Herbert C.

Kelman
The Social Consequences of Social Research: A New Social Issue

str. 22
In line with the view that this kind of contribution is part of the potential and part of the task of
psychology, SPSSI has stressed, over the years, the importance of conducting research that
would be rele- vant to questions of social policy, and of bringing social-psychological thinking
and the products of social-psychological research to bear on policy issues. We have assumed
that, as such thinking is fed into the policy process, it becomes more likely that humane policies
will emerge. We have tended, therefore, to make the further assumption that involvement of
psychologists in policy-related activities is in and of itself a positive good. These latter
assumptions, it seems to me, are open to question. I am as convinced as ever that it is legitimate
and important for us to engage in policy-related activities, but we cannot assume that such
activities necessarily have a humanizing influence on the social order. I have become
increasingly concerned about the possibility that policy- related activities, and social research
in general, may have negative social consequences-that they may contribute to rather than
counter- act the powerful forces toward dehumanization.

str. 24
A social-issues-oriented psychologist cannot help but feel some degree of ambivalence about
the increasing use of psychological knowledge and methods in agencies charged with the
execution of public policy. On the one hand, he is gratified that the relevance of psychological
approaches is increasingly recognized and sees in this recognition a promise that policies may
move in a direction more congruent with human needs. On the other hand, he is painfully aware
that the use of psychological approaches is not an unmixed blessing. A great deal depends on
the particular ways in which these methods are used and the particular purposes they are
designed to serve. There is often reason to be concerned whether, on balance, the use of these
approaches in fact contributes more to humanizing than to dehumanizing tendencies.

str. 27
Similar concerns-though with different ramifications-arise in con- nection with policy-related
research. Take for example, research carried out within the framework of certain foreign-policy
assumptions -research, let us say, on ways of increasing the credibility of military threats, or of
preventing insurgency in developing nations, or of per- suading the public of the value of fallout
shelters. Such research uses the tools of social science, not for the purpose of critical evaluation
of policies from the point of view of their human meaning, nor for the purpose of formulating
policies that are in keeping with human needs, but rather in the implementation of policies that
are, in my opinion, based on unrealistic assumptions and inconsistent with the goal of enhancing
human welfare. One’s view of these policies is, of course, a matter of judgment, but the point I
wish to make is that social re- search does not necessarily humanize the policies whose
execution it is designed to facilitate. Thus, if these policies, on balance, have a dehumanizing
effect, the social consequences of the research enter- prise represent a contribution to the
dehumanization process.

str. 27 (zloupotreba psihologije i dehumanizujući efekti takve prakse)

The point of my argument so far is quite simple. Participation of the social scientist in a
policy context cannot be viewed as a positive value in its own right. There are many
reasons to be concerned about the human implications of various kinds of policy-related
activities, particularly when these are connected with the execution of policies set by
public agencies. We must remain alert, therefore, to the possi- bility that rsychological
approaches may be abused and channeled in destructive directions, and we must find
ways to counteract such possibilities. Furthermore, we must examine carefully the nature
of the policies to whose execution we are asked to contribute, and decide whether our
participation is indeed more likely to have humanizing, rather than dehumanizing
consequences.

str. 28
My concern about the consequences of social research, however, is not merely a concern about
the possibility that social science ap- proaches might be misused, or that they might be applied
in the sup- port of policies that are inconsistent with fundamental human needs. My concern
goes deeper than that. It is a concern about the place that social science occupies within our
social structure-about its basic relationship to those forces in our society that tend toward
dehumanization. I have already expressed my conviction that, in its efforts to study man and
society systematically and understand them rationally, social science represents an inherently
liberating force. But I am also struck by the possibility that certain dehumanizing tenden- cies
may be equally inherent in the methods and orientations of social science. I worry lest these
tendencies become the ones to dominate the uses of social science in policy contexts, and lest
the primary role of the social scientist in society become that of an agent for dehuman- ization.
I do not propose this as a likely outcome because-unlike many humanists who voice similar
concerns-I am fully cognizant of the constructive and liberating implications of social research.
But it is a danger that we must recognize; if we fail to do so, and if we fail to confront it actively,
it may turn into a reality.

str. 31 (zbog čega društvena nauka može da doprinese dehumanizaciji društva)

The reason for my deep concern is that the products, procedures, and orientations of social
research inherently reflect these forces in the sense that they treat man as an object rather than
as an active, choos- ing, responsible agent. There is thus a danger that the widespread use of
social science approaches-of psychological tests, interviews, experi- ments, and observations-
may in itself contribute to people’s sense of alienation and helplessness, to the feeling that their
destinies are entirely controlled by external forces; and that, furthermore, these approaches may
lend themselves most readily to the purposes of those agencies who are concerned with
manipulating and controlling the behavior of individuals-with or without the consultation or the
active involvement of the social scientist hiniself. To the extent that this danger becomes a
reality, the social scientist becomes an agent and mediator of dehumanizing forces. It is even
conceivable that a carica- tured and perverted version of social science principles and
techniques may serve as the operational code for an efficient dehumanized society.

