By Richard T. Ely, Director School of Economics, University of Wisconsin.
It is my purpose to speak plainly and, if possible, forcibly, concerning what seems to me a grave menace to the progress of science, but in all that I shall say, I would have it understood that I have only the friendliest feelings personally for the gentleman who has brought forward what seem to me dangerous proposals. I appreciate his zeal for progress and his self-sacrificing efforts for human advancement in various directions, but I think that in this particular case—namely, the evaluation of literature, or the establishment of a judicature of letters, my friend is working against his own ideals.
I admit freely that the readers in our public libraries very generally need help in the selection of books, and that great assistance may be rendered them by judicious advice. Much time is wasted by those who read scientific and serious works which do not present the results of recent investigations: furthermore, as another consequence effort is misdirected and instead of producing beneficial results may do positive damage. The question may be asked: "Shall I read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of nations?' I hear it mentioned as one of the great works in the world's history." Probably many a librarian has had this precise question asked him. In giving an affirmative answer it will be most helpful to offer a few words explaining the circumstances under which it appeared one hundred and twenty-five years ago, and its relation to the subsequent development of economic schools and tendencies. Doubtless this work is frequently perused as if it were fresh from the press and were to be judged as a work appearing in 1901.
I further admit the harm which has come to individuals from the study of the so-called "crank" literature in economics and sociology, as well as in other branches of learning. Doubtless many a man is working vigorously in a wrong way and attempting to force society into false channels who might be doing a good work had his reading been well directed in a formative period.
But the magnitude of the interests involved in the proposal which greets us requires caution and conservatism in action. We must take a long, not a short, view of the matter, inquiring into remote and permanent results.
It is proposed, as I understand it, to have so-called expert opinions expressed [concerning books], new and old; to secure as precise and definite estimates of their value as possible, and then by means of printed guides, and even card catalogs, to bring these opinions and evaluations before the readers in our libraries.
Let us reflect for a moment on what this implies. It means, first of all a judicial body of men from whom these estimates are to proceed. Have we such a body? Is it in the nature of things possible that we should have such a body? I say that so far as contemporary literature is concerned, the history of knowledge gives us a positive and conclusive negative answer—a most emphatic "No." Let anyone who knows the circumstances and conditions under which reviews are prepared and published reflect on what the attempt to secure this evaluation of literature implies. Many of us know a great deal about these circumstances and conditions. We have written reviews, we have asked others to write reviews, and we have for years been in contact with a host of reviewers. We may in this connection first direct out attention to the general character of the periodicals from which quotations are frequently made in the evaluation of literature. I say nothing about my own view, but I simply express an opinion of many men whose judgment should have great weight when I say that one of the most brilliant of these periodicals has been marked by a narrow policy, having severe tests of orthodoxy along economic, social and political lines, and displaying a bitterness and vindictiveness reaching beyond the grave. I mention no names, and the opinion may or may not be a just one; but it should be carefully weighed whether or not, or to what extent, the evaluations of such a periodical ought to be crystallized as it were: that is, taken from the periodical press and made part of a working library apparatus, to last for years.
Another periodical, an able magazine, which makes much of reviews is under the control of a strong body of men, but they stand for scarcely more than one line of thought among many lines. And sometimes very sharp and very hard things are said about those who believe that scientific truth is moving along one of these other lines. Indeed, the discreet person, knowing personally the reviewer and the reviewed, will not be convinced that there is always in the reviews, here as elsewhere, an absence of personal animosity. Let us for a moment reflect on this personal element in reviews, as it has surely fallen under the notice of every man with wide experience in these matters. As a rule, the reviewers are comparatively young and inexperienced men, frequently zealous for some sect or faction. Sometimes great leaders of thought write reviews, but generally they are unable to find the time to do so. As a result in our reviews in the best periodicals it will frequently be found that an inferior is passing judgment on a superior, and furthermore, reviewers share in our common human nature, and the amount of personal bias and even at times personal malignity found in reviews and estimates of books is something sad to contemplate. An unsuccessful candidate for a position held by an author has been known to initiate a scandalous and altogether malicious attack in a review.
In the next place, I would call your attention to the absence of objective standards. Necessarily are the standards personal and subjective; particularly and above all in economics, but in high degree in sociology, ethics and philosophy in general, and religion. Biological reviews have displayed in marked degree the subjective personal element. Chemistry, physics, astronomy and mathematics probably are best of all fitted for evaluations free from personal bias.
It may be asked what damage will result from evaluation. Passing over grave injustice to individuals, we observe that they must lead to the formation of what Bagehot aptly called a crust, preventing the free development of science. We have been laboring for years to obtain scientific freedom, freedom in teaching, freedom in learning, freedom in expression. For this end many a battle has been fought by noble leaders of thought. Indeed, every new movement of thought has to struggle to make itself felt, and to struggle precisely against those who control the most respectable avenues of publication; against the very ones who would be selected to give expert opinions and make evaluations of literature. Call to mind the opposition to Darwin and Huxley—although they were especially and particularly fortunate in early gaining the adherence of scientific men—also the opposition to Adam Smith, Malthus, Ricardo and John Stuart Mill—and to the last named, even now, some would on a scale of 100 give an evaluation perhaps of 50, others of 65—still others 80 and 90. Recently an economic book appeared of which one widely quoted periodical said that it illustrated a reductio ad absurdum of false tendencies, while another expert opinion inclined to place it among the great works of the age. It would seem to me that if we are to have formal evaluations, they should at least be restricted to works which have been before the public for a period of fifty years.