Your points are highly pertinent, Paul. Should the question of "what is the impact of...", rather be the question: "how can we make critical social science more impactful" in the face of the onslaught from the right...? How do we get to sit at the right tables to have such voices heard, and even if they were heard, have they been listened to? How do we make critical, justice-oriented social science not only speak, but be heard? How do we open up the conversations and foster legitimate spaces for open dialogue?     

I agree with all your concerns. I'm currently writing a book on the Politics of Compassion which  is the opposite of most of the  political maladies that you are talking about. I am also worried by the emergence of far right groups everywhere. Duterte's election in  the Philippines was a source of national shame and disgrace for the progressive Left in the Philippines and Trumpism is an equal disgrace for the United States. My anxiety is that liberal democracies are not only becoming  illiberal . They are all becoming more and more repressive. Popular consciousness is only dimly aware of the ways in which  national security states everywhere are  controlling our lives and our politics. So for me, the challenge is one of generating consciousness of all these different  pathological trends; mobilising resistance to them and thinking of alternative progressive imaginaries that are truly emancipatory, empowering and inclusive.... lets work on it!!!

I had the experience of working in (and managing) a progressive think-tank in the Republic of Ireland that produced social scientific work as accessible as possible to politicians, public servants and the general public. One experience was that social scientific evidence was much more likely to be adopted if it fitted the agenda of parties; but rational argument was battling against the tide when it came to politically unpopular issues (such as the reintroduction of water charges, or raising taxation). No surprise there perhaps. But 'Left' was just as likely as 'Right' to ignore evidence that they didn't like.

Another observation is that ideas associated with the 'Right' (i.e. laissez faire, privatisation) have already undermined social science to a huge extent. So many academics are busy chasing funding and getting publications in the top journals that they are disengaged from day-to-day policy issues. The way that the profession has been shaped by 'market forces' means that they perform their economic function of educating workers, but they are not the strong, intellectual community that one might expect them to be in terms of rowing in on major issues such as climate change, inequalities, sustainability of the economy, etc.

Conversely, I suspect there has been a shift (more noticeable in the Republic of Ireland perhaps) away from clergy as a source of wisdom in favour of NGOs and academics. There is a social need to hear from people who have thought about issues in depth. The fact that the UK academic performance evaluation ('REF') has included merit for 'impact' is an indication that this need for social engagement by academics has even been noticed in officialdom. Maybe the threat of President Trump in the US or President Le Pen in France will remind academics of the need to engage more fully with society, not least to provide accessible counter-argument against the simplistic but potent (and extreme) ideas that flood the Internet's chat rooms and forums.

Dear Nat,

Thanks for the wonderfully insightful commentary. I do agree that posing the question in a binary way--right-left--is highly problematic. My own experience in government is that business interests, regardless of the flavour of the day, have enormous sway on policy development but I did also experience, when I worked in government in Canada, a fuller acceptance and embracing of this agenda with right-wing governments at the helm. 

I think the hope is in mobilizing diverse forms of knowledge--including indigenous knowledge, social movement knowledge, alternative knowledge, etc.--in ways that may not be fully hinged on getting financial support. Of course, this is easier said than done, and academic institutions are increasingly linked into the funding game. Linking with civil society, rather than trying to explicitly influence government policy, may be one option, seeking to mobilize support from below. However, I do believe that many angles need to be approached at the same time.

Best regards,

Paul

All these concerns are prevalent in Australia, within universities and in society. I agree with Paul about the growing power of social media in mobilising change in government policy from the groundswell. Evidence and publicising of negative impacts of policy change using social health research has had big wins in the U.K. In Medicine, rising student debt is swinging graduates towards higher paying specialist work (as in the U.S), and having negative impacts on social justice in distribution of health care to underserved, mostly rural and poor regions of the globe. Teaching social justice in the neoliberal climate of higher education is a Sisyphean task, but my PhD research is showing that there are medical students with sophisticated moral consciousness for social justice that need greater mentoring support to offset the hidden curriculum of the status quo. 

