Advertisement

The Uneasy World of “Isms”

  • Oldrich BubakEmail author
  • Henry Jacek
Chapter
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter presents a trifecta of assumptions and philosophies shaping our discourse and sustaining trivialization. It begins with essentialism, a set of deeply ingrained, yet problematic assumptions that continue to alter the way most people perceive and approach the organization, properties, and problems of social and natural systems. It continues with reductionism, an idea that all phenomena, regardless of domain, can be understood through their more basic or fundamental parts. The third enabler is the recent resurfacing of various forms of relativism, the idea that truth and knowledge can be judged only relative to a particular situation. The chapter concludes with a lesson from history, a return to irrationality, discerned by some in the contemporary developments, motivating us to further engagement.

References

  1. Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, Jeffrey R. 2002. “Simply complex: Essentialism trumps reductionism.” Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 2 (5): 379–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, Alberto, and Edward Ludwig Glaeser. 2004. Fighting poverty in the US and Europe: A world of difference. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, Lisa. 2015. “Essentialist Views of the Mind.” In This idea must die: Scientific theories that are blocking progress, edited by John Brockman. New York: Harper Perennial. Google Scholar
  5. Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of knowledge: Against relativism and constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brockman, John, ed. 2009. What have you changed your mind about?: Today’s leading minds rethink everything. New York: HarperCollins. Google Scholar
  7. Butler, Christopher. 2002. Postmodernism: A very short introduction, vol. 74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. CMA (Canadian Medical Association). 2015. “Obesity in Canada: Causes, Consequences and the Way Forward.” Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. https://www.sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/412/SOCI/Briefs/2015-06-10CanadianMedicalAssocWrittenObesityBrief_e.pdf.
  9. Dawkins, Richard. 2015. “Essentialism.” In This idea must die: Scientific theories that are blocking progress, edited by John Brockman. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  10. Dodds, Eric Robertson. 1959. The Greeks and the irrational, vol. 25. Berkeley: University of California Press. Google Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, Paul. 1993. Against method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 2001. “Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 4 (1): 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flax, Jane. 1990. Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the contemporary West. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Yascha Mounk. 2016. “The democratic disconnect.” Journal of Democracy 27 (3): 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelman, Susan A. 2003. The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Haidt, Jonathan. 2015. “The pursuit of parsimony.” In This idea must die: Scientific theories that are blocking progress, edited by John Brockman. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  17. Heilbron, John L. 2012. Galileo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kohli, Atul, Peter Evans, Peter J. Katzenstein, Adam Przeworski, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, James C. Scott, and Theda Skocpol. 1995. “The role of theory in comparative politics: A symposium.” World Politics 48 (1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lennon, Kathleen. 1997. “Feminist epistemology as local epistemology.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 71: 37. As cited in Boghossian (2006).Google Scholar
  20. Levinovitz, Alan Jay. 2017. “It’s not all relative.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 5. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Its-Not-All-Relative/239356.
  21. May, Theresa. 2016. “Theresa May’s speech on grammar schools.” New Statesman, September 9. www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2016/09/full-text-theresa-mays-speech-grammar-schools.
  22. NHS (National Health Service). 2016. “Obesity—Causes.” https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/obesity/causes/.
  23. NIH (National Institutes of Health). 2016. “What causes obesity & overweight?” https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/obesity/conditioninfo/cause.
  24. Norris, Christopher. 1995. “Culture, criticism and communal values: On the ethics of enquiry” In Theorizing culture: An interdisciplinary critique after postmodernism, edited by Barbara Adam and Stuart Allan. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pascale, Celine-Marie. 2010. Cartographies of knowledge: Exploring qualitative epistemologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  26. Richerson, Peter. 2015. “Human nature.” In This idea must die: Scientific theories that are blocking progress, edited by John Brockman. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  27. Sawyer, R. Keith. 2005. Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sayer, Andrew. 2000. Realism and social science. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Sayer, Andrew. 2010. “Reductionism in social science.” In Questioning nineteenth century assumptions about knowledge, II: Reductionism, edited by Richard E. Lee, 5–39. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stone, Deborah. 1989. “Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas.” Political Science Quarterly 104 (2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taylor, Timothy. 2009. “The trouble with relativism.” In What have you changed your mind about?: Today’s leading minds rethink everything, edited by John Brockman. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  32. Trigg, Roger. 1998. Rationality and religion. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations