D iscussion 1 4 9
J. R. R avetz
Professor Zvorykine has given us a deep and coherent analysis of some v ery difficult problem s; those wiho h av e followed th e discussions in jo urn als such as “Technology a n d C u ltu re ” can appreciate his achievem ent. Because th e p ap er is so im portant, I have stu d ied it closely, and m y criticism s a re a m a rk of m y ad m iration a n d resp ect for his work.
F irst I m ight com m ent on the problem of th e in teractio n betw een "technology” an d “society”. lit,seem s th a t m ost scholars lack a concept of “cause” w hich is sufficiently rich to com prehend this phenom enon. If M arxism succeeds in clarifying such situations, a n d Professor Zvory- kine’s stu d y gives us hope th a t it w ill, th e n scholars alii o ver th e w o rld will appreciate th e pow er of th a t philosophy fo r concrete problem s of social analysis. I w ould like ito m ake one small contribution to this point.
Some confusion can be avoided if one distinguishes betw een th e m eans of production in existence at an y time, a n d th e ra te a n d direction of grow th, We can su rely tre a t the level of technology as: a .limiting factor in th e organization of society, an d for some purposes even consider it as an “independent variab le”. However, the p a tte rn of th e g ro w th of technology is stro n g ly influenced by social forces existing a t a n y mo m en t in a given society. We find the sam e distinction in n a tu ra l science.
The stock of scientific 'knowledge a t a n y tim e is (to a igreat extent) an im personal, objective tru th . B ut the advancem ent of science is a highly personal and social affaifr.
Now I m ust pass to certain criticism s of th e p ap er by Professor Zvo rykine. These come m ainly from m y im pression th a t his conception of “technology” is too .narrow, being lim ited to th e basic m eans of pro d u c tion. W hat o th e r significant aspects of technology are there?
F irst, production for lu x u ry a n d m ilitary purposes. F o r a b rief exam ple of the laitter, I w ould rem in d you th a t w e w ould alm ost certainly have no S p utniks, were it no t for th e m ilitary dem and for in tercontinental ballistic m issiles carrying n u clear w arheads.
I w ould also rem in d P rofessor Zvorykine of th e sophistication of th e technology of the advanced nation s w ith an ever la rg e r com ponent of “w hite-collar w orkers”, in America now rap id ly displacing th e “hlue- -collar w o rk ers”. These new w orkers are in th e ad m inistrative a n d “service” fields, a n d as society advances th e re w ill b e a grow ing need for such ‘^non-productive’’ w orkers, providing personal services to th e community.
A m ore serious criticism is one w hich I cannot prove from th e te x t of th e paper. B ut I feel th a t Professor Z vorykine has a n insufficient appreciation of th e im portance of history. O nly historical stu d y can tell
15>0 L es aspects sociau x du progrès scien tifiq u e e t tech niqu e
us (which elem ents of social life are m ost stable a n d resistan t to Change from technological development. I have seen th is from m y own expe rience, coming from A m erica to England, and seeing how two nations w ith a sim ilar technology h av e such differences in oultuire, and indeed such different prospects for a peaceful tran sitio n to a hig h er form of society.
The understanding of h isto ry is re la te d to appreciation of an oth er aspect of technology, w hich Professor Z vorykine did n ot m ention a t all. I re fe r to agriculture, su rely a fundam ental sector of th e m eans of production. A lthough I am not a specialist, I believe th a t there are deep differences betw een ag ricultural a n d in d u strial 'production, which could b e m ost usefully explored. These differences affect the social relations of production, a n d could help us un derstan d th e im possibility of a “m echanical” transform ation of a pre-capiitalist p easant ag ricu ltu re to a socialist one. U nderstanding of th ese problem s m ight give com fort and stre n g th to sup po rters of Socialism all over th e world; th e superior productivity of A m erican agricu ltu re com pared to Soviet ag ricu ltu re can be seen n ot as a re su lt of “free en terp rise” bu t p a rtly as a resu lt of the m ore favourable historical background to th e presen t situation.
