Western and non-Western Systems of 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" "Western" and "non-Western" "non-Western" systems of thought.” (Word (W ord Count: 2914 excluding charts and footnotes)
Department of Sociology SO463 - Contemporary Social Thought
This paper examines the proposition that there are distinct “W “Western” estern” and “non-Western” “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 non-Western ways of thinking and how can they be integrated? We We must also consider the answers when they produce conflicting conclusions. 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. epistemology. Third, I discuss the prospect for consilience, the unity of knowledge across fragmented scientific disciplines, as well as bridging East and West West ways of thinking, and elite and mass forms of knowledge. When conceiving of non-Western non-Western systems of thought the imagery typically invoked includes such systems as Confucianism, Taoism, Taoism, Buddhism, holism, Hinduism, Islam, and Chinese Communism. Western Western thought is typically associated with concepts such as Marxism, Christianity, Christianity, rationalism, empiricism, positivism, modernity, among others. These concepts may more appropriately be classified as ideologies, methodologies, schools of thought, religions, or philosophies. We We will take 'systems of thought' to refer to the the underlying processes at work in constructing a specific specific worldview. worldview. Section 1: Socio-cognitive Socio-cognitive Worldviews Worldviews
It is a long-held popular assumption that Western 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 evolved and reproduced based on the natural tension between Western Western and Eastern ecological systems, economic strategies, and philosophical traditions, but they are not inherently inherently incompatible, or exclusive to either either
hemisphere. Moreover, Moreover, while this duality of worlds appears to be intensifying for some, the overall trend is one of convergence and hybridization. The subtitle to psychologist Richard Nisbett's book The Geography of Thought is is pointedly “How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and Why.” Why.” His book thoroughly recounts a slew of psychological studies which uphold the assumption that Easterners view the world through a dynamic/holistic frame and Westerners Westerners are more linear/reductionist. Short of attempting to compress Nisbett's findings into several awkward paragraphs, I've constructed constructed a table (Fig. 1)[1] to illustrate the general dichotomization between Western Western and Eastern systems of thought, as laid out in his book.
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, Westerners, whereas more than half of people from f rom Japan and Singapore favoured harmony. harmony.[3] Similarly,
American and Japanese test subjects were asked to identify what “dax” was when looking at a pyramid made of cork. Two Two thirds of Americans 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 Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars, The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Capitalism , the authors conducted comparative analyses into the organizational organizational psychology and business practices 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 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 drawn to the intermediate intermediate range of
the dichotomy, towards hybrid global cultures. The respective Western and Eastern patterns of thought maintain their apparent rigidity because each system socio-cognitive “self-reinforcing homeostatic system.” [7] Illustrated in fig. 3 is the different conceptualizations of these mirrored systems in the West (LEFT: linear) and East (RIGHT: holistic; integrated), respectively.[8] Fig. 3 In the homeostatic system, as economic forces promote different social structures, different social conventions follow and different worldviews arise, and so on. [9] I might add here that the logic of international competition forces states to adopt contrasting economic strategies, compounding the initial process that was prompted pr ompted by different ecologies. Moreover, cultural pride, nationalism, and the ‘culture industry’ play important roles in reproducing the system. Yet, as indicated by ‘priming,’ the respective respective systems of thought are not innate differences; they are socially constructed. That we can successfully distinguish between what are popularly considered to be Western and non-Western systems of thought should be obvious at this point. But that one way of thinking absolutely corresponds to either cultural hemisphere is misleading at best, and patently false at worst. However, However, the fact that many people consciously consciously bind themselves in a cognitive framework of “methodological nationalism”[10] normalizes and reproduces the dichotomy. This 'regionalization' is simply a cultural stereotype that is reified through the homeostatic loops of worldview reproduction. As I will show in the following section, there is a more important division of thought systems; those stratified horizontally as opposed to mirrored vertically. vertically. Section 2: Regimes Regimes of Truth Truth / Systems of Power-Knowledge Power-Knowledge
This section is concerned less with how people think and more about how they are manipulated through “systems of thought.” The term in question originates with Foucault, although he does not offer an explicit exposition of the term itself in any of his work. Rather, it is a blanket
term that refers to his archaeological findings findings from uncovering different ways of knowing; namely, how epistemes and epistemes and discursive formations are formations are bound by social institutions institutions which limit what what can be known in in a given time and place. [11] Foucault uses the phrase in the opening of his The Order of Things, Things, in reference to Borges' discussion of animal classifications in a Chinese encyclopedia.[12] Remarkably, Nisbett opens his sixth chapter the exact same way to illustrate other ways of classifying knowledge, but they are talking about different things, and Foucault is absent from the bibliography. bibliography.[13] Whereas Nisbett is interested in psychological profiles, Foucault is concerned with how certain types of knowledge are (im-)possible. It might help to consider 'systems of thought' as synonymous with his term 'regimes of truth,' or at least that the former for mer is manifested from the latter. latter. He defines 'regimes of truth' as the means by which society sanctions a hierarchy of truth and falsity through different discourses and mechanisms.[14] This includes the endorsement of specific authorities of truth (such as universities, mass media, juridico-political institutions) by the state, although the state reserves the right to supersede these and proclaim its own 'truth.' 'truth.' In this sense, we are meant to understand understand a ‘system of thought’ as the particular worldview generated through the contradictions of capitalism, as opposed to being correlated with Western or Eastern predispositions of thinking. Foucault’s Foucault’s approach emphasizes that power is dispersed throughout society and operating in knowledge itself, as opposed to being exercised by dominant individuals and institutions.[15] The masses yield power to the system of domination that produces the knowledge which passes through them by receiving that knowledge uncritically. In Social Mindscapes, Eviatar Mindscapes, Eviatar Zerubavel makes the case that thinking is predominantly a social social activity[16] contrary to the most cognitive scientists’ assumptions.[17] A strong thread through the book is that of “im perception,” meaning meaning what we exclude exclude in order to focus on something.[18] Mass media and other institutions of thought system production are, he argues, argues, sinister forms of social control, as they normatively curtail our attention span. Zerubavel observes a parallel
between the Durkheimian Durkheimian definition of religion religion of determining what is sacred and profane to the way bureaucracy similarly segregates the “official” and unofficial. [19] These insights are intellectual tools to question the authoritative versions of truth. Only through awareness of the habitual tendencies of thinking in a categorical or prescribed way can one overcome them. In Eclipse In Eclipse of Reason, Reason, Horkheimer indirectly discusses the way in which “systems of thought” arise from fr om “systems of domination.” Speculative thought is a privilege only affordable to a dominant class free from the bonds of labour. labour.[20] Unfortunately, Unfortunately, this advantage, intentional or not, generates an ideology that “hypostatizes” their privileged status as a virtue, which, reinforces their class domination. [21] The “system of thought” that encodes the dominant worldview of the masses reproduces itself, albeit slightly reformed, by the intellectuals who escaped the system. But Horkheimer laments that free time to contemplate is rare in the globalizing era; because of the “ever-changing demands of reality,” reality,” it becomes harder even even for intellectuals to to think outside the dominant dominant zeitgeist. A higher value is placed on “pragmatic intelligence” and technocratic knowledge than reflexive knowledge and wisdom. [22] Quantum physicist David Bohm has coined a novel term which may help explain the process at work, “endarkenment,” to describe the contamination of the storehouse of human knowledge (accumulated through history) by the onslaught of misinformation.[23] Cultural knowledge and social facts give meaning to people but they don't always correspond to what we know about the world through science. Deconstructing social reality fails to catch on as a popular enterprise. Bohm cites a thought experiment in which everyone's memories were wiped clean in the midst of World War II and Hitler forgot he was Hitler, Nazis forgot they they were Nazis, Nazis, and so on. They had to rediscover rediscover their purpose through concrete reality reality rather than the abstractions that dominate our thought. The point is to illustrate how many problems arise from the “knowledge” we think we have, and how it affects our consciousness and identity, identity, which raises questions about human motivation.[24]
The problem, Bohm protests, is that there is a “systemic fault” in our way of thinking.[25] Our solutions to problems create new problems because the mind does not reflexively criticize criticize itself while while it is in operation. For example, nationalism wasn't conceived so that people would go to war on account of it. [26] People rarely ask the deeper questions, he argues, such as 'what is a nation?' Rather, they are stuck with what Bohm calls “sustained incoherence.” [27] Here I want to highlight the point of scientific and non-scientific ways of thinking as it relates to the geographical division of thought systems. It is useful to look at the clichés of Western medicine as purely analytical and Eastern as holistic and naturopathic. I argue this produces harmful consequence. On the one hand, it means that the strictly false doctrines of homeopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, and related pseudoscience can develop as an industry leeching off the real progress of medicine. Conversely, Conversely, there is an equally great problem with the hubris of Western Western medicine in pretending that it can can cure everything with with pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals, the creation of which is influenced by science compromised by conflicts of interest and lobbying. Thus, from an epistemological standpoint, the popular dichotomization of Eastern and Western medicine has enormous costs. The crucial point is that there are valid practices unique to both cultures but both have their quacks quacks and frauds; an understanding understanding of which escapes the conventional notion of Western and non-Western systems of thought. In this section I have tried to dissect the typical East/West East/West dichotomy to show that there are segregated systems of thought in terms of power-knowledge. To To this effect, there is no Christian math or Chinese biology, biology, but a discoverable reality which includes an objective explanation of human nature. The points raised in this section by Foucault, Zeruvabel Horkheimer, Horkheimer, and Bohm all substantiate the notion of a 'homeostatic reproduction' of systems of thought, albeit in a different sense. The next section will move towards an integrated system of thought. Section 3: Consilience Consilience
