The PCF and the question of intellectual workers : the crisis of social ideology

The aim of this thesis is to examine the approach of the Parti Communiste Francais (from 1956 to 1982) to the emergence of new strata of salaried `intellectual workers' (technicians, engineers, low to middle managers in industry and commerce, scientific researchers, teachers etc) parallelled by the gradual diminution of the traditional industrial working class which forms the core of the Party's support base. This examination is carried out in the context of the debate in France (initiated in the 1950s by social theorists of the Left) on the class membership and role of these strata. The reason for the emergence of such a debate is that in a society given to both a rapid evolution of its social structure and an increased polarisation between Left and Right, a precise knowledge of the objective and subjective determinations of new strata would enable parties to the Left to make proper distinctions between potential allies and adversaries. The thesis posits the view that the PCF has failed to make correct distinctions between its potential allies and adversaries and has thus pursued unsuccessful alliance strategies. The thesis contributes towards a scientifically-based understanding of one of the reasons governing the PCF's steady decline since the 1950s.

A Kuhnian crisis in neo-Darwinism

Policy issues which receive large inputs of scientific and technical information are frequently marred by acrimonious controversies between contributing experts. There are few if any examples of a public policy decision being based on a firm consensus of scientific and technical experts. Such a consensus is taken for granted by the `Rational' model of decision making and its derivatives. Comparing the dynamics of conflict in policy-relevant issues with those of conflict in `pure' science, one is struck by their great similarity. In both cases we witness examples of rhetorical statements about incompetence, conflicting interpretations of data, and interdisciplinary communication problems. Noting this similarity, this thesis attempts to answer the question, `Is there a similarity of cause: do the same causes lie at the roots of conflict in policy-relevant and policy-irrelevant science?' In answering this question this thesis examines recent controversies in a generally policy-irrelevant science - evolutionary biology. Three episodes of conflict are studied: the `Neutral Allele Theory', `Punctuated Equilibrium', and `Structuralist versus Functionalist approaches to evolution'. These controversies are analysed in terms of both Kuhn's account of scientific `crises' and Collingridge and Reeve's (1986) `Overcritical Model'. Comparing its findings with those of Collingridge and Reeve, this thesis concludes that, (a) there is a Kuhnian crisis in contemporary evolution theory and, (b) that common causes do lie at the roots of conflict in policy-relevant and policy-irrelevant science. Science has an inherent tendency to degenerate into acrimonious conflict but at the same time has mechanisms which eventually resolve such conflicts. Unfortunately, when science is incorporated into the policy arena these mechanisms are prevented from operating. This thesis reinforces Collingridge and Reeve's conclusion that science is of little use to policy.