str. 31 (isto)
A great deal of social research is designed to provide information on the social conditions under
which one or another type of behavior is likely to be manifested, or-to put it in other terms-on
the variables that control various kinds of responses. The knowledge produced by this kind of
research- assuming that the findings are relatively stable and valid-can readily be translated into
attempts to manipulate human behavior. By creating the necessary social conditions, one ought
to be able to produce any desired response. I am not proposing that all such uses of social
science knowledge are necessarily objectionable. While I regard any manipu- lation of the
behavior of others as an ethically ambiguous act, I also feel that such manipulation is often
socially useful and even necessary (Kelman, 1965a). Certainly I would not argue that this kind
of knowledge is in itself dangerous. But there is the danger that it will be used for purposes of
systematic and large-scale manipulation incon- sistent with the welfare of the person being
manipulated and with his rights as a fully choosing individual.
str. 32 (laž i narušavanje privatnosti u socijalnom istraživanju)
the main point about the use of deception and the invasion of privacy is that they mimic
procedures used extensively in totalitarian settings and frequently by public agencies in
any mass society. Thus, in his very procedures, the social scientist may contribute to the
denial of personal dignity and the deprivation of decent human relationships that the
individual may experience elsewhere in his life.

str. 32-33
The reason for my concern about the consequences of social research is that it is often so
difficult to draw the line between means and ends. In a society suffused with pressures
toward dehumanization, there is always the danger that the products, procedures, and
orienta- tions of social research will be applied-by others, if not by ourselves -to the
creation of a social order in which man is treated as an object, deprived of his
individuality, and manipulated for purposes outside of himself. Unless we concern
ourselves with this danger, we may be contributing to the very forces that we hope to
arrest, and we may be taking upon ourselves an active role in the dehumanization of
society.

Kalman H. Silvert

AMERICAN ACADEMIC ETHICS AND SOCIAL RESEARCH ABROAD: THE LESSON

OF PROJECT CAMELOT

str. 217
A military force expecting to face many years of bush wars overseas has a legitimate interest in
wanting to learn as much as it can about the conditions which spawn various types of revolution,
the measures taken to combat "internal wars" in other countries, and in general the politics of
modernization which are the backdrop for so much revolutionary disturbance. The question is
not at all whether concerned military officers should know of these matters; it is instead how
the knowledge should be accumulated and presented in the first place, and then what
conclusions should be drawn and who should determine the action appropriate to these
conclusions.
str. 218 (zbog čega je Čile odabran kao prva zemlja u kojoj će se sprovoditi istraživanje)
Chile was selected as the first country for study. Given the subject of the research, I am not sure
why Chile was considered. Once past its postindependence trauma, the country has suffered
only one massively violent episode (in 1891). Since that time normal constitutional procedures
in changing governments have been interrupted only once (from 1925 to 1932). With respect
to civil violence as such, its history as an independent nation presents a better record than that
of the United States. Its very peacefulness and commitment to civil liberties and democratic
procedures have made Chile highly attractive to scholars as a safe training ground for other,
more chancy places. Thus it may well be that the Camelot researchers were thinking of Chile
so that they might learn how recurrent revolutions are avoided in at least one Latin American
country.

str. 220
Project Camelot then snapped into another focus; it became intimately laced in public opinion
with interven- tionism and militarism, with the image of the United States as a power dedicated
to the throttling of any revolutionary movement of whatever center-to-left stripe. The oft-
repeated statements by very high American officials that Communists tend naturally to rise to
the top in any conditions of social turmoil led to immediate charges that American foreign
policy was, in effect, macartista or McCarthyite in refusing any longer to differentiate among
progres? sive parties. Wrapped into already grave suspicions of antiguerrilla programs, it was
only natural that Camelot should be seen as part of a carefully planned policy instead of merely
a project whose research design was still far from being complete.

str. 228
The first step toward rebuilding the consciously extended confidence of Latin American
scholars and governments is to be willing to reveal the sources of our funds, the premises of
our studies, the nature of our data, and the bases of our conclusions. We should also make every
effort to go beyond making data and findings available; we must help to make effective the
ability of trained Latin Americans to use those materials, for clearly simple revelation is not
enough. The skill to understand is also required.
str. 228
The incrusted mistakes of a decade of amateurism are behind the disgust directed at Camelot.
That ten-year period is the one of mounting United States interest in Latin American affairs, of
an increasing flow of Fulbright scholars as well as otherwise highly trained and mature
specialists, many of whom have not bothered to learn the specific conditions pertaining to Latin
America. Some have never learned the requisite languages, hardly any one has studied the
cultures in depth. How they expect to teach well or to analyze their data with subtlety, let alone
design appropriate re? search instruments in the first instance, I cannot say. But now the entire
world knows that their technical shortcomings have an effect beyond their articles and books:
they prevent other articles and books from being written, they bring disrepute on American
academic life in general, and they mislead policymakers thirsty for reliable information and
imaginative analysis.

str. 233-234 (predviđanje smirivanja situacije nakon ukidanja projekta Kamelot)

It is very probable that, after the passage of a little time, American social scientists will once
again be able to work with relative ease in Latin America. Greater care will be taken to maintain
respectable appearances on our side, Latin American social scientists and government officials
will be more cautious in extending us their assist? ance, and that small part of the public which
is informed will maintain a reserve affecting the nature of their participation in ways nobody
will ever measure. Camelot has dissolved, a few other projects sponsored by agencies of the
armed forces will be cancelled or camouflaged, and greater care will be exercised to inform
Ameri? can ambassadors in Latin American countries of academic activities in their bailiwicks.
A foundation or two will sponsor meetings on the co-ordination of overseas projects and the
proper nature of government-sponsored academic research. In a year from now, everything else
being equal, an occasional wry remark will be heard at a cocktail party by way of memoriam.