Faça o que eu falo, não faça o que eu faço ou "Por que alguns acadêmicos são hipócritas"
Um artigo bacana, do Don Bodreaux e do Eric Crampton, sobre questões como esta (em formato PDF).
Trechos: For much the same reason that political decision makers will be too poorly informed to make socially optimal decisions—that is, for much the same reason that political decision makers are likely to suffer false consciousness—academics in their roles as social critics will be inadequately informed when criticizing private choices and when offering public-policy proposals. Like an individual voter, an individual academic has neither a decisive input into the choice of social policies nor a direct personal stake in the outcomes of most public-policy decisions. Academics who diagnose what they perceive to be pathologies in existing political and social ideologies, and who prescribe cures for these alleged maladies, have neither a decisive input nor a direct personal stake in the outcomes of whatever cures they propose. Among such academics, a favorite “cure” for alleged pathological ideologies is “consciousness raising.” Consider, for example, Mari Matsuda’s definition of the term : “By ‘consciousness-raising,’ I mean a collective practice of searching for self-knowledge through close examination of our own circumstances, in conjunction with organized movements to end existing conditions of domination” (1990, 1778–79).
The social critic has negligible effects on actual public policy and generally has little at stake in whatever matter he happens to be discussing. Hence, academic social criticisms and policy proposals will likely be distorted by misinformation, whimsy, and intellectual arrogance.Therefore, we should treat academics’ social criticisms and policy proposals skeptically, especially when they are aimed at institutions formed by the decisive choices of individuals who have a substantial personal stake in making sound decisions.
Um artigo bacana, do Don Bodreaux e do Eric Crampton, sobre questões como esta (em formato PDF).
Trechos: For much the same reason that political decision makers will be too poorly informed to make socially optimal decisions—that is, for much the same reason that political decision makers are likely to suffer false consciousness—academics in their roles as social critics will be inadequately informed when criticizing private choices and when offering public-policy proposals. Like an individual voter, an individual academic has neither a decisive input into the choice of social policies nor a direct personal stake in the outcomes of most public-policy decisions. Academics who diagnose what they perceive to be pathologies in existing political and social ideologies, and who prescribe cures for these alleged maladies, have neither a decisive input nor a direct personal stake in the outcomes of whatever cures they propose. Among such academics, a favorite “cure” for alleged pathological ideologies is “consciousness raising.” Consider, for example, Mari Matsuda’s definition of the term : “By ‘consciousness-raising,’ I mean a collective practice of searching for self-knowledge through close examination of our own circumstances, in conjunction with organized movements to end existing conditions of domination” (1990, 1778–79).
The social critic has negligible effects on actual public policy and generally has little at stake in whatever matter he happens to be discussing. Hence, academic social criticisms and policy proposals will likely be distorted by misinformation, whimsy, and intellectual arrogance.Therefore, we should treat academics’ social criticisms and policy proposals skeptically, especially when they are aimed at institutions formed by the decisive choices of individuals who have a substantial personal stake in making sound decisions.
<< Home