SUMMARY:

This article investigates the complex interplay between the development of social sciences and the disciplines’ engagement with national politics that took place against a backdrop of rising authoritarian regimes. It does so by examining debates among Polish scientists between 1916 and 1939. Various political transformations and contemporary challenges encouraged scientists to speculate about the relationship between the state and academia, the potential applications of social-scientific knowledge, and the role of experts in such developments. Among leading Polish thinkers, Franciszek Bujak and Florian Znaniecki outlined technocratic visions for applied social sciences. The deliberations of scholars and governmental actors inevitably led to comparisons of political entanglements with science in neighboring countries, mainly Germany and the Soviet Union. The Soviet case, although it attracted criticism in Poland, also served as a source of inspiration and created a sense of urgency around the development of applied science. And, indeed, it seemed that the technocratic visions might be realizable after Józef Piłsudski seized power in 1926. Piłsudski’s political circle, the Sanacja, pondered the alleged usefulness of the social sciences and supported the development of several think tanks, thereby fostering expertise and the autonomy of scientific disciplines such as sociology and ethnology. However, the Polish debates also show that, unlike their neighbors, Poles were unable to create and implement a coherent model of science in the service of the modern state. The supporters of the Sanacja authoritarian regime constantly refracted their visions of politics and ideas about development through the lens of the Romantic tradition, which compromised any rational planning. Most scientists, in turn, struggled to balance their commitment to serve their country with a demand for objectivity directly linked to freedom from political interference. Therefore, in the Polish case, the mobilization of national political power, while being an important factor in the social sciences’ attainment of autonomy, did not lead to any systemic implementation of social engineering projects or technocracy. The article allows us to appreciate a larger variety of ways that state politics and social science can interact.