In Archae In Archaeological ological Approaches Approaches to Cultural Identity Identity,, Stephen Shennan gives a brief account of Horton's 'primary theory' of a root level of universal human rationality based in evolution which “(undermines) strong relativist conclusions derived from anthropological studies of different systems of thought.”[28] To explain the more practical differences in culture and society Horton suggests a 'secondary theory' of how different 'technological, economic and social' circumstances result in the use of different means to achieve universal ends. [29] The theory of primary and secondary rationality rationality is substantiated substantiated in part by Nisbett's Nisbett's discussion of 'priming' individuals to influence their thought system. There is a hardwired rationality beneath our mental programs which can be modified by the cultural-political cultural-political system. Like different software, in effect, running on the same hardware, human beings are subject to socialization and reprogramming. Both arguments are also a tacit endorsement of John Locke's early conception of a person as a tabula rasa (blank rasa (blank slate). The project at hand here is to bridge the physical and social sciences, and use this knowledge to rehabilitee society and social thought systems. E.O. Wilson's Wilson's idea of 'consilience' refers to a synthesis of knowledge between fragmented fragmented specialist fields of science. His own words define it best, as “literally “literally a 'jumping together' of knowledge by the linking linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation.”[30] He speaks of the “Ionian Enchantment”[31] as the almost religious feeling that there is a secular harmonious order to the universe. universe. Naturally, Naturally, this would transcend transcend any Western and non-Western systems of thought, as it would encompass them and explain away their inconsistencies and contradictions. This is not to say it would eliminate paradoxes all together, which are necessarily intrinsic to the world as we understand it, but it could certainly drive out Bohm's 'misinformation' and save us from ‘endarkenment.’ Since the Enlightenment, this sense of unity has been obscured by the boom of fragmented and specialized specialized knowledge. knowledge. Yet, ironically, ironically, consilience is in a sense at work through interdisciplinary fields such as
behavioural economics. economics. It is the broader unification unification that is contentious, contentious, especially between the physical and social sciences. Although, Although, many disciplines still need to attain a degree of internal consolidation before total consilience is possible. Physics is case in point, as it strains itself to reach a unified understanding of natural forces and make science a “'perfect' system of thought.”[32] Fig. 4 Inspired in part by Wilson's Wilson's project, psychologist Gregg Henriques has developed a meta-theoretical framework, called the “Tree of Knowledge” (ToK) (ToK) to unify knowledge by ordering the four f our classes of science (physical, biological, psychological, and social) as a matter of evolution of complexity (see Fig. 4). [33] It links the four corresponding levels of complexity and “connects Quantum Mechanics to Sociological processes and everything everything in between into a coherent whole.” whole.” [34] Following Freud's postulate that there is a “systematic relationship between conscious conscious and unconscious processes” processes” Henriques argues argues that our egos evolved to to explain and justify human action, which in turn leads to the understanding of “large-scale “large-scale justification systems.”[35] Thus, reflexive understanding of how the social world is a complex projection of our evolutionary psychology is enabled by the ToK approach. As Henriques articulates, “humans everywhere construct elaborate linguistic systems of thought that attempt to provide a causal explanatory framework for their behavior and the behavior of the people around them.”[36] We We still have a long way to go to understanding ourselves, but the promise of the bridge across the different levels of science potentially provides a great leap forward in resolving the dissonance internalized by disciplines such as psychology and sociology. sociology. As the theory is still a sapling, several conferences have been dedicated to nurturing the growth of the 'tree', and it reflects the increasing parallelism between between the quantum and social sciences sciences One critic, Michael Michael Katzko, already suggests “pruning the tree of knowledge” of its Freudian and Skinnerian pillars, as they carry certain metaphysical presuppositions inconsistent with with the ToK. ToK.[37] Neverthless, a consilient
system of thought is more than just a dream, it’s a necessity. necessity. The idea of 'pruning the tree' is salient with regards to Bohm's 'endarkenment' ' endarkenment' and Horkheimer’s ‘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 f or 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” “Western” and “non-Western” “non-Western” systems of thought and concluded that they partly mutually constitute each other and form a greater whole. However, However, one’s judgment of the world can can be deeply impaired impaired by falling into certain certain patterns of thought and perception. perception. My inquiry led me to consider how systems of thought are reified and how they simplify the complex nature of reality. 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, 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. System. London: Routledge, 1994. Bohm, David, and Lee Nichol. The Essential David Bohm. Bohm. London: Routledge, 2003.
