Neutrality of Academics

The above caption might be a bit discomforting and to some not really relevant, but I believe it’s a serious issue to look into. The power of academic hegemony is extremely underrated in the modern world of communication. In the article I will be taking up a few examples so as to further illustrate my point.

As a student of political science it is very important to criticize and question any theory, irrespective of its importance. Some of the basic areas of specialization in the discipline are open to critical questioning. Comparative politics is one such example, students are told that such a discipline based on comparison helps to find out best method, but the key question is ‘’what is the best method?’’ ‘’ what are the parameters for declaring a winner?’’. At the end of the day the answer is the modern liberal democracy, the forms might vary from parliamentary to presidential but the larger structure remains, such a discourse has been repeated to the point of exhaustion, but if we sit back and analyze the repetition, its absurdity is brought to light, what about communitarian societies and other multi communal ones? Are we to just brush them aside as irrelevant? 

I am not questioning any type nor justifying it, in fact the  argument is based on the fact that such a comparison is absurd, societies and nations grow differently, the post colonial democracies were different in the sense that institutions of democracy were thrust upon them rather than evolving as in the case of western countries. In the modern world a student of social science and an illiterate worker will both vouch for democracy as the supreme form of government. The challenge is to answer the question ‘’why?’’ in an unbiased manner

The usual rhetoric of academics is an extremely useful tool even in the hands of the state, as academicians this should be the very basis of inquiry. The US state department was very receptive of modernization theories and the methods of David Easton, it served as a great ideological countering tool to soviet hegemony in the cold war era, David Easton later admitted his mistake for falling prey to the foreign policy propaganda, as academicians it is our responsibility as academicians to not pursue and propagate blind value judgments, we are in the field of social and natural sciences, universalization is problematic, each value is attached to given contextual environment.

Is realpolitik of Kautilya and hegemonic discourse of Chinese tradition put on par with Morgenthau and waltz?. I rest my case and my arguments in the hands of capable academicians and readers.