In this blog post, we will examine how normal science and anomalous phenomena can be applied to social change and political participation based on Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution.
A society is made up of its members. Members of society have the right to participate in various decisions made by society. However, sometimes the demands for change made by members of society are not accepted, or reforms are implemented despite opposition to change. What is the reason for this seemingly contradictory phenomenon? The explanation for this can be found in a scientific theory that may seem completely unrelated. The answer to this question lies in the participation of members.
Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution is as follows. Traditional scholars believed that scientific revolution (progress) occurs gradually. However, Kuhn had a different view. He argued that progress occurs in stages. At the starting point of each stage is a “paradigm,” followed by “normal science,” and finally “paradigm shifts.” This series of processes is replaced by a new paradigm through a “revolution.” Progress is a line connecting paradigms. Therefore, progress is not gradual, but rather, when a paradigm that has undergone many refutations and criticisms exceeds a critical point at a certain moment, anomalies occur, and progress is achieved with the beginning of a new paradigm.
To supplement Kuhn’s terminology, a paradigm can be described as the starting point of a “ladder” consisting of specific concepts, approaches, methodologies, and values, which form the fundamental structure. Normal science is a term that contrasts with scientific revolution and can be understood as conservatism. Normal science can be seen as an act of supplementing and strengthening a single paradigm that cannot escape from the paradigm. Scientists who defend normal science reject change, and when cases that cannot be explained by the paradigm arise, they blame their own incompetence, as in the proverb, “The more unskilled the carpenter, the more he blames his tools,” rather than examining the errors in the paradigm. If normal science did not exist, every new discovery would lead to the introduction of a new paradigm, causing confusion and ultimately rendering the paradigm meaningless. Finally, anomalous phenomena are the starting point for the collapse of one paradigm and the beginning of another, and are a refutation of normal science. Without anomalous phenomena, there would be no paradigm shifts, and all phenomena would have to be explained by a single paradigm. Ultimately, without change and development, science would be bound by a single theory and come to a standstill. There are three ways to respond to anomalous phenomena: resolution within existing normal science, deferral to the next generation, and introduction of a new paradigm.
What we should focus on here is the third option: the introduction of a new paradigm. In fact, the introduction of a new paradigm is a rare phenomenon. It only occurs when existing normal science reaches its limits. However, when a new paradigm is introduced and normal science collapses, progress, or in other words, revolution, occurs. The reason why this is called a revolution is because the fundamental structure is completely changed.
Let’s apply Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution to society. Paradigms can be understood in various ways, such as laws, social institutions, and norms. Normal science can be understood as a conservative stance that adheres to paradigms, while anomalies can be understood as a progressive stance that demands change. In society, conservatism and progressivism clash under a single paradigm. Regardless of which stance they take, people will defend their own position. The victory of conservatism can be seen as normal science overcoming anomalies. The victory of progress can be seen as the anomaly leading to a new paradigm. However, what is important here is not which position wins, but the process itself. As mentioned earlier, if normal science did not exist, new paradigms would be introduced every time a new discovery was made, and eventually paradigms would become meaningless. Without anomalies, there would be no change or progress, and the advancement of science would come to a halt. In other words, without the political participation of conservatives, frequent paradigm shifts would eventually render politics meaningless, resulting in an unstable society swept away by public opinion. Similarly, without the political participation of progressives, there would be no sense of the need for change in politics, which could lead to the stagnation or regression of society.
In March 2017, an event that attracted worldwide attention took place in South Korea. It was the impeachment of the former president. Although the impeachment of the head of state can hardly be called social progress, this event can be seen as a clash between conservatives, including the president and his aides, and progressives, including civic groups. During the president’s term, the president and his aides establish various policies and implement them. Of course, they will establish policies for the benefit of the country, but as long as their values and interests are intertwined, this can be seen as similar to “normal science,” which insists on a paradigm. On the other hand, groups demanding reform and change induce “anomalies.” The new “paradigm” that began with the president’s inauguration strengthened “normal science” through the implementation of various policies, but as “anomalies” accumulated, a new paradigm was eventually introduced along with reforms.
For a stable society, time is needed for a single paradigm to take root. To this end, social participation by conservatives is important. On the other hand, paradigm reform is necessary for society to develop. At this point, social participation by progressives is necessary. For a society to grow steadily, both time for a paradigm to take root and paradigm reform are necessary. In other words, social participation by both conservatives and progressives is necessary for the growth and development of society. Regardless of one’s social or political stance, I conclude this article by calling for social participation for the development of society.