P rofessor Zvorykine speaks as a m em ber of Soviet society, an d uses his understanding of technology an d society to m ake statem en ts of a social and political n atu re . I w ould like to< enjoy a sim ilar privilege in these rem arks. He correctly points o u t some serious contra d ic tio n in capitalist society, a n d claims th a t th ese can o n ly be solved u n der Socialism. He m ay be correct, but unless w e can p u t these problem s in an historical context we m ay fin d ourselves m aking statem ents w hich are em pty of all content. I w ould rem ind him th a t it is 'possible to explain poliiticajl an d social events by “the rise of th e bourgeoisie” a t tim es extending over a period of five h u n d red years. I w ould lik e to know w h eth er th e science of M arxism can o ffer us a n estim ate of how long it w ill ta k e for th e bourgeoisie to fall. If th e la w s of social develop m en t a re insufficiently know n for th is problem, we still have m uch to learn.
*
I th in k th a t th e Sym posium w ould benefit from certain reflections of (Professor 'Price, w hich he discussed w ith m e recently. Since he could n o t be h ere th is afternoon, I am tak ing the lib erty of telling them to you,' w ith o u t his permission.
First, creative n a tu ra l science is a highly specialized cu ltu ral pro duct, which has flourished only in certain lim ited p arts of m odern European civilization. Second, th e transfo rm atio n from “little science” to “big science” has profoundly altered the in te rn a l social conditions
D iscussion 15]
• In A m erica we see th e disappearance of a sm all scientific com m unity o f stro ng ly individualistic character, considering them selves as an
élite. The n ew scientists are m ore “n o rm al”,' w ith g reater appreciation of natio nal politics, m ore content w ith “team research ” a n d a ll th a t implies. W hen the la st of th e “old g u ard ” re tire s w ith in a decade, th e n ew lead ers of th e scientific com m unity w ill be of this new type. W hat changes can w e expect? C ertainly, a m ore n a tu ra l cooperation b etw een
the scientific com m unity an d th e o th e r institu tio n s of society.
However, it seem s likely th a t th e re w ill ailiso be losses. F or one thing, stan d ard s of scientific m o rality can be expected to decline, as personal p rid e becomes less im p o rtan t as a m otivation fo r research. Also, it seem s th a t the scientist w ho attacks a difficult p roblem and sticks to it fo r years, is passing aw ay. The new m en w ill be less .inclined to risk valuable years of theiir career on such things. We m ay ask w h eth er in th is new c u ltu ra l situation, creative science will continue to flourish in th e sam e form as heretofore.
R. S. Cohen
Science is a social phenom enon. To u n d erstan d th e histo ry of the social relations of science is itself a scientific problem , to be in v estig ated in history, sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, psychol ogy, a n d o th er social a n d cu ltu ral sciences. The social ord er and science have been re la te d in m u tu al an d complex w ays, a n d I shall co ncen trate - o n one aspect: th e im pact of th e social ord er upon th e developm ent of
science. We w an t to e x p l a i n th e ch aracteristics of science as th e consequences of o th e r aspects of h u m an culture, so fa r as possible. This is a concern w ith th e ex tern al h isto ry of science a n d it m u st be distinguished from th e in te rn a l historical developm ent b y w hich science has generated its own progress. Indeed, it is an open question w hether, a n d to w h a t extent, a n external sociological explanation is possible, b ut enough evidence is know n to ju stify th is discussion and to propose certain research problem s.
W hat a re the p rin cip al questions to be answ ered b y an ad eq u ate understanding of th e social relatio n s of science?
1) W hy do scientists h av e a c ertain ro le and sta tu s in a given society? Here, by th e te rm “scientist”, we m ean broadly those persons w ho engage in logical thinking, o r experim ental investigation, or ev en sys tem atic technological development, w hatever th e ir m otivation.
2) W hy does the science at a given time have a ce rta in in te rn a l social organization, as, for exam ple, the q u an tity and v a rie ty of ta len t, th e p articu la r m eans o r lack of communication, th e ways of educating both