Right now we have the business-indebted media using dirty tricks like re-badging the language of social justice (equality, equity) to pervert its meaning as a means to discredit the left and re-elect a right of centre government. 

Regards

Kingsley Whittenbury

Dear Kingsley,

Thanks for the comment.

Your point about how language is being contorted to turn us into entrepreneurs and consumers is well-taken. I have noticed, and the literature also bears this out, how (many) university students have been converted into "clients" or "customers," which further serves to diminish social justice work/thinking and engagement.

However, I have seen and experienced many interesting alternative measures and actions but it is clear that the formal governing structures have some real power in defining the parameters of debates and concepts.

Best regards

Paul

I would suggest you ask the same question in regards to extreme left positions which bring a strong bias to social science research, assuming that everything "those so called researchers believe is "progressive" equals good and just. It isn't always, and  the "progressive" views aren't owned by the  left. Social science need avoid the bias of both left and right; it tends to err on the left, and if you think I am just biased, recall the failings of every leftist government now and throughout history.

Thanks, Andria, for that response. It is important to outline, debate, de-construct, define, etc. terms, concepts and visions of reality, and being "progressive" is not locked into one clearly-defined framework. Social science research, in particular, seems to be affected by ideological shifts at the formal government level. My own experience, which, like all others, is biased, saw a more Left-wing government fund, create policy, develop programming, etc. for anti-racism education and other equity initiatives in the 1990s, and then see all of these programs, funding, research, etc. eliminated with the arrival of a Right-wing government. The ten-year hiatus of not addressing racism in education, in my mind, was a catastrophic error. I do realize the the political context is paramount in fore-shadowing this discussion, and I was primarily referring to OECD countries. Best regards.

The British Labour movement is currently rife with antisemitism. It does not signal all left leaning would be or existing governments are, but never forget that Lincoln who freed the slaves was a  Republican. The parties exist to be elected and are not always ideologically sound on every issue. Churchill was a Conservative,then a Liberal then a Conservative and while he opposed independence for India, he fought the fascists and Nazis--thank heaven!

I think the simple answer to your original question about when progressive social science can have an impact on policyis:

It is impactful if and only if there is a strong social movement that forces the policy process to take it into account.  without this force, the natural processes of government (even in so-called democracies) is to answer the needs and demands of dominant  institutions (most often capitalist institutions), which will acknolwedge or ignore or discredit science, depending on their own policy prescriptions.  

The textbook example of useful social science is Kenneth Clarkes research on the impoact of "separate but equal policy"--instrumental in Supreme Courts historical decision to make segregation illegal.  That decision--justified by Clarkes' research--only came about after thirty years of black protest and organizing--as well as the revolutionary movements in Africa (which animate Eisenhower to appint Earl Warren with the mandate to get a unaimous decision in order to court the "newly emerging countries" in Africa away from the Soviets, and to convnce African American's to "work within the system.").  And then, there was essentially no effort to inforce this decision until the civil rights movement enforced it directly.

But this illustrates the necessary conjunction of social movements and social science, because with Clark, there might not have been the same energy and/or the decision.  

Academic linking are the connection between public policy of govenment with the society. It will make all public policy of govenment to be clear and no rejection for the people. So, at last, critical social science research is the bridge to make the plicy running well as fast as it can be because there will be much more fixing for the government in all sectors.in other hand, public can know the weekness for the policy till the policy must be fixed by government...here, democracy living come.

The extreme left of a Bernie Saunders or Jeremy Corbun is as much a concern as the extreme right. What we don't need is extremist who can't think critically but only ideologically don't know history  and do little fact checking before making inane statements. 

This debate is crucial to the future. Not just in considering the circumstances that contribute to the efficacy of socio-political critique but also the means by which the errors and achievements of the past can become the foundation for a credible and attainable future.  It should be nurtured, and it should happen here on this  platform at RG.  For the very cogent reasons already identified by its contributors.

The institutional environment we operate in is largely the child of the norms, values and evolving concepts of our past and of their operationalisation (a terrible word!) in the face of crises.  In the same way the institutional environment that evolves from the present period of crisis will replace or evolve from them.

