Abstract
Paradigms, according to Kuhn, refer to the entire constellation of beliefs, values, and methods shared by the members of a given community and employed as models or examples in solving problems. 1 Paradigms set the standards for the conceptualization of problems and appropriate ways to solve them. Every paradigm is unique. So they are incommensurable. They can be replaced only through an irreversible discontinuity occurring in previously shared beliefs, values, and methods. Such a change is called a paradigm shift.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 175.
Arnold Wolfers, Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962), p. 150.
Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1996).
Bill McSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Matt McDonald, “Constructivism”, in Paul Williams, ed., Security Studies: An Introduction (London: Routledge, 2008), p. 61.
Lin Chia-lung, “National Identity and Taiwan’s Security”, in Alexander C. Tan, Steve Chan, and Calvin Jillson, eds., Taiwan’s National Security: Dilemmas and Opportunities (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001).
Hsiao Hsin-hung and Yan Jiann-fa, “Taiwan’s New National Identity and Its Impacts on Domestic Party Contention and Cross-Strait Relation”, in Yuan I, ed., Is There a Great China Identity? Security and Economic Dilemma (Taipei: Institute of International Relation, 2007).
Hans Stockton, “National Identity, International Image, and a Security Dilemma: The Case of Taiwan”, in Peter C. Y. Chow, ed., The “One China” Dilemmas (New York: Palgrave 2008), pp. 106–7.
Shellery Rigger, “Competing Conceptions of Taiwan’s Identity”, in Zhao Shi-Sheng, ed., Across the Taiwan Strait: Mainland China, the 1995–1996 Crisis (New York: Routledge, 1999), p. 239.
This definition is adapted from Montserrat Guibernau, The Identity of Nations (Cambridge: Polity, 2007), p. 11.
Melissa J. Brown, Is Taiwan Chinese? The Impact of Culture, Power, and Migration on Changing Identity (Berkeley: University of California, 2004), p. 13.
Lin Ma-li, We Have Different Bloods: Explaining the Antecedents of Various Ethnic Groups in Taiwan by Scientific Evidences of Blood Types and Genes (Taipei: Avantgarde, 2010), original in Chinese.
Richard C. Bush, Untying the Knot: Making Peace in the Taiwan Strait (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2005), p. 40.
J. Bruce Jacobs, “Taiwan’s Colonial History and Postcolonial Nationalism”, in Peter C. Y. Chow, ed., The “One China” Dilemma (New York: Palgrave, 2008), p. 50.
Gabe T. Wang, China and the Taiwan Issue: Impending War at Taiwan Strait (Lanham: University Press of America, 2006), p. 111.
Robert Sutter, “Taiwan Future: Narrowing Straits”, NBR Analysis, May 2011, p. 14.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2012 Peter C. Y. Chow
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, Y.W. (2012). ECFA and Beyond. In: Chow, P.C.Y. (eds) National Identity and Economic Interest. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137011053_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137011053_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-29711-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-01105-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)