November 5, 2004
Max Weber: "Science as a Vocation"
Weber, Max. "Science as a Vocation" in H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (Translated and edited), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, pp. 129-156, New York: Oxford University Press, 1946.
Synopsis:
"The task of the teacher is to serve the students with his knowledge and scientific exposure and not to imprint upon them his personal political views" (146).
Speaking to students at Munich University in 1918, Max Weber addresses “Science as a Vocation." Weber begins by explaining what it means to have a vocation in science, comparing the trajectories in Germany and America. This section is ripe with messages that a vocation in science is a miserable task, full of all sorts of grief. He challenges anyone who suggests that they have a calling for science, explaining that they will never overcome the grief without the intoxication of a "personal experience" of science and the passion to pursue it. He continues on to address the personality of one pursuing science, explaining that while those in science are measured and evaluated on their teaching, only few possess the ability to succeed at teaching and research. Weber's depiction of the scientist is almost pitiful, but the descriptive, reflective nature of the speech makes it quite thought provoking.
Weber's next move is to consider the meaning of science as a vocation, pointing out the illusory notion of all considered meanings of science as: "the 'way to true being,' the 'way to true art,' the 'way to true nature,' the 'way to true God,' the 'way to true happiness'" (143). Due to the political culture of his time, science as a vocation can only have value if it answers, "What shall we do and how shall we live?" (143). Weber argues that science as vocation fails all of the internal presuppositions, but it not because science is actually free from presuppositions. Quite the contrary, one critical presupposition underlies all notions of science: that something is 'worth being known' (143). "Whether life is worth living and when - this question is not asked by medicine... Aesthetics does not ask whether there should be works of art... Whether there should be law and whether one should establish just these rules - such questions jurisprudence does not answer" (144). Those engaged in science do not have to explain whether it is worthwhile.
Given this presupposition that Weber argues that, "the prophet and the demagogue do not belong on the academic platform" (146). The role of the teacher is to teach facts, not to address the value of things; doing so is akin to being political. In the remainder of the speech, he admonishes teachers for engaging in political discourse in the classroom. To be political is to take advantage of one's power. While students may seek a leader, a teacher is not a leader. Likewise, he speaks to students, asking them not to value a teacher based on his skills as a leader (150). Removing the political and leadership-related qualities from teaching does not destroy the value of a teacher. Science contributes to the technology of controlling life, methods of thinking, tools and training for thought, and a process with which one can gain clarity. This is what students should be seeking when they seek out science.
Reflections:
I'm concerned about the assumption that it is possible to separate politics from science. In many ways, i think that they're far too intertwined and reflexivity is a far more valuable approach in the classroom. Critical thinking is key to knowledge acquisition, not simply knowledge itself.
In arguing that politics should not be introduced to science, Weber first offers a mandate: "The task of the teacher is to serve the students with his knowledge and scientific exposure and not to imprint upon them his personal political views" (Weber: 146). In many ways, I can respect this mandate for students should be exposed to knowledge and facts, as this is the primary purpose of getting an education. Personal political views are not what students go to school to learn. Unfortunately, Weber takes this mandate one step further, suggesting that his viewpoint can be scientifically proven. "I am ready to prove from the works of our historians that whenever the man of science introduces his personal value judgment, a full understanding of the facts ceases" (146). He does not elucidate this point intentionally, as it goes beyond the scope of the talk and would take a while. Unfortunately, here is where I am concerned.
What constitutes a personal value judgment and personal political views? Weber juxtaposes these phrases in opposition to facts and knowledge, implying a strongly negative connotation. Here, I start considering all that cannot be labeled facts and knowledge but what might be constituted as personal views.
Politics inherently affect the pursuit of knowledge and the mechanisms by which we interpret the data that we have observed. History is always told through the eyes of the victor, as though the victor’s truth is the only truth. In anthropology, subaltern studies have evolved to re-interpret histories in order to elucidate the views of the oppressed. Yet, to do so, one must actually understand the political values that the historians maintained when constructing their records. In what ways does the limitation on political production actually make it more difficult to properly situate any data presented by a teacher?
Weber's arguments also shed interesting light on the topic of backchannels. Backchannels can be constructed as a tool for resisting power in the classroom. Weber argues that teachers must not be pundits, yet students pressure for leaders. How do backchannels alter this dynamic? In many ways, they put more pressure on the teacher to enthuse the students. From Weber's perspective, this is detrimental.
Category: sociology
Posted by zephoria at November 5, 2004 5:42 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.zephoria.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3036