The right-left politico-economic dichotomy are two sides of the same coin.  Both accept the ancient and the Classical doctrines of property, markets, finance and cadestral systems.  They only argue around the rules which govern the compensatory 'feedback' flows of value produced.  From their points of concentration back to the sources of their production. These questions reduce to the 'simple' consideration of finding, and tracking perpetually through time within a societal 'domain', that point between the minimum needed to maintain consumption of what is produced and the willingness and ability to produce of those who do it.   The right prefers to move that point coercively, structurally or overtly, to the closest cost-effective point approaching zero.  The left attempts to counter the overt coercion and those structural changes, that they happen to notice, with arguments and proposals which seek to stop them or inhibit their effects.  They also try to argue the 'balance point' towards one of greater return flows of value back to those producing it by mobilising electoral pressure upon politicians and by creating market pressures on business owners.  These arguments most frequently use appeals which are necessarily limited to being essentially emotive, moral or philosophical in character, rather than prescriptive of institutional change.  Meanwhile the politicians, even those who present themselves as 'representatives of the left', when in power find themselves caught in the 'operational' bind that they have to keep the economic flows working if there is going to be any distribution to be argued about. and that entails working for and executing those policies, and creating or supporting those institutions, which 'common wisdom' and orthodox 'experts' suggest will benefit the system as a whole. 

The economic, political and social institutions of each country define the shape and form of its society.  Access to them and control of them define the form, scope and strength of the power relations between every segment of society and of every individual according to the mixes of 'segments' they are each affiliated to in the course of being who and what they are.

Any effective and lasting change must therefore be implemented through institutional change.  The pervasive institutional landscapes place the power to change institutions of power chiefly in the hands of those whom they most benefit, and who are therefore least likely to allow them to change.  Those who do not effectively question and challenge - with credible alternatives - these institutions, but only argue over what should be 'their rightful share' of the benefits they produce, have no real power to change them. Nor will they ever acquire any unless they are able to envision, communicate and champion alternative institutional landscapes and societal structures.

That 'power to change' can only come from the emergence of societal wide visions of  'credible alternatives' and realistic means of achieving them.  The web of institutional interconnections within, across, between and among the societies occupying this planet is now such that any 'societal wide vision' must also be integral to a planetary wide societal vision built upon it and those of our other societies.

The groundwork of that future vision has been laid.  At the same time, the accoutrements of power amongst those people and institutions which define our present have been developing and growing.  That groundwork lies in the Humanitarian Vision which has been nurtured amongst the global community since 1945.  It is precisely because the seeds of what it may bring forth are now becoming apparent that we are seeing a 'crack-down' and a slowing of its momentum in those institutions where it has, until now, been a convenient outlet for dissent.  Especially in institutionally highly developed nations.  Nations who also found in that 'Machiavellian indulgence' a rich source of initiatives and ideas from which new markets have been created out of societies which previously appeared to hold little exploitable potential.

The philosophical basis of the hegemony which holds sway is widely recognised, amongst its adherents and across the wide field of its detractors, as being philosophically bankrupt and illogical. It is a weakness at a very fundamental level, and its supporters are aware of it.  However, having a strongly embedded pragmatic methodology that works for them, and being the defending incumbents, they not motivated to change any fundamentals  which would alter significantly its main outcomes..

Its detractors are largely characterised by strong philosophical and moral arguments for their position and yet they have not, after nearly 150 years, settled on methodologies which persuasively identify, for any societal context, that mix and weightings of those institutional components that may suggest credible paths towards establishing credible alternative societies whose institutions deliver universal well-being according to Humanitarian visions.  In short they have not succeeded in creating a seductive, credible and self-evidently sound Vision that people as a whole might rally around and thus give rise to those movements through which social movement can be achieved.   This has been the challenge of Veblen since the late 19th century.  It is nothing new.

The 18th century philosophers of political economy had to wait for the invention of simple simultaneous equations before the outcomes of the implementation of their simplistic ideas could be modelled and business and politicians could be persuaded to follow and build the path they suggested.  So too the 'Institutionalists', with their far more complex but generally much more realistic philosophy of ideas has had to wait for the mathematical and computational tools required by their modelling and investigations.  These necessary technological advances have only started to reach maturity in the past 20 or 30 years.

