- 国際基督教大学学報. II-B, 社会科学ジャーナル (ISSN:04542134)
- vol.60, pp.205-223, 2007-03
The concept "paradigm" has been used in many research areas since Thomas Kuhn used it in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. However, as this concept was applied to various areas, its critical meanings in philosophy of science tended to be lost. The aim of this paper is to reconsider paradigm theory and deepen an understanding about it in relation with social anthropology and Lacanian psychoanalysis. Paradigm is necessary to form a scientific community, where scientists study following shared models. It brings about the stable situation of community which Kuhn called normal science. Kenelm Burridge called the subject in this situation the person. According to Burridge, the person is a result of socialization, which is necessary for the subject to become a member of society. From a viewpoint of Lacanian psychoanalysis, it means to enter the symbolic order. The subject follows this order, and it makes him/her stable because the symbolic controls the imaginary which is a dimension of the identity of ego. The imaginary conceals the lack of a basis of the symbolic, and then the stability of daily life is maintained and reproduced. When this stability is shaken, a chance of paradigm change comes. However, paradigm does not change easily even if irregular cases which are not consistent with a given paradigm appear. Paradigm changes only when its instability reaches the limit where the balance of its system cannot be maintained. This deadlock of symbolization is the real. The person can become the individual who is a creative ignition to change a given tradition, when he/she meets the real. Conversely, the individual cannot come into existence without the person; the real cannot be recognized retroactively as a miss of perfect symbolization until symbolic order is formed. Paradigm change is a change of referent. The subject can compare different paradigms, but he/she cannot understand them perfectly. If he/she can do so, paradigm A which he/she belongs to should be equal to paradigm B which he/she recognizes as a different paradigm. He/she cannot avoid distortion of understanding, which is called incommensurability. When he/she recognizes something as an incommensurable object, this object is object a as a remainder of the real. It is a structural gap of his/her imaginary identity or a mirror of nothing where he/she meets the real. He/she as the individual can recognize this object as the real, but he/she as the person cannot do so because the imaginary usually conceals a structural lack of the symbolic by putting the object as an object of fantasy on the gap. The individual transcends a given paradigm through such processes, then he/she accepts the lack of a basis of the symbolic. However, he/she does not leave the symbolic because the subject cannot exist without the symbolic. Because of this psychoanalytic structure, he/she cannot help accepting his/her structural limit and trying to symbolize the real again. A new paradigm appears here through a process of symbolization. To symbolize consistently, theorization is necessary; he/she uses a theory as a frame of reference to see consistently. Even if he/she symbolizes successfully, this is not a goal. He/she has a lack of the symbolic, which guarantees him/her structurally to continue self-critical praxis.