Peripheral
Science (review essay)
Simon Schwartzman
Published in Social Studies of Science,
17, 1987, 569-73.
Diaz, Elena, Yolanda Texera and Hebe Vessuri (editors) La Ciencia Periférica
- Ciencia y Sociedad en Venezuela. (Caracas: Centro de Estudios del
Desarrollo and Monte Avila Editores, C. A., 1983). 291 pages, no ISBN number.
Vessuri, Hebe (editor) - Ciencia Academica en la Venezuela Moderna
(Caracas: Fondo Editorial Acta Cientifica Venezolana, 1984). 461 pages,
no ISBN number.
Venezuela is an oil-rich country, and this is certainly related to the
extraordinary expansion of its higher education and scientific establishments
in the last twenty years. In 1970 its higher education enrollments included
10.1% of the age cohort, as against an average of 6.8% for all Latin
America. This rate doubled in five years (19.5 in 1975), and the figure
for 1982 was 21.5, one of the highest in the Continent and approaching
European countries like Italy or England(1). It has also one of the highest rates of researchers
and scientific investments per capita in the region, and some of its
scientists are internationally known and respected(2).
Venezuela not only created schools and provided fellowships for his
citizens to study abroad but also absorbed a significant group of scientists
and liberal professionals expelled from other Latin American countries
- mostly Argentina and Chile - by their military regimes. Finally, as
the these two books demonstrate, it has a very competent research group
devoted to the social aspects of science in developing regions.
To create schools, to open scientific institutions and to send people
to study abroad is not the same as to provide them with adequate and
useful jobs, or with a dense and self- sustaining scientific and technological
environment. Amneris Tovar and Discoro Negretti, in the last chapter
of Ciencia Periférica, make a good summary of the efforts to
direct investments in higher education in Venezuela according to the
rational canons of the "human capital" theories. Thanks to the money
available, excellent research on Venezuelan higher education was performed,
some of which with the participation of scholars from the MIT, but little
was achieved in terms of actually fitting enrollments with supposed
social needs or labor market demands. Planning was also a central goal
of Venezuela's Council of Scientific and Technological Research (CONICIT)
during the seventies. As Marcel Roche and Yajaira Freites show in their
contribution to Ciencia Periférica, the notion that science
should be planned (and therefore, made useful for the country) had wide
support among Venezuelan scientists. However, there is enough evidence
that scientific planning never actually took place, and this explains,
according to Roche and Freites, why the scientists never actually complained
against it.
Rapid expansion of formal education and academic institutions in a country
known for importing practically all manufactured goods from abroad,
with traditionally high illiteracy rates and low enrollments at secondary
schools, could not happen without tensions and difficulties. In the
early sixties Venezuelan university students staged a violent and unsuccessful
insurrection against the government. According to Rafael Rengrifo, who
writes about sociology in Ciencia Academica, at the onset students did
not try to link their political life with what they learned in school.
After the repression of the sixties, however, they turned their militancy
inwards the university system. The Venezuelan version of the 1968 movements
became known as "La Renovación". It was a revolution within the universities,
affecting the way they were to be governed, the relations between students
and teachers, and, for sociology, the enthronement of Marxism as a new
orthodoxy. Two years later, the government intervened at the Central
University and the revolutionary euphoria was replaced by demobilization,
while militant Marxism changed into althusserianism, poulantzasism and
dependentism. After that, a modus vivendi gradually developed:
control of educational institutions (and of many other sectors of the
public bureaucracy) where left to the intellectuals, including the remnants
of the revolutionaires of the 1960's, while the government tried to
run its business in alliance with foreign interests, the traditional
political parties and some less militant technical elites. It was a
clear case of political cooptation of the left, very much in the Mexican
style(3), to be paid with surpluses from
the oil industry.
This drama of rapid social mobility, political radicalization and cooptation
provides the background for the 21 articles brought together under the
intellectual leadership of Hebe Vessuri in these two volumes. Vessuri
herself is a sophisticated Argentinean anthropologist educated at Oxford
University and, for many years, leader of the Science and Technology
program of the Centro de Estudios del Desarrollo of the Universidad
Central de Venezuela. In her introductory chapter to Ciencia Academica,
she attempts to combine the European and American traditions for the
social studies of science with the standard "dependencia theory" that
became mandatory in the Venezuelan social sciences after the Renovación.
