The concept of paradigms has been around for some time. But it is only recently that the word has become more familiar to more people. It's become a sort of buzz-word in business...specifically in management. Talk of "paradigm-shifts" abound. It seems the world of busines has discovered that what is done is relative to what is "known." However, while this usage is okay, it hardly begins to tap into the radical nature of what a paradigm is and its implications for "knowing."

In the language of social science a paradigm is most often defined as a model, a pattern, a set of assumptions, a conceptual scheme, a consensus, or a worldview. While any or even all of these terms can be used to refer to a paradigm, I don't think they really explain the core nature of one. Each of these contain some aspect of paradigms...but they really don't refer to anything that is singularly peculiar to paradigms. I believe a good analogy is needed in order to do that...that is, to define a paradigm critically and to its core.

So, if a paradigm isn't merely being opinionated, nor subjective, nor biased, nor perspectively...or...is not merely a model, a pattern, a set of assumptions, a conceptual scheme, a consensus, nor a worldview, what is a paradigm? I've found the best way to explain paradigms is to make an analogy with a physical "window" in a room. A paradigm is like any window, it allows you to see whatever its frames will permit. Thus, just like a window, a paradigm is a limited and partial view of what's "outside." The bigger the frame, the more one can see. The more windows in a room, the more one can see of that "outside" (although "frames" will continue to block access to some of it). Thus, paradigms, by analogy, are mental windows to reality. They "frame" our understanding of reality and limit that reality to what they show us. Different paradigms will "show" us different realities, even if two "viewers" are looking at the same event(s). (Reread the 1st sentence of this essay) In short, as an author named Adam Smith puts it, paradigms define for us what is "real" (and NOT real), direct us to what questions to ask about it (and NOT to ask), direct us as to HOW to ask the questions (and how NOT to ask them), and give us rules to follow in interpreting the answers. Yet, what we DO see out our mental windows MAY be accurate as far as it goes. But then again, the very limited and partial nature of paradigms may render that accuracy useless.

In other words, given that paradigms are partial views, doesn't that presuppose that there's MORE to see beyond the frames of a paradigm? Isn't there a larger reality...of which the paradigm gives us only a PART OF? Yes, it does. Further, isn't a partial or limited view an incomplete one...one which is disconnected from other aspects of the "whole" which is blocked off? Again, I'd say yes. If I'm right, then as a partial or limited view, paradigms are necessarily incomplete assessments of reality...in need of "completion." Taking the window analogy to its last step, then merely adding windows does improve our "view," but it doesn't free us from "frames." To do that...we'd need to "get out of the room," right? Unlimited access to the "whole" (all of reality) would provide non-paradigmatic viewing (even if we'd never actually be able to know it all). The point is...access to it all is preferable to limited access (no matter how paradigmatically full it is).

I will save some other points about this analysis for inclusion in another essay to be put in the Sociological Conceptual Tools Room, but I'll conclude here by making a few suggestive points. The import of this understanding of paradigms includes 1) we aren't born with paradigms, we're taught them; 2) we aren't taught to be aware of them...they're presented to us as "wholes" to believe in; 3) they make everything appear to us to be continuous, stable, and predictable; 4) we tend to experience reality in terms of our paradigm...making most experiences self-fulfilling; 5) we "forget" that paradigms are created by US; and 6) we'll kill and die for them. Whatever else paradigms are or might be...their fundamental characteristic is that they are limited/partial views. Whether we can ever get away from them (i.e. non-paradigmatic viewing) is a whole other isssue...but I know for myself that I prefer unfettered access to reality to partial access. How about you? (To be Continued)