Science and Capitalism

Science is a human institution. Like any institution, it is composed of human and material networks; specialized jargon, equipment, and norms of practice; buildings, bureaucracies, texts, and capital flows. Also like any institution, its practices are shaped by the perspectives and agendas of specific people, and it is integrated, both materially and ideologically, with other human institutions, such as the global economy and political organizations of various nation-states.

Yet that is not how we typically conceive of science. In popular discourse, science is characterized by neutrality, objectivity, and the gradual, systematic accumulation of a truth surpassing all human limitations. This, however, is ideology. The ideology of scientific objectivity and scientific progress may be held as a foundational element of the Ideology of Progress. Science is seen as the ultimate mechanism of progress, and it is an important symbol of "modernity."

Even Karl Marx, who conducted his historical-economic analyses within an evolutionary paradigm, maintained an ardent faith in science. He believed that the primary virtue of capitalism was the level of technological innovation that it enabled. He imagined that this innovation would someday reach a point at which all menial and degrading labor would be performed by machines, thus freeing humanity from the drudgery of dehumanizing work and providing everyone with the opportunity to engage in more intellectually fulfilling pursuits.

Starting in the 20th century, critiques of the ideology of scientific objectivity and scientific progress have abounded, particularly in the fields of history, philosophy and sociology of science. Some classic analyses include:

-The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
-The Order of Things and Madness and Civilization by Michel Foucault
-The Pasteurization of France by Bruno Latour
-The Mismeasure of Man by Steven J. Gould

When one looks more closely at the processes associated with common scientific practice, it becomes quite clear that science is a human activity. The questions that a scientist chooses to ask, the concepts that he (science has historically been a white, male enterprise) decides to use, and the range of possible interpretations that are allowed derive from a number of assumptions that reflect a particular point of view - a particular way of actually seeing the world - as well as the tools and equipment that are available by pure historical accident. Science is not a process of gradual accumulation: it is subject to politics and shifting alignments that do not move in any particular direction.

Furthermore, it is no coicidence that science acquired its contemporary institutional form at the same time, and in tandem, with the development of capitalism, the modern nation-state, governmental power, and colonialism. All of these human institutions are intertwined and mutually reinforcing.

How does science serve a capitalist agenda?

First, the fruits of scientific activity sustain the technological innovation that is necessary for the internal rhythms of capitalist accumulation. In this sense, science is the handmaiden of capitalist profitability. Second, as the results of scientific research are determined by the perspectives and agendas of those conducting the research, and because the ideology of scientific objectivity allows the authority of scientists to remain unquestioned, science is an extremely crucial means of maintaining the status quo. In particular, science has been very effective at naturalizing inequalities along lines of class, race, gender, and sexual orientation.

All of this can be seen to some extent in my series of discussions on the capitalist approach to health. However, in the next post or two, I will be looking specifically at the case of evolution.