‘Every scientific problem is political, and every political problem scientific’

‘Political debates rest on values, opinions, ideologies and particular world views. In contrast, academic debates rest on data, experiments, and logical reasoning based on the scientific method’, writes Birgit van Driel in her latest column. In other words, science is objective, and politics is subjective. The former belongs at universities unconditionally. The latter must be limited, especially when it does not intersect with science, and is subject to the discretion of experts. In this piece I argue that treating politics as subjective and attempting to limit it can isolate the university from society and prevent it from playing a positive role in it.

What makes something subjective or objective? Put simply, the subjective is what is uniquely experienced by an individual, while the objective is that which is independent of our experience. The objective is therefore experienced similarly by everyone, and can be acted on with the expectation of a similar outcome.

It is easy to observe this in science: everyone can observe the rate of acceleration of a falling object and independently calculate the intensity of gravity on earth. Everyone can likewise use this information to throw a rock and, provided it is launched with the same force, expect it to fly just as high. Objective laws therefore prove themselves in practice – through their reproducibility they demonstrate a correct understanding of the world, not through an individual’s credentials.

Politics too can be held to the same standard. If it is possible for all human beings to have a shared interest, it is possible to have a shared – and therefore, objective – worldview. This means we can also uncover objective laws that govern the functioning of society, and arrive at a common understanding of how to organise it to maximise people’s agency over their own lives. Just as in science, people will have to validate this understanding in practice, through the process of collective political change. If in fact there is no way to arrive at a shared understanding of the world, then we are doomed to struggle against each other forever, and there is no basis for human social progress itself. There would be no way to distinguish the slaver or coloniser’s perspective from that of the enslaved or colonised, meaning that there is no possibility to leave these exploitative systems behind.

‘Political debates must be reflected in the university, and actively influence its course’

This standard also applies to the genocide in Palestine. If we cannot arrive at a shared understanding of what happened, through the statements of the Israeli leadership, through the destruction inflicted on Gaza, through the conduct of the Israeli army, this will keep happening again and again. We will remain unsure about which side to take or how to act, as crimes against humanity keep being repeated in our name and with the products of our labour.

This objectivity also becomes the way to hold the university accountable to society, as opposed to becoming an elite ivory tower. The science we produce proves its value not through the self-professed expertise of individual academics or awards traded within the scientific community, but rather through its application to the concrete problems of society. Does our work enable our fellow humans outside the university to better understand the world around them? Does it allow them to improve their quality of life? These are all very political questions.

The bottom-line is that every scientific problem is a political problem, and every political problem also a scientific one. Therefore, political debates in wider society must be reflected in the university, and actively influence its course. To accomplish this sea change we cannot rely on bureaucrats and experts who are often disconnected from society. Rather, it requires the direct representatives of wider society, which is our massive staff and student body, to have a controlling stake in the direction and priorities of the university. Further it requires to establish closer relations with society, not through the intrusion of corporate interests but rather by involving the common person in the production of science, and the academic in the process of political transformation. Then, and only then, can our university claim the motto ‘Impact for a better society’.