Foucault, Michel. The Order Order of Things: An Archaeology Archaeology of the Human Human Sciences. Sciences. London: Routledge, 2002. Gutting, Gary. Gary. “Michel Foucault.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ (accessed May 1, 2011). Henriques, Gregg. "The Tree of Knowledge System." ToK FAQs. http:// psychweb.cisat.jmu.edu/T psychweb.cisat.j mu.edu/ToKSystem/other%20resea oKSystem/other%20research.htm rch.htm (Accessed (Accessed May 1, 2011). Henriques, Gregg. “The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology.” Review Psychology.” Review of General General Psychology 7, Psychology 7, no. 2 (2003): 150-182. Accessed May 1, 2011. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.150 Horkheimer, Max. Eclipse Max. Eclipse of reason reason.. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947. Katzko, Michael W.. “Special Section: Pruning the Tree of Knowledge.” Theory Psychology 18, Psychology 18, no. 6 (2008): 817-828. Accessed May 1, 2011. DOI: 10.1177/0959354308097259
Macfie, A. L.. Orientalism: A Reader . New York: York: New York York University Univers ity Press, 2001. Nisbett, Richard E.. The Geography Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why. Why . New York: Free Press, 2003. Ortega y Gasset, José. The Revolt of the Masses. Masses. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1932. Shennan, Stephen. Archae Stephen. Archaeological ological approaches approaches to cultural identity identity.. London: Routledge, 1994.
Turner, Charles, and Alfons Trompenaars. The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: value systems for creating creating wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Sweden, and the Netherlands Netherlands.. New York: Currency/Doubleday, 1993. Zerubavel, Eviatar. Social Mindscapes: Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Cognitive Sociology.. Sociology.. 2. print. ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press., 1999. Wilson, Edward O.. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Knowledge . New York: Knopf, 1998.
[1] Richard
E. Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Westerners Think Differently... Differently... and Why, Why, (New York: York: Free Press, 2003), 2 003), page numbers as cited in chart. [2] Nisbett, The Geography of Thought , 63. [3] Note: American, Canadian, Australian, British, Dutch, and Swedish respondent 90%, while Germans, Italians, Belgians and French were intermediate. [4] Nisbett, The Geography of Thought , 81. [5] Charles Turner and Alfons Trompenaars, Trompenaars, The Seven Cultures of Capitalism: value systems for creating wealth in the United States, Japan, Germany, Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Netherlands. (New York: York: Currency/Doubleday, 1993), 156. [6] Nisbett, The Geography of Thought , 67. [7] Ibid., xx, 32. [8] Ibid., 33. [9] Nisbett, The Geography of Thought , 38. [10] Cf. Ulrich Beck, Cosmopolitan Vision, ision, (Cambridge: Polity, 2006). [11] Gary Gutting, “Michel Foucault.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ (Accessed (Accessed May 1, 2011). [12] Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (London: Routledge, 2002), xvi. [13] Nisbett, The Geography of Thought , 137. [14] A. L. Macfie, Orientalism: A Reader (New (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 42. [15] Bill Ashcroft and D. P. P. S. Ahluwalia, Edward Ahluwalia, Edward Said , (London: Routledge, 2001), 68. [16] Eviatar Zerubavel, Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology, Sociology, 2nd print ed., (Cambridge: Harvard University Press., 1999), 7. [17] Zerubavel, Social Mindscapes, Mindscapes, 3. [18] Ibid., 36. [19] Ibid., 58. [20] Max Horkheimer, Eclipse Horkheimer, Eclipse of reason, (New York: York: Oxford University Press, 1947), 103. [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid. [23] David Bohm and Lee Nichol, The Essential David Bohm (London: Bohm (London: Routledge, 2003), 261. [24] Bohm and Nichol, The Essential David Bohm, Bohm, 265. [25] David Bohm, Thought as a System (London: System (London: Routledge, 1994), 20. [26] Ibid., 11.
[27]
Ibid. [28] Stephen Shennan, Archaeological Shennan, Archaeological approaches approaches to cultural identity, (London: identity, (London: Routledge, 1994), 3. [29] Ibid., 5. [30] Edward O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Knowledge, (New York: Knopf, 1998), 7. [31] Note: Wilson borrows this phrase from physicist and historian Gerald Holton [32] Wilson, Consilience, Consilience, 5. [33] Gregg Henriques, “The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology.” Psychology.” Review of General Psychology 7, Psychology 7, no. 2 (2003): 156, Accessed May 1, 2011, DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.150 [34] Gregg Henriques, "The Tree of Knowledge System." ToK ToK FAQs. [35] Henriques, “The Tree of Knowledge,” 166. [36] Ibid., 171. [37] Michael W. W. Katzko, “Special Section: Pruning the Tree of Knowledge.” Theory Psychology 18, Psychology 18, no. 6 (2008): 817, Accessed May 1, 2011, DOI: 10.1177/0959354308097259 [38] José Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses, W.W.. Norton Nort on & Co., Masses, (New York: W.W 1932), 124.