Thus, she accepts the view that science in developing countries is transferred
from the developed ones as a deliberate movement to incorporate them
as their cultural (as well as economic and political) appendix. This
purposeful action is said to be done through a variety of means, from
programs of international cooperation to the circulation of international
journals. In consequence, the peripheral countries lose whatever previous
culture they had, and cannot develop new knowledge on their own (p.33).
There should be a deeper logic behind all this, and this is exactly
what Rafael de la Cruz tries to prove in his article on "the origin
and climax of specialists in Semi-peripheral Venezuela". (Ciencia
Academica, pp.389-428).
Striped from its heavy neo-Marxist jargon, Cruz's article can be seen
as arguing that the increased number of university-level professionals
in Venezuela is a direct consequence of its share in the international
division of labor of modern capitalism. Since advanced capitalist countries
are transferring less sophisticated industries to new industrializing
countries, they need to grow a limited amount of trained manpower and
technical skill in order to fulfill their task. This strictly functionalist
approach is combined with a surprising demonstration of naive evolutionism.
For him, what explains the conflicts between university trained people
and other sectors of the government is that they are at different levels
of modernization. Neo-Marxist theory also holds that modern capitalism
requires a new division of labor, with a new stress in technical and
skilled personnel (which he calls "intellectual employment"). To prove
that, he presents a table showing the percent increases in productivity
and "intellectual employment" for 27 fields of industrial activity in
Venezuela between 1971 and 1978. Visual inspection of his table shows
that productivity often goes down when "intellectual employment" goes
up, and vice-versa; the correlation coefficient (which he does not calculate)
is, in fact, -.60. This, however, is explained away by the 'organic
incorporation' of intellectual work in the headquarters of multinational
corporations, and by the appeal to absolute growth of employment when
relative figures do not conform. There is more intellectual conceit
and simple-mindedness in Cruz' text than what one could possibly deal
with here. The basic point, however, is that his approach leaves no
room for the most striking feature the Venezuela's development in the
last decades, which is precisely the lack of correspondence between
its educational and scientific growth and the economic and employment
structure it developed. It also leaves him blind to understand the limited
but significant achievements of Venezuelan academic science and technology
in the last decades. In order to do that, he should probably have to
read some Max Weber - but Weber, for him, is too "positivist" to be
taken seriously (p.392). Cruz' assumptions do not differ much from the
economists of the so-called "human capital" school. For them, science,
technology and higher education are more or less the same thing, to
be explained by the growth of capitalism and its vagaries in less developed
regions. The failure of the "human capital" theorists, well demonstrated
by Tovar and Negretti in the article that follows Cruz, can also be
taken as a demonstration of the failure of the latter's thesis.
The ideological climate of post-Renovación in Venezuela is probably
the best explanation for the presence of this kind of pseudo social
science in an otherwise rich and complex collection of articles. Vessuri
herself, after paying her duties to dependencia theory and Marxist structuralism,
goes on to say that "scientists in underdeveloped countries are not
passive beings" and can react against so many determinisms (Academic
Science, p.33). Through this window springs a wealth of possibilities.
It opens the way for the study of the social history of chemistry, biology,
engineering, computer science, law, mathematics; for looking at teaching,
academic research and technological development as different and often
conflictive sources of intellectual growth and education; and for examining
in detail the peculiar history of institutions such as the Instituto
Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas or the CONICIT. The final
picture is much richer, dense and contradictory than what the initial
assumptions would lead one to expect, and provide a particularly insightful
view of contemporary Venezuela and, by implication, of many other countries
with similar or contrasting experiences.
Notes
1. UNESCO, Statistical Yearbook, 1984, tables
2.10 and 3.2.
2. Expenditure per capita in R&D was around US$
15.80 in 1977, as against $10.00 for Brazil and an average of $3.30
for Latin America (the European average is around US$ 80.00). See F.
Sagasti et allii, Un Decenio de Transición - Ciencia y Tecnologia
en America Latina y el Caribe Durante los Setenta. (Lima: Grupo
de Análisis para el Desarrollo, 1983, mimeo), passim.
3. See Daniel C. Levy, University and Government
in Mexico - Autonomy in an Authoritarian System (New York: Praeger,
1980).
<