Meanwhile, the pursuit of the philosophy of political economy in the academic 'mainstream' has retreated from being an exercise in seeking the ennoblement of Mankind through considering  what work we do,  how we do it and why we should do it.  In seeking to be viewed as a science it merely aspires to observe what we do and how we do it.  It seeks to understand how to improve the processes which contribute to its designated measure of success without seriously questioning its moral adequacy... according to the norms and values of the present day.  Requirements which are very different from those of the 17th and 18th century which are embedded in that 'scientific view'.

This split in the perceived purpose of economic study has established a 'mainstream' view  which endorses and perpetuates the economic relationships and a societal structure of an ancient culture through its uncritical acceptance of the view of that time that 'the economy' was an objective and basically immutable phenomenon of the world.  This view has become an institution, effectively protected by other institutions some of which it itself gave rise to, and all of which to some extent are now protected through the institutions of law and governance.  The more realistic view, and the one which more accurately reflects and accommodates the beliefs and values of the present day, interprets our economic relationships, societal structures and modes of governance as rather being an ephemeral derivative of the ever changing needs, norms and values of evolving societies and their technologies.  This more appropriate view and the formulations of the economic endeavour it gives rise to have no institutional status, power or protection.  But it is their development which will be most fruitful in creating the future we have begun to envision and which is desperately needed now.

Conjunctions of social movements and social sciences do not occur as the phases of the moon.  They do have their time, but the opportunities they present come to those who prepare for them.  In the words, I think of Veblen, 'What are you doing about it?'

Best regards to all, Robin Jarvis

re-edited 11/06/2016 23:19 GMT.

Greetings Robin,

Many thanks for your comments!!

I agree with you that about the potential actions that everyone can make, and this cannot be understated. People do have (some) power, and need not below that they have no role within the grand scheme of broader change. 

Best regards

Paul

Thanks Paul for your encouraging words!

As an 'amateur' amongst professionals I am always concerned that I may ruffle a few too many feathers by discussing in a forthright manner, all in one place, what has been accepted and written about by you and other experts for decades and going back to Veblen in the 1890's without a glimmer of remorse or self-critique amongst those who perpetrate this ridiculous situation.  It is impossible to aspire to be a scientist if one tries to merely make a show of being scientific when merely using the charade as a cloak for promoting one's one social dogmas and prejudices. 

It is al very well for our politicians to try to use us as the cloak of expertise to validate their endemic practices of the same strategy on behalf of the values they share with those who pay their campaign expenses.  It is quite another, when they bring subtle and 'institutional' pressures upon those experts to 'toe their own line of reasoning'.  The Faustian Compact which has existed according to our academically documented knowledge for centuries, and anecdotally has been the situation for millennia, between the nexii of power and the practitioners of governance is legendary.  That sounds like a tautology waiting to be exposed.. but I will ignore it and claim to have myself been mentored by a politician!  My point is that amongst all the fields of social science and across all the pressing social phenomenon of our times this one is notable for the complete apparent lack of funding and focus that it has enjoyed.  Despite the resolution of this  obvious conflict of interest being, according to the supposed norms and values of our societies, of the paramount importance in the non-delivery of our elected governments of the supposedly credible benefits they continually promise to deliver upon their election to the populations they claim the representation of and avow their desire to exercise responsibility for.  That sounds a mite polemical but saying it in staid phrases, with peer reviewed citations, would change the message not one bit.  And the questions about academic integrity "Endemic or not?" would still stand.

Which brings me to an important question in this specific engagement of minds here in RG.  In your question, what exactly do you understand by "progressive, critical social science research"?

Is this research critical, or critiquing, the interpretations of Classical economics and its derivatives by those whose interpretations have been identified as being on the Right, by way of comparative analysis with those interpretations of Classical economics and its derivatives by those whose interpretations have been identified as being on the Left?

