DISCLAIMER
This essay will be confined to the theoretical aspects of paradigmatic change with regard to human nature as I currently understand it and its possible benefits to the addressing cultural proficiency. My understanding of human nature is informed by Integral Paradigm Theory, and as such draws from John Locke’s tabula rasa and association of ideas, Donald Hebb’s theory of synaptic plasticity (Hebb’s Postulate), the second law of thermodynamics (particularly with regard to entropy and heat death in a closed system), and the Jungian concept of the Collective Unconscious.
KUHN’S CONTRIBUTION TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF PARADIGMATIC THEORY
Through reading Kuhn’s essay concerning normal science, I have come to understand paradigms as a bounded field of mutually agreed upon fundamentals. These fundamentals are predicated on and reified by scientific achievements that are novel enough to garner attention yet fluid enough to invite further study. The life’s blood of a paradigm is the quality and quantity of its adherents as well as the constant maintenance of the status quo within the paradigm by its adherents. Much of the work done within normal science is the reification of the paradigm through “the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies” (Kuhn, p. 24). It would be easy to reduce the definition of paradigmatic theory to a cliché metaphor about boxes, however, I personally, prefer an equally pedestrian cliché that is slightly more adept at capturing the mechanisms of paradigms within normal science: a lens. The image of a box, I argue, does not adequately address the work of a paradigm because it brings to mind a completely static, closed system. However, if one were to view a paradigm as a lens, I believe, he or she would be closer to the mechanisms of a paradigm because the fundamentals of a paradigm may be viewed as directional methodologies that may be focused on any phenomenon. In this, I depart from Kuhn’s view of paradigms. It seems to me that scientific communities do not necessarily create new paradigms that necessitate new theories and methodologies to accompany them when they have exhausted the fuel of the original paradigm. I would argue, rather, that it is more reasonable to suggest that scientific communities tend to exam new phenomena with the familiar paradigmatic features more readily than creating a new paradigm to address the said phenomena. I will agree that such a departure is merely academic as the result of viewing paradigms as a lens rather than a box merely yields a similar outcome via a different means. Viewing the a bounded frontier of the natural world with a bounded set of methodologies and theories would yield the same results as viewing the unbounded frontier of the natural world with a bounded set methodologies and theories; it would simply become an issue of when the scientific community exhausts itself. This seems to closely approximate what is happening within the field of Education. It seems to me that a substantial portion of current Educational theory is a restatement of Dr. John Dewey’s work concerning experiential education. In other words, I feel that the paradigmatic nature of educational theory has fostered a culture of reinventing the wheel, and, as a result, educational theory has made very little progress since the early 1900s. This is not to say that the politics of educational policy has not also played a hand in the development of the said culture.
INTEGRAL PARADIGM
Integral Paradigm or Integral Theory, as a method of both defining and addressing the abovementioned issues of the current system of normal science, draws from a very wide base of very eclectic modes of thinking. As one may glean from the title, Integral Paradigm’s mechanism relies on a very inductive process of thinking. Rather than view the natural world from a bounded paradigm, Integral Paradigm seeks to view the natural world from several paradigms. In so doing, Integral Paradigm is an effectively unbounded method of inquiry. I feel that this method of inquiry can define and address the often myopic scope of normal science as well as provide a framework with which to address the cultural proficiency issues within any work environment.
DEFINING THE ISSUE USING INTEGRAL PARADIGM
Tabula rasa: In order to begin to define the issues of normal science and the apparent difficulties associated with becoming culturally proficient, I will first draw from John Locke’s theory of tabula rasa, in which he views the developing mind as a blank slate on which new ideas are inscribed. Utilizing this theory with regard to cultural stereotypes, let us say for example, that on a given blank slate, empirical evidence inscribes (A) Hispanic individual, (B) Hispanic culture is collectivist and high context, (C) current educational practice is based on individualistic and low-context pedagogy, and (D) there tends to be an achievement gap between Hispanic students and White students. Currently, on this hypothetical blank slate, there are three more or less unrelated ideas. However, through association of ideas, these previously unrelated ideas begin to move towards a causal relationship. The movement from (A) to (B) to (C) to (D) are further linked through this process of association.
