There is an excellent article in the last issue of The Nation by Barbara
Ehrenreich on "new creationsim" -- radical social constructivism asserting
unqueness of human nature, stemming from a certain brand of postmodernism,
and characterised by its hostility toward "hard" sciences.
However, Ehrenreich seems to miss the class dimension of the problem, a
strange omission for a democratic socialist, indeed. Enclosed is a copy my
letter to The Nation's editor on that subject. Any comments?
ws
encl.
-------------------------------
In her otherwise excellent article on the "new creationism" (June 9, 1997),
Barbara Ehrenreich misses an important factor contributing to the spread of
this phenomenon - the class structure of the American society. More
specifically, the over-growth of the "scribbling class." The US has a much
larger university-educated class than any other industrialized nation: 24% of
the population 25 to 64 years of age, as compared to the mean 12% for the OECD
countries.
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith once described his profession as
"suppliers of needed conclusions to those in a position to pay for them."
That apt characterization pertains to other scribbling professions as well.
Together with the product-oriented culture of the academe ("publish or
perish"), the large size of the university-educated class translates not only
into the oversupply of the producers of intellectual commodity, but also into
the substantial demand for such a commodity.
Cultural identity politics and cultural relativism espoused by "new
creationists" are not just the matter of personal taste for scientific
nihilism. The professed absence of human commonality and the relativism of
scientific standards to narrowly defined group interests are also instrumental
in developing market niches which, in turn, reduce direct competition among
producers of intellectual commodity, aka critical evaluation of research
results and claims to scientific validity.
In such an intellectual climate, anything that is printed passes for
"scientific truth." The more bizarre an intellectual commodity, the greater
its chances of becoming a fetish for someone in search of unique cultural
identity. This is yet another example of what Marx aptly described as the
powerful influence of the forces of material production on the production and
distribution of ideas of our age.
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
