Dear All,

I follow with great interest the discussions regarding the origins of the 
LSE and its academic/political orientation. Rob Tye reveals below yet 
further complicated concerns over finance, academic achievement and 
ideological commitment.

What is described can be understood as a process of 'intellectual 
support-bargaining'. The common assumption behind academic enquiry is that 
all are engaged in the pursuit of truth. But as your descriptions plainly 
show, many are concerned to advance political interests, advance careers or 
gain financial returns. So if the process is assessed in terms of 'the 
pursuit of truth' there are bound to be disappointments. ‘Intellectual 
support-bargaining' provides a realistic account of theory-formation. 
People seek support for their interests by proposing theories conducive to 
advance of their interests. All theory is devoted to advance of interests of 
one kind or another. Those who get the greatest support will dominate the 
academic scene, will get the funding, will get the posts. 'Truth' ought to 
triumph on the evidence, but evidence tends to be selected to accord with 
interest. History shows that while we can do without 'truth', we cannot do 
without support.

The idea of 'intellectual support-bargaining' is based not just on conscious 
contrivance to advance interests, but on psychological impulses to look 
after self. It is why the species has survived. It is also why humans have 
formed such odd theories and held them with such passionate commitment.

Patrick Spread



Recent publication: www.routledge.com/9781138122918

Patrick Spread
Saikile, 29 Moorland Close,
Witney, OX28 6LN
United Kingdom
Tel: (+44) (0)1993 862 783
Mob: (+44) (0)787 1108 046

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Rob Tye" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:48 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [SHOE] LSE series of reprints of scarce works on political 
economy

> Dear Mason, and Erik
>
> With hindsight, I see the regrettable fundamental shift in general 
> attitudes
> over the course of the 20th century as away from a whiggish, scientific 
> and
> objective notion of truth championed by say Russell and Wells (somewhat 
> via
> LSE)  in 1900, to a more relativistic, historicist and merely social 
> notion
> of truth indicated by such as Foucault, Giddens or McCloskey in 2000.  I
> would argue that politically motivated funding of research played a
> troubling and significant role in that shift.  However, I certainly agree
> with Sheamur and Dimand that we need to follow the facts where they lead,
> and despite all that Rockefeller funding, for me they lead most 
> importantly
> not to LSE, but rather to the convergence of Paris and New York during 
> WWII.
>
> I will outline my own narrative, in the hope of getting criticism, or
> assisting others with particular references.
>
> Back in the 1980’s I saw two huge but completely separate problems in
> monetary history.  At Cambridge, Finley was undermining a correct
> understanding of Ancient European Monetary history.  He was diverting
> attention away from political-economic motives by exaggerating the extent 
> of
> economic ignorance in ancient times.  In Paris, Brauadel was undermining a
> correct understanding of Medieval European Monetary history by 
> exaggerating
> the influence of the fluctuating fecundity of mining operations.  Over the
> next three decades I came to the conclusion that these two very 
> influential
> errors were in fact intimately associated via agencies outside academia.
> The facts that guided me are these, in roughly the order in which I
> unearthed them
>
> 1)  Andrew Murray Watson at Toronto launched an acute criticism of the
> Braudelian bullionist position  (EHR 1967).   I wrote to Watson in the
> 1990’s to ask why he never followed up on that work on monetary history 
> He
> explained that immediately upon publication, and apparently unexpectedly, 
> he
> was given a Ford Foundation award to work on the history of agriculture
> instead.  It was that which, rightly or wrongly, set me thinking
>
> 2) From there I found:  Francis X. Sutton, "The Ford Foundation's
> Trans-Atlantic Roles and Purposes” written by a one time Ford Foundation
> employee, a man charged with negotiating very significant funds towards
> Braudel, and clearly stating his understanding that these were primarily
> associated with the political influence of Braudel’s work, rather than its
> academic content.  Part of that grant award (one million dollars in the
> 1970’s as I recall) required collaboration concerning the associated
> syllabus with Paul Lazarsfeld
>
> 3)  Meanwhile I researched Finley, and discovered that, as Erik Thomson
> suggests – he was an enormously erudite fellow, having already gained
> degrees in three different subjects at the age of 21.  Such was his 
> natural
> ability, that it seemed to me that as a young man he chose to try to 
> ‘change
> history rather than study it’, taking a position as a propagandist for
> political views concerning academic matters, alongside Boas.  (That work
> seems to have created the basis of the model for the later and very well
> know Ford Foundation CCF project).   He also became closely involved with
> Paul Lazarsfeld at Columbia, a mentor who provided his job references,
> including one working for Karl Polanyi, funded by the Ford foundation. 
> Much
> of this information comes from the Tompkins biographies, but I found in
> correspondence that Tompkins was resistant to the adoption of additional
> sources I had to offer which to me suggests a popularist mask concealed
> Finley’s rather cynical and manipulative personality
>
> 4)  The paper about Lazarsfeld “Clientelism and the University: was 
> Columbia
> Sociology a machine?” by Terry Nichols Clark is not as useful as it
> initially sounds concerning substantive matters, but it gives a vivid 
> first
> hand account of “PFL's flagrant Machiavellianism” which reinforced my
> conclusions concerning his close associate Finley.  I judge the
> extraordinary contemporary piece “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity” by
> eminent monetary historian Cipolla gives an addition window into the 
> levels
> of cynicism operating within exactly such branches of academia back in 
> those
> days
>
> So things I saw as disconnected and errors as a young man, in maturity,
> appear to me connected, and intentional misrepresentations.  We have no
> window into men’s hearts of course, but I could not comfortably inhabit my
> own skin if I professed otherwise.
>
> Rob Tye
>