“Greater-Good” Arguments as a Restraint on Academic Freedom in the Social Sciences

Abstract

Academic freedom is often constrained by self-censorship. Measurement of this constraint is difficult because it is often unconscious, so it is useful to explore the underlying motivations. Greater-good arguments are an important motivator of self-censorship. Humans are social creatures who fear being accused of harming the greater good. When a scholar’s findings conflict with a paradigm alleged to serve the greater good, self-censorship is tempting. However, the greater good is not necessarily served by paradigms that invoke it. Discrepant data often lead to truths that a dominant paradigm obscures. Thus, the greater good is better served by a free flow of evidence than by conforming to a paradigm that evokes the greater good. This chapter presents an example in the Social Sciences. The paradigm of social harmony in the state of nature appears to serve the greater good, and evidence of aggression in the state of nature is often dismissed. But understanding the conflict in the state of nature can help people manage aggression today. This example can help scholars recognize and transcend the natural tendency to self-censor.

Citation

Breuning, L.G. (2020), "“Greater-Good” Arguments as a Restraint on Academic Freedom in the Social Sciences", Sengupta, E. and Blessinger, P. (Ed.) Faculty and Student Research in Practicing Academic Freedom (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 31), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120200000031021