Politics and Science as a Vocation: Can Academics Save us from Post-Truth Politics?
| Author | John Boswell,Jack Corbett,Jonathan Havercroft |
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929919875065 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919875065
Political Studies Review
2020, Vol. 18(4) 575 –590
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1478929919875065
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Politics and Science as
a Vocation: Can Academics Save
us from Post-Truth Politics?
John Boswell , Jack Corbett
and Jonathan Havercroft
Abstract
In an apparently post-truth era, the social science scholar, by disposition and training committed
to rational argumentation and the pursuit of truth, appeals as the ideal bulwark against excessive
politicization of facts and expertise. In this article, we look to the experience of four prominent
social scientists who have recently left the academy to enter politics with the aim of using their
academic expertise to reshape policy. We use these cases to explore fundamental dilemmas
derived from a close reading of Max Weber’s seminal vocation essays of a century ago. Weber
observed that politicians were driven by a will to power, whereas academics were driven by
a will to truth. We argue that these two competing dispositions create four tensions for the
academic turned politician: (1) between calling and commitment, (2) between means and ends,
(3) between rationalization and professionalization and (4) between facts and values. Analysing
memoirs written by four of the most prominent academics-turned-politicians in recent times, we
explore how Weber’s tensions manifest in contemporary practice. Our account reveals that these
actors face a daunting, but not impossible, task. Their success depends on wedding the relentless
pursuit of ends with the prudent application of political means.
Keywords
political elites, post-truth, politicians, Weber
Accepted: 20 May 2019
Introduction
A recent profile in the Times Higher Education tracked the stories of several US scientists
who decided to run for Congress in 2018 in response to Trump’s election. Yet, as the
article noted, despite numerous academics expressing interest in running for office, few
eventually filed paperwork to run, and none of the academics made it past the campaign
stage (Basken, 2018). As the article notes:
Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Corresponding author:
John Boswell, Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
Email: j.c.boswell@soton.ac.uk
875065PSW0010.1177/1478929919875065Political Studies ReviewBoswell et al.
research-article2019
Article
576 Political Studies Review 18(4)
‘The scientific background did not carry as much weight as probably we all anticipated’, says
Madden . . . ‘It surprised me. The theory was that people would take us seriously, believe that
we are honest and truthful, and that we’re smart and capable’ (Basken, 2018).
Madden laments that expertise and a commitment to evidence-based policymaking
were not the antidotes to anti-politics and post-truth populism that he thought they would
be.1 Part of the reason for the failure of academics as politicians are structural barriers
such as lack of campaign experience, deep ties to political parties and fundraising ability,
all of which are significant factors in candidate success as the primary stage in US elec-
tions. However, a more significant reason for the failure is a fundamental disjuncture
between the kind of knowledge generated by academics and the kind of knowledge
deployed by politicians.
The disjuncture between these two modes of knowledge was most prominently
explored by Max Weber in his vocation lectures. Weber famously argued that there was a
sharp divide between the two professions and so he would not have been surprised by the
dilemmas confronting academics who turn their hand to politics. He warned that the pur-
suit of truth (in ‘science as a vocation’) and the will to power (in ‘politics as a vocation’)
required very different sets of commitments and ethics. He suggested there are inherent
tensions in doing something to gain and exercise power (politics) versus doing something
to uncover a new truth (science). Something that is true may not be politically viable.
Because academics are concerned with uncovering and sharing the truth, their natural
inclination when entering politics is to assume that qualities that make them good aca-
demics – including a capacity to discover truths about politics – will prepare them for
being effective politicians. Yet, Weber’s vocation essays warn us that this view of the
relationship between knowledge and power is bound to end in tragedy, as the two voca-
tions require different skills, different motivations, different ethics and operate according
to the logics of two different worlds. Furthermore, Weber was deeply contemptuous for
‘literati’, writers, public intellectuals and academics, who tried to enter politics, defend-
ing instead the modern professional politics of parties, mass elections and parliaments as
a necessary bulwark against the increased bureaucratization of the modern state (Palonen,
2006). On Weber’s view, the academic turned politician was likely to lack the necessary
political expertise to translate evidence-based policy into political action. While, of
course, much about politics and the academy is barely recognizable from the context in
which Weber was writing, his reflections on the fundamental tension between science and
politics take on contemporary salience in light of recent calls to traverse the ‘two worlds’.
We analyse recent memoirs of prominent academics in the social sciences who have
tried their hand at politics full-time. We canvas four in total, which include the following:
Fire and Ashes (2013) by Professor of Politics and Canadian Prime Ministerial Candidate
Michael Ignatieff; Politics in a Time of Crisis (2015) by political science academic and
charismatic leader of leftist Spanish party Podemos, Pablo Iglesias; A Fighting Chance
(2014) by Professor of Law and US Senator Elizabeth Warren; and Adults in the Room
(2017) by Professor of Economics and Greek Minister of Finance Yanis Varoufakis. Not
all make explicit reference to Weber, but we find that each account resonates with his
insights. We therefore argue that the truths uncovered via painstaking scholarship do not
translate easily into the realm of politics and policy and that in our contemporary ‘post-
truth’ era the risks and costs associated with this transition are high. However, our survey
of these academics turned politicians pushes back against Weber’s dichotomy as being
To continue reading
Request your trial