Max Weber and the Two Universities

Abstract

Abstract: A set of events, long term trends, and internal conflicts has come to a head in the recent controversy over the Harvard President, the university's political role, and academic freedom. These raise questions about the traditional model of the vocation of scholarship and the role of the professor, and specifically about the continued relevance of the picture Weber himself famously presented. A recent book by Wendy Brown makes the case for a new model of 'responsibility' which reflects the idea that the role of the professor should be to kindle the 'desire' for a just and sustainable future through critique. The method of genealogy is presented as the means for both identifying harms resulting from usual practices and showing their historical contingency and thus the promise of their radical reform. This would represent the new 'responsibility' that notions of academic freedom conflict with and which the traditional scholar fails to fulfill. But the idea of radical contingency also conflicts with the Weberian idea that historical processes are intelligible and that the proper role of the professor is to clarify value-choices and identify their this-worldly implications without imposing them. Is this outdated? And is there a role for the traditional scholar in the purpose-oriented university?