Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Volume 36, Number 2. 7th March 1973
Change for whom?
Change for whom?
That is why Professor Philpott's criticisms must themselves be seen as inherently political criticisms, the more so because he and his ilk are far more ready to attack left-wing participation in changing society, than they are to attack themselves or their colleagues who advise the ruling elites of the Third World how to oppress their people and destroy their society. One need only to mention people close to his own discipline such as W. W. Rostow, architect of Vietnam policy, or M. Friedman, economic adviser to Barry Gold water.
There is, at any rate, a distressing shortsightedness in Professor Philpott's divorcing of the search for truth from active participation in changing reality.
"Handbook" itself quoted Mao Tsetung on this matter: "Only through personal participation in the practical struggle to change reality can you uncover the essence of that class of things and comprehend them". The choice facing the university is not change versus non-change, but in which direction shall we change, who shall do the changing, and in whose interests shall we change.
Professor Philpott claims that there is a limit to the rate of improvement in a society or in its institutions — a limit set by the very nature of man himself'. While an economist who introduces the ideas of 'institution' or 'man' into his analysis is welcome, Professor Philpott appears to be pre-Freudian in his psychology and pre-Marxist in his sociology. There is not only a limit to the rate of improvement but a limit to the extent of improvement possible under capitalism. At any rate, on the world scale which capitalism does operate, the phenomenon to be explained and considered is not improvement but impoverishment. The nature of man, unless one is a Christian or an economist, is a concept which is dependent on the limitations of a society.