In an era fraught with moral and political crises, the importance of scholars becomes more evident. What is interesting is how scholars from the ancient Greek and Chinese traditions played a key role in shaping policies from the very start. These traditions in which scholars directly influenced governance from its inception present a compelling counter-narrative to today’s more reactive approach, where scholars often address issues after they have already taken root.
However, before delving deeper into this ancient approach, it is crucial to address some fundamental questions: Should scholars remain within the confines of academic neutrality, or should we step forth, confronting prevailing norms and injustices? Is there merit in immersing ourselves directly within the political realm? And if that is the case, how should we navigate such engagement?
While many assume that humanities departments are not neutral in the sense that they actively engage in political and social debates today, it seems their approach, particularly prominent in law departments, are largely legitimate critiques within a system. As suggested by Habermas in his Legitimation Crisis, these critiques often become part of the very system they aim to scrutinize. Essentially, the core beliefs and structures of disciplines like law are seldom genuinely challenged, also due to a fragmented understanding of the system and its problems.
This avoidance also has its roots in the trajectory of modern thought. A closer look reveals that modern thinking, especially in the humanities and social sciences, has gradually moved away from deeply and authentically engaging with core values. Historically, the Enlightenment was a pivotal turning point, emphasizing reason and segregating scientific inquiry from engagement with core human values. As the twentieth century began, logical positivism became prominent, turning many academic fields, including law, into Weberian mechanics. Hans Kelsen’s views epitomize this change. He drew a firm line between science and politics, arguing that true scientific statements are pure reflections of reality, separate from the subjective world of politics.
This shift towards positivism and its claim to be unbiased has its complexities. Here, my stance aligns with Leo Strauss’s criticism of positivism, especially its separation of facts and values. Strauss believed that this ‘neutrality’ actually conceals a bias. This mindset, noticeable in areas like international law, can prioritize power politics over ethics. A prime and documented example occurred during the discussions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Developing countries sought to include an additional cancellation clause addressing the political and financial use of force. However, influential Western nations prevented its inclusion.
So, how can scholars act to effectively address and challenge these deeply entrenched systemic imbalances and injustices?
If we broadly define ‘action’ to include both highlighting these injustices and suggesting corrective policies, several strategies become apparent.
One approach involves directly challenging and critiquing the prevailing status quo, as adopted by movements such as the Critical Legal Studies. Alternatively, some scholars draw from theoretical paradigms like Marxism or feminism. These viewpoints naturally contest mainstream liberal beliefs and require scholars with unique moral stances and political identities to counter the prevalent liberal narratives that may perpetuate systemic inequalities.
Jürgen Habermas presents another viewpoint, emphasizing the emancipating potential of democratic participation. This suggests that, by broadening the range of scholarly involvement in international discourse, one can reveal and clarify the ambiguities prevalent in both theory and practice. Yet, this perspective is not without its own hurdles, especially concerns about the genuine nature of rational consensus and the potential silencing of marginalized voices. Similar to contractarianism, the Habermasean view of the public sphere is abstract, often overlooking the individual’s ethical identity. This approach replaces the immanent experience of mutual understanding with a presumed and dominating idea of ‘the public’ or ‘the civil society’.
Revisiting the scholar-advisor roles from the Greek and Chinese traditions offers a compelling alternative that also responds to the Habermasean absence of immanence. In these cultures, scholars and philosophers played critical roles, often advising rulers in their governance. Instead of Habermas’s more abstract idea of rational consensus, the scholar-advisor model emphasizes a direct relationship between the scholar and the governor. Plato’s concept of philosopher-kings in his envisioned city-state, Kallipolis, underscores the centrality of wisdom in leadership. Similarly, Aristotle, through his writings and his tutelage of Alexander the Great, accentuated the importance of enlightened leadership.
In the Chinese context, Confucianism is notable for its focus on moral cultivation and the esteemed role it accords to educators as counsel to rulers. Many adherents of Confucianism sought roles in government, driven by a desire to promote fair and benevolent governance. The term ‘shi’ (士) denoting scholar-officials, holds significant resonance in Chinese history. These scholar-officials were not merely thinkers. After excelling in the rigorous imperial examinations, they often took on roles central to effecting political change. Crucially, they held a duty to call out rulers who deviated from Confucian ideals.
When considering scholars’ proactive roles as policy advisors, history offers both inspiration and caution. Francisco de Vitoria, a standout figure from the School of Salamanca, exemplified the positive influence of proactive scholarly intervention. Widely acknowledged for his pioneering stance on indigenous rights, de Vitoria was tasked by King Charles V to assess the Spanish Crown’s policies in the Americas. In his evaluation, de Vitoria boldly argued that even though indigenous peoples were often perceived as ‘intellectually inferior’ to Europeans, they undeniably held the status of free and rational individuals. Consequently, they inherently held natural rights, most notably property rights. This reasoning indicated that the papacy lacked the unilateral power to seize indigenous lands.
When considering the proactive involvement of scholars, there are certainly moments that shine with justice, like those highlighted by Francisco de Vitoria. However, there are also times when scholars swayed narratives to benefit certain interests, notably in framing the international legal doctrines of discovery and conquest that pushed colonial agendas.
Still, the real value of this hands-on approach is its directness and its promise to lead us towards a more equitable society. This is most evident when scholars provide guidance and join in decision-making rooted in virtue ethics. Why is this important? Because true humanism is not just about grand theories, big ideas, or abstract rights—it is grounded in the daily choices we make, influenced by the communities we inhabit and the traditions we uphold. Navigating these choices requires us to uphold ethical honesty and integrity. By anchoring our actions in virtue ethics, irrespective of cultural differences, we equip ourselves with the most reliable ethical compass available today.
In light of the varied perspectives at our disposal, there is an urgent need to reevaluate the role of scholars, especially in an era marked by intense military, economic tensions, and a widening divide between the East and West. Scholars should be seen not just as passive spectators or mere responders but as proactive and dynamic forces—intellectuals, ethical guides, advisors, reformists, visionaries, and advocates for the common good. We cannot afford to remain on the sidelines; we need to step up and lead ethically, drawing inspiration from classical wisdom while innovatively addressing contemporary challenges.
Anna Irene Baka
Dr. Anna Irene Baka, a Marie Curie Fellow at Harvard's East Asian Languages and Civilizations and Ca' Foscari's Philosophy Department, works on 'RIGHT'—an EU-funded Marie Skłodowska-Curie global project for the sustainable continuation of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue. Specializing in comparative philosophy, legal history and interdisciplinary approaches to law, her educational journey—supported by the Hellenic National Scholarship— took her from Athens to Brussels and Hong Kong. Beyond academia, Dr. Baka is a practicing jurist with a dedicated focus on human rights.
