SCIENCE, CAPITALISM AND CULTURE - V
Western science has introduced the concept of a theory into the system of knowledge that is associated with it. This does not mean that there were no theories before western science but the word theory had not been in vogue before that in the other systems of knowledge. In fact it could be said that western science consists mainly of concepts and theories that are formulated to be compatible with observations. A theory is nothing but an answer given to a question raised in respect of a group property. One does not formulate theories in respect of individual properties. However if individual properties are seen to be common to a group of individuals then there is a possibility of formulating a theory in respect of that property.
The word theory, like theology, is associated with God, with the connotation that a theory is true and reflects some kind of absolute truth. Though in western Physics "well established" theories have been replaced by other theories that also became "well established" after some time, in the mainstream of sciences, the concept of an absolute truth of a theory has not been displaced or even replaced. People still tend to regard Newton's theory of gravitation as an absolute truth nearly ninety years after it was replaced by Einstein's general theory of gravitation. The more sophisticated would say that Einstein's theory is closer than Newton's theory to the objective reality. However statements of that nature could be considered to be valid only if one knows in advance what is meant by the objective reality. Without knowing the objective reality in advance one cannot determine whether one theory is a better approximation of the former, than another. On the other hand if one knows the objective reality then there is no need for theories to find out about this so-called objective reality.
Following western Physics, Chemistry and Biology other disciplines also have begun to formulate theories. However among the practitioners of western social sciences there does not seem to be a clear understanding of what is meant by a theory. In this regard I would like to mention an experience I had a few weeks ago at a research symposium. A young lecturer in her presentation mentioned the postmodernist (post structuralist) point of view that theories have a political content. As this was a theory on theories I asked the simple question as to the political content of this all important theory. The postmodernism does not have a set of consistent theories as such. For example according to Lyotard in this age of postmodernism ( a condition of postmodernism) there are no meta narratives or meta theories. However this is one of the most meta theories one could think of. It is a theory on theories. In fact in postmodernism there are many such theories on theories, a theory has a political content being one such meta narratives. Lyotard does not realise that when he says that there are no meta narratives in the postmodernist world he himself has formulated a meta theory on theories. If Lyotard's theory is "correct" then, according to the theory itself it cannot be a theory in this "age of postmodernism", for it is a meta theory. This means that Lyotard's theory on absence of meta theories belongs to the pre