Issue 40

even207UID: 2998418

Issue 40"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem."

2011/2/2

The speaker states that we should not judge scholars and researchers by their contribution to the larger society because pursuit of their individual interests is more important. I disapprove of the assertion mainly because it misleads us into a wrong logic, which on one hand compulsively separates scholars from society and on the other hand simply poises scholar’s individual interests against the contribution to the larger society.

To begin with, scholars are closely related to the society. As for its definition, scholars are regarded as people who possess a specific kind of specialty, skills or technique. To some extent, they can lead the tendency of society in a certain field and influence some people. As for its classification, scholars and researchers generally specialize in natural science and social science. Physics, chemists, astronomer, mathematician belong to the former one. Most natural science is aimed to solve earthly problems. For example, mathematics emerged due to the need of solutions to more complex problems in primitive society; physics came into alive owing to human being’s growing requirement for housing or sophisticated working. In that case, natural scientists must share some responsibility to the society. Similarly, historian, philosopher, litterateur, and anthropologist belong to the other part: social science. It must be rather ironical and sarcastic to say that social science has nothing to do with society. In conclusion, both natural science and social science have close connections with society. Therefore, how could scholars and researchers be separated from the society? It would be quite reasonable that we judge scholars and researchers by their contributions to their own field.

Opponents may argue that many of the greatest scholars contributed little to their contemporary society but they are still considered as the most outstanding ones. That’s because we only see society in a narrow way. Society can be regarded from the aspect of space as well as the aspect of time. More often than not, when we talk about society, we unconsciously tend to refer to the perspective of space; that is to say, we mistake Society for Contemporary Society. However, in the matter of fact, the greatest minds are always ahead of the contemporary society and their peers might not understand them or even saw them as lunatics. For instance, the great Greek philosopher, Diogenes, was a doggish one who preached his doctrines not by words but by examples. Few people understood and believed him (Alexander the Great was an exception). For a closer example, when Neil Postman first criticized the Age of Television in his famous book Amusing Ourselves to Death, few people took it into serious consideration. However, as time goes by, those powerful people in ancient Corinth, where Diogenes lived, may vanished from the stage of history but Diogenes the beggar lasted due to his Cynicism theory and wisdom. For Neil Postman, his book became the most popular one around the world now and was translated into more than 20 languages. If we see the larger society in the view of space, neither Diogenes nor Neil Postman was the winner. But if we change our perspective into the view of time, both the two influenced much more people than their seemingly successful peers.

Next, the speaker poises scholar’s individual interests against the contribution to the larger society. According to the analysis above, scholar’s individual interests should accompany with the benefit of the society, even not for the contemporary time. Scholars and researchers are not formed to amuse the majority. If we force them to be usual and normal, their imagination and critical ideas would be limited, which is against the initial purpose.

In conclusion, scholars and researchers’ contribution is very important to the society but it is just a matter of time. And their unusual and idiosyncratic interests are not aimed to amuse the society so they may seem useless for the contemporary time but with the development of the society, scholars’ former theory would benefit the society a lot.