Re: [Marxism] Partisanship and Objectivity in Theoretical Work

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Austin, Andrew" wrote:
>
> Charles, My problem with this line of thinking is that it systematically
> confuses objectivity with neutrality.  One can take sides and be
> objective.  Neutrality, in contrast, is ideology.  Instead of yielding
> objectivity, neutrality hides distortions of knowledge.  The ideologue
> distorts theory to bring about or deny a process or outcome.  The
> scientist employs theory for many purposes, but does so in an objective
> fashion.  Too many so-called scientists are of course ideologues.  But
> that is not what science should be (and ought concerns do not make one
> an ideologue).  I don't believe that the meaning of the term ideology
> has changed among Marxists.  Putting all this another way, if one means
> by ideology "interested knowledge" then I understand the argument, but
> believe that is to misuse the term ideology, at least as I understand
> Marxists to use it.  I consider myself to be a partisan and a scientist.
> I do not consider myself to be an ideologue.  Nor do I consider my work
> to be ideological.  Others may disagree, of course.  Andrew

I would agree with this in substance, but you jumble two different
topics. I agree that what you label "objectivity" is not the same as
what you label "neutrality." Moreover, I think your choice of labels for
these two 'things' is a legitimate choice. BUT, you must not confuse
questions about the world with questions about the uses of words. If
someone uses "objectivity" to name neutrality, you can demand that they
explain more fully what they mean, but you can't object to their word
choice, because that is how the words are actually used in English.

Now Charles can't insist that you adopt _his_ vocabulary, but neither
can you insist that he adopt your vocabulary. In reading you, Charles
has to honor the meaning _you_ give to your words (as long as that word
choice is generally consistent with the history of the word's usage); in
reading him, you have to honor _his_ usage (as long as that usage does
not violate the history of the word's usage).

Hence you are wrong when you speak of a "misuse of the term  ideology,"
because in fact the word is constantly used in that sense. You can't
fight the language. Now, for discussion among Marxists, I think your
choice of terminology is preferable. But the _term_ can be and often is
used as Charles uses it, and you can't say it's a misuse, but you can
say (and he has to accept this) that _you_ use a different sense
"ideology," and he has to accept that. If you want to argue with each
other, argue about the world, not about words.

Carrol

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism