Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Thought:
Socio-cognitive Worldviews, Regimes of Truth, and
the Prospect of Consilience
Question:
Discuss, using relevant examples, the proposition that we can
distinguish between "Western" and "non-Western" systems of thought.
(Word Count: 2914 excluding charts and footnotes)
Department of Sociology
SO463 - Contemporary Social Thought
This paper examines the proposition that there are distinct Western
and non-Western systems of thought. The deeper question that needs
addressing here is, as I frame it, what are the valid (true, scientific,
politically just) Western and non-Western ways of thinking and how can
they be integrated? We must also consider the answers when they
produce conflicting conclusions. While they may seem contradictory on
the surface, they may be holistically integrated on a deeper level. I have
organized this paper into three sections. The first details the traditional
West vs. East dichotomy of thought systems. Second, I analyze critical
conceptions of knowledge construction and how this relates to the first
section. This is concerned with the ways of knowing within a state or
culture; a hierarchy of social epistemology. Third, I discuss the prospect
for consilience, the unity of knowledge across fragmented scientific
disciplines, as well as bridging East and West ways of thinking, and elite
and mass forms of knowledge.
When conceiving of non-Western systems of thought the imagery
typically invoked includes such systems as Confucianism, Taoism,
Buddhism, holism, Hinduism, Islam, and Chinese Communism. Western
thought is typically associated with concepts such as Marxism,
Christianity, rationalism, empiricism, positivism, modernity, among
others. These concepts may more appropriately be classified as
ideologies, methodologies, schools of thought, religions, or
philosophies. We will take 'systems of thought' to refer to the underlying
processes at work in constructing a specific worldview.
Section 1: Socio-cognitive Worldviews
It is a long-held popular assumption that Western and Eastern cultures
have fundamentally opposite ways of comprehending the world. Recent
scholarship has endeavoured to articulate the grounds for such belief,
and has highlighted the social factors that encourage the general
polarization of ways of thinking. The dichotomy is socially evolved and
reproduced based on the natural tension between Western and Eastern
ecological systems, economic strategies, and philosophical traditions,
but they are not inherently incompatible, or exclusive to either
Fig. 1
One particular survey asked respondents from difference countries
whether they preferred individual distinction or harmonious
relations when it came to job type preference.[2] The results favoured
individuality nine to one in the case of Westerners, whereas more than
half of people from Japan and Singapore favoured harmony.[3] Similarly,
American and Japanese test subjects were asked to identify what dax
was when looking at a pyramid made of cork. Two thirds of Americans
chose the pyramid (form), while two thirds of Japanese chose the cork,
demonstrating the differences in perception.[4] In the much cited work by
Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, The Seven Cultures of Capitalism,
the authors conducted comparative analyses into the organizational
psychology and business practices of corporations in different countries.
Their findings prove the existence of distinct perceptual and
organizational norms which variously correspond to the dichotomy
espoused herein. Fig. 2[5] depicts the different dominant models of
organizational hierarchy in the U.S. and Japan.
Fig. 2
Nisbett is careful to stipulate throughout the book that these are
generalizations and that we each possess the alternate tendencies to
varying degrees. He explains how priming test participants with
information and symbols from the opposite culture leads to a shift to that
mode of thinking.[6] The constant interaction of the East and West
through media, communication, and global news would suggest that
people in general are slowly being drawn to the intermediate range of
system of thought is more than just a dream, its a necessity. The idea of
'pruning the tree' is salient with regards to Bohm's 'endarkenment' and
Horkheimers systems of domination. Furthermore, a consequence of
the proliferation of technical knowledge is the emergence of the
specialist - a learned ignoramus - who, while an expert in his own
field is radically ignorant of other potentially relevant knowledge.[38] The
unity of systems of thought need not carry the stench of Grand Theory
which turns off so many scholars and scientists, but it will require a
critical look at the diffusion of power and knowledge in society. The
common theme in this section is one of regard for scientific path toward
a universal epistemology; we just have yet to create a universal way for
all to access the knowledge we have.
Conclusion
In this paper I examined the proposition that there are distinct Western
and non-Western systems of thought and concluded that they partly
mutually constitute each other and form a greater whole. However, ones
judgment of the world can be deeply impaired by falling into certain
patterns of thought and perception. My inquiry led me to consider how
systems of thought are reified and how they simplify the complex nature
of reality. Also, this raised the more important question of the
stratification of thought within societies. In the three sections, I
summarized the traditional dichotomy of systems of thought, discussed
the political dimensions of social epistemology, and reviewed the
scientific literature which encourages us to transcend the dichotomy on
the vertical axis as well as mend the horizontal division knowledge. A
binary division of the world is sometimes arbitrary and Manichean, but
it can also be a necessary way to conceptualize the larger whole.
Works Cited
Ashcroft, Bill, and D. P. S. Ahluwalia. Edward Said. London: Routledge,
2001.
Bohm, David. Thought as a System. London: Routledge, 1994.
Bohm, David, and Lee Nichol. The Essential David Bohm. London:
Routledge, 2003.
[1] Richard
[27]
Ibid.
[28] Stephen