NOTES 49 Whereas the Weberian notion of value-freedom has found favour with sociologists, there are logical reasons as well as experience of reality of the social science to suggest the exact opposite. For instance, the precept that social science could and should be value-free is a myth,-according to Alvin Gouldner, a myth created by Weber.8 T S Simey observes: It must be made plain, then, that values are deeply influential in the lives and work of sociologists, who are^ in fact^ fay from being the 'objective' scientists the positivists would suppose. ^ A recent account of a survey of the opinions of the members of the American Sociological Association has shown rather surprising results. As the authors say, 'sociology as a science is often said to be value-free', but most sociologists do not believe this to be true; 73% of the 3,440 sociologists who completed the questionnaire agreed with the statement that most of their colleagues merely paid lip-service to the 'ideal of being value-free': 66.9% also agreed that 'as teachers, sociologists can express their personal values to students^ So far as the depth and breadth of sociology are concerned, 84.3% agreed that 'in designing research, it is at least as important to b^ inventive as it is to be rigorous5, and 91% voted in favour of the statement that 'the sociologist, like any other intellectual, has the right and duty to criticize contemporary society^, whilst 85% favoured the statement that the sociologist should not only think about communicating to his professional colleagues, but he should also attempt to speak to a wider public.9 (Question of Intellectual Honesty No observer is free from biases, even in the physical sciences, but a fairly accurate view of the physical world has emerged from research. What we need in social sciences is not some ego-satisfying myth like value-freedom but a sober understanding of the reality of our methods10 which can yield a scientific understanding of society. Marxists demand an objective picture of social reality undistorted by class prejudices. All classes, it is true, distort reality where it contradicts their exploitative interests. The working class Is not an exploiting class. Therefore, its perspective does not suffer from the "limitations imposed by such conscious distortions. Marxism does impart a set of value orientations but this limitation is not peculiar to Marxist intellectuals, and is shared probably to a greater extent by sttidents adopting other approaches to society. In this respect^ even if it is assumed that Beteille^s attitude towards Indian Marxists is correct, Marxists do not make a start from a premise which may be regarded as disadvantageous, when compared to official sociologists, in making an objective study of society. The attitude that Marxism gives a place of pride to Soviet or Chinese society is, to say the least, definite antipathy and nothing but the manifestation of a deep prejudice hardly expected of an intellectual claiming to be devoted to the scientific study of society. Sociologists like Beteille would include an administrator, or even a