Sociology, public statements and the Iraq War...
Rarely has the phrase “never let a good crisis go to waste” been as apt as at present. Like other social sciences, social research is coming to terms with the “triple threat” of the COVID-19 pandemic; major economic disruption; and civil unrest and police brutality. When society itself is in turmoil, social research almost inevitably re-examines its relationship with society, with some seeking to understand how society changes, while others build on this to actively change society.
This tendency for reassessment is nothing new, stretching as far back as the impact of the French revolution on Comte’s scientific positivism. We can learn from these historical examples, the most recent and high profile1 precedent being the heated discussions among US sociologists on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Although writing from a UK perspective2, this example not only provides insight into the nature of these type of discussion but provides learning on how organisations could and should approach these situations.
The resolution
Debates among sociologists on the 2003 invasion of Iraq crystallised around a resolution3 put to the American Sociological Association (ASA) calling for an “immediate end” to the war. The resolution firstly noted sociology’s study of issues such as “war and peace, democracy and totalitarianism, conflict resolution and violence, systems of inequity and their effects, states and legal orders, nationalism, and nation-building”. Secondly, it claimed that the war was worthy of censure, citing a lack of support from the “world community”; that it would undermine the UN and international law; harm the Iraqi people; and potentially increase the risk of future terrorism.
Prior to voting, the ASA Council advised the membership to consider their response in light of whether the ASA should restrict official public statements to “questions around which there exist unambiguous and consensual scientific evidence”; the extent that they should express a common moral stance about public issues; and whether to account for any positive or negative consequences, for example, changes in funding or wider perception of sociology. The fact that this guidance was required reflects both the perceived importance of the resolution and the lack of prior parameters on these issues. An online forum was set-up to facilitate discussion among members with comments also appearing in the ASA’s Footnotes magazine.
The vote
After considerable debate, the resolution passed with two-thirds in favour, 22% abstaining and the rest voting against. Members were also asked to register their personal view on the war at the same time, with these results showing 75% of those expressing an opinion were opposed to the conflict.
The discussion: debate and democracy
The main themes of the debates before and after the resolution can be assessed through the pages of Footnotes, with one key topic being the extent that the resolution would foster ongoing debate on the war. Phillip Gonzales felt that attempts by over 100 members to use the ASA’s ethics policy to rule out the resolution amounted to an attempt to “dampen the democratic impulse” and represented the mistaken view that sociology was “unequipped to pronounce on moral questions”. Dick Flacks felt that passing the resolution would keep open a public space for “free discussion of the legitimacy of the state’s policy”, allowing this “most necessary” challenge to take place. While organisations may normally stay neutral, during war it was appropriate to “foster debate and create space for it”. Against these views, Thomas Cushman felt the resolution suggested members were “incapable of fostering and tolerating diverse perspectives on complex social phenomena” and that the ASA had stopped being a “free-marketplace of ideas” and was “an ideological proxy organisation”. Others felt that opinions were better expressed individually rather than through an official organisational statement.
These discussions on democracy focused on two different areas of tension. The primary tension was between seeing the resolution as upholding democratic values by allowing the clear expression of views of the majority or as shutting down the minority perspective. The second tension was between those who focused on internal democracy among ASA members and those who took a more external perspective, feeling the ASA had a responsibility to society to facilitate wider debate by directly challenging the state.
The discussion: the role and expertise of sociology
The second main theme was whether sociologists should pronounce on the war and, if so, on what basis. The wide range of views was seen in the very different perspectives of Judith Blau and Joan Huber. Blau felt that the positive vote showed sociologists felt their expertise and knowledge were relevant. She linked this to an activist view of sociology rooted in her legal expertise, with social scientists not only having a responsibility to “change the public discourse” but to do so in a specific way, seeing issues such as homelessness and childhood hunger not merely as “social problems… [but] as violations of international human rights standards”. Passing the referendum would also take account of the fact that global peace was of “great importance… for the good of science”.
In contrast, ex-ASA President Huber questioned whether sociologists had the necessary knowledge to provide a clear opinion, noting the paucity of sociological work on Iraq or warfare, and stating that “false claims of expertise can only devalue a discipline’s scholarly contributions”. Others pushed this argument further forward, stating that moral stance cannot be drawn from scientific knowledge and hence that pronouncements on war were outside the scope of sociological expertise.
Discussions on these issues tended to be wide-ranging as there was no clear initial guidance from the ASA as to the parameters of any public statements, nor did the wording of the statement provide clarification. This made it easier for Members to read the statement in different ways and endorse it or not based on their own interpretation.
The preamble noted how members studied “among other things” issues such as war and peace, states and legal orders, and nationalism, but without expressing exactly why this was being noted. Different interpretations could easily be made, seeing these areas of study as making the Iraq War a relevant issue for a public statement, that it gave sociology a particular insight into the War, or that it allowed a definitive view to be taken on the basis of objective knowledge. The main sections of the resolution focused on what members “believe”, with no definition of this term being provided. Did this mean that the views expressed were solely a matter of faith or opinion and outside the bounds of scientific evidence or, at the other extreme, did it suggest a fundamental, unshakeable perspective based on undeniable knowledge?
The vagueness in the Iraq War statement can be contrasted with more definitive wording in other ASA resolutions. As an example, the 2007 declaration on “Nicknames, Logos and Mascots in Sport” provided greater clarity in stating that “social science scholarship has demonstrated” how use of Native American nicknames, logos and mascots reinforce misleading stereotypes and harm Native American people. The more recent ASA letter to President Trump on transgender access to facilities went even further in summarising results from surveys of transgender adults and clinical and epidemiological studies.
As noted earlier, the difficulty in interpreting the resolution was acknowledged by the Council in their advice for members to consider whether public statements should be restricted “to questions around which there exist unambiguous and consensual scientific evidence”. By endorsing the resolution, it may be that members felt either that this level of evidence was in place or, alternatively, that it was not required and statements could alternatively be made on a moral basis or based on non-scientific evidence. 4 Again, the lack of clarity facilitated different interpretations while potentially muddying public perceptions of what sociologists were actually stating and why.
Immediate lessons
This quick overview of the Iraq War resolution provides some initial pointers to the role and nature of these resolutions and debates. Discussions show Members frequently talking past each other, with the lack of clarity giving more room for discussion at the expense of a lack of focus. The final statement effectively simply registered a general disagreement with the war without providing any real insight or clarifying what sociologists had to add to the debate. The many millions of citizens across the Western World holding back from expressing a view on the war until they received a definitive view from the ASA are likely to have been very disappointed.
In the next article in this series we will look more specifically at we can learn as a result about social research in these situations. In particular, we will examine the potential role of public statements in these situations and how they can link to wider debate and discussion.
1 Admittedly, a fairly low bar…
2 And not being a member of the American Sociological Association…
3 https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/footnotes/apr03/fn2.html
4 Or, potentially more realistically or cynically, that they just ignored the Council guidance entirely