Hebb’s Postulate: Further explanation of this process of thought association relies on Donald Hebb’s theory concerning synaptic plasticity. Hebb posits that neurons become associated through repeated and consistent associative excitation. In other words, if the axon terminal of neuron (A) binds itself through neurotransmitter to the dendrites of neuron (B), thusly creating a chemical synapse, and continues to excite neuron (B), both neuron (A) and neuron (B) will begin to associate more vigorously by developing more axon terminals and more dendrites, respectively, and in so doing, create more synapses. This is perhaps, one of the more foundational views of reflexive thinking and can be viewed as support of Schema Theory.
Hebb’s Postulate in association with Tabula Rasa: In revisiting the abovementioned example of cultural stereotypes with the added concept of Hebbian Theory, a more complete understanding of paradigmatic myopia and cultural incapacity begins to take form. Continuing from the above example, if through repeated neural association, that is, through repeated association of ideas, it becomes possible to wear a deep and long-standing path between (A) Hispanic individual, (B) Hispanic culture is collectivist and high context, (C) current educational practice is based on individualistic and low-context pedagogy, and (D) there tends to be an achievement gap between Hispanic students and White students. After repeated association between these points or ideas, through Hebbian principle, the association becomes reflexive. It therefore, for the sake of the example, becomes possible to reflexively associate a Hispanic individual with collectivist or high context cultural tendencies, or with chronic under-achievement. One may see how this may be problematic both for becoming culturally proficient and for scientific inquiry.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: In essence, the second law of thermodynamics states that, given enough time, in a closed system heat death will occur through entropy. A very basic way to describe this would be to fill a tuperware container with two types of cereal and then seal the container. As a sealed container, the tuperware and the cereal become a closed system. Given enough time, the two types of cereal in the container would breakdown sufficiently in order that it may be reckoned as one type of cereal. This is the process of molecular entropy in a closed system. In a closed system, given enough time, energy on a molecular level reaches what is known as heat death. This mechanism can be applied to the aforementioned example concerning tabula rasa and Hebb’s postulate. For example, if the blank slate and ideas (A) through (D) are considered a closed system and association of ideas is considered the principal force of locomotion and chief agent of entropy, one may rightly assume that when a person ceases to learn new ideas, a type of heat death of the mind ensues. In this regard, failing to learn more about a culture or a person leads to a reification of often faulty assumptions that are based on bounded paradigmatic associations. In other words, stereotypes are fueled by mental heat death. The same may be said of normal science.
THE HUMAN PARADIGM
The abovementioned three theories come from what are reckoned as three very different paradigms. Tabula Rasa comes from Epistemology; Hebb’s postulate comes from Neuropsychology; and Thermodynamics comes from Chemistry and Physics. However, through integral paradigm, it would seem that there is substantial blurring of the boundaries between the three paradigms. I would suggest that this blurring of paradigmatic boundaries speaks to the veracity of the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious. Each and every paradigm was articulated through the intellectual work the human mind. It, therefore, should not be shocking that each paradigm should bear substantial residual evidence of human thought processes. For example, the behavior of a dog is less than shocking to a human. In fact, a rather sizable and lucrative industry has developed around the manipulation of canine behavior. It should then come as no surprise that from an objective and slightly broader vantage, the miraculous and ever-expanding psyche of the human may very well seem less than miraculous and not at all ever-expanding. As disappointing as that may sound, it would be even more disappointing if by maintaining the paradigmatic nature of normal science, we further handicapped our ability to stave off mental heat death a little while longer. To this end, I believe that utilizing a more expansive theory concerning paradigms, one such as Integral Paradigm, more may be achieved. By opening the system of the mind to new ideas, it may be possible to attain a measure of cultural proficiency and dynamic inquiry.
References
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Social Justice in Education 