves. Enabled by the bounty of these business–
men they passed from anxiety to academy, denounced this society from
the sanctuary of their professorships, exposed these businessmen for
being bloodsuckers of the human race. Thus, they combined a formal–
istic scientism with the most unabashed ideological preaching in total
disregard of the scientific ethos. The only area in the social sciences in
which, during the century of their institutionalized existence, one can
see any cumulative development is "methodology"-that is, theory
about how to practice social science, which from the start emerged as a
central area of specialization, independent of any substantive concerns;
in all other respects, despite the characteristic faddishness and cliquish–
ness of the so-called social scientific community, there is a most aston–
ishing lack of change. After a hundred years of pampering, the attitude
of American literati towards their society remains as unforgiving as
before.
I am describing the formation of a set of structural constraints, favor–
ing certain modes of conduct and thought and discouraging others, not
the actual actions and motivations of every person placed within these
constraints.
In
the course of these hundred years there have been many
innocent people, uncommitted ideologically and sincerely interested in
the study of society, who were drawn to social science departments
totally unaware of what they were about to step into. A few emerged
unscathed as the greatest social thinkers of our age. Inevitably, the great
majority were disabled by their professional training. The nauseating
concoction of ideology and methodology was fed to them as their disci-