Or is "progressive, critical social science research" the business of moving on to credible and sociologically authentic premises through which those of both the Right and Left views of Classical theory may be properly trashed through their philosophic poverty when compared with something more solid?

If your answer is the former then the answer or in fact any answer is by definition almost, of no practical consequence.  And I retreat from this debate.

If however your answer is along the lines of the latter then I am encouraged.  But I will also answer your question by reproducing a short extract from a private letter from myself in an exchange in which I was extemporizing, in the written word, of my conclusions and fears as regards the possible fate of one such thread of "progressive, critical social science research" which is in development in plain view here on RG.  Some of you may recognize with whom I may be corresponding:

beginning of quote:

"That truth is that with your exposition and its wide dissemination those ideas cannot be made not to exist. Once published the inferences to be drawn will be drawn. They will, perhaps not in a decade or even more... but perhaps in just a few months, become the common currency of people everywhere as they understand them. The two visions of the outcome are of salvation and of doom.

As concisely as I can put it the one inference, the positive one, is that CDT (following Nakaota) values the skill and effort of all human economic actors, as individuals, within a quite small range. It is supportive of an essentially egalitarian view of the worth of individuals of our species, but also of every actor in the 'Web of Life' (Fritjof Kapra). That worth is not a metaphysical concept. CDT establishes that worth as also being objectively economic. Why else do people get employed, or enslaved, by those who want to benefit from the CDT activities of everyone else they can establish dominion over, if it were untrue? With that knowledge the institutional paradigm, the whole landscape, must begin to change under pressure 'from below'. From people... all of them. Such a change, people driven, would, as Nakaoka indicates, be conducted through a period of accommodation and behavioural adjustment which people can cope with. A period in which they can adapt, create, abandon and rebuild the myriad CDT elements of which each of the institutions significant to us in our own localities can be recreated and from which we will move on and prosper.

The other inference, the negative one, is that the implantation, nurturing and exploitation of CDT adaptations into the behaviours of people at the level of their beliefs as well as at those encompassing their economic and social activities is at the very heart of one human being's control and exploitation of another. It is fundamentally no different if that control through grooming of CDT behaviours occurs in the family, at work, in governance, political activity, marketing, advertising, coercive religions and those institutionally sovereign institutional structures recognised as Nation States. It is at the very root of 'civilised' society. Now, across the world and back through time for nearly 10,000 years.

This is not surprising of course. The very development which you have completed emphasises that it expresses exactly how all of life proceeds!

The question becomes one of asking whether the long-presumed 'civilising' mechanisms of vision two become immediately ineffective. This would be on account of the eyes of the world's people, who already are believing in their own human worth, will be now opened to the manipulation that they are continually subjected to and that then they may have 'a bad reaction to the inoculation of truth' and become revolutionary 'fodder' for every power hungry mad man posing as a new messiah or guru. If this were to happen before those people can start to work together, systematically and with consideration, to build creatively the institutional landscapes which will realise their ideals and generate that atmosphere of hope and optimism which will allow it to happen in increasing peace, understanding and prosperity then they would lose what humanity has achieved and all knowledge of CDT might well be suppressed as a heresy for the next few centuries. It will, one hopes, be usefully rediscovered soon enough before we become extinct.

What I am doing in my own work is to try to ensure that sufficient supplemental vision of the new institutional landscapes which may give the world a good chance of following the first vision are also available when they will be needed. At least as a template from which others more appropriate and better considered may quickly develop.

It is my view that CDT could well be the unifying concept behind the greater part of the entire economic Heterodox. A unity and commonality of fundamental truth between the myriad disciplines knowledgeable of our entire existing institutional global set is vital for the validity, and public credibility, of any calls to move into a new paradigm of thought and morality. A call, successfully acted upon, without which any paradigm past its 'sell-by' date will continue to sit high on its shelf and continue to rot, fester, pollute and poison the population it claims to feed.

Its is just my opinion of course!  " end of quote

Paul.  That IS the answer to how both Right and Left, governments and our fellow academics, will react to any authentic and effective progressive, critical social science research.

We get one shot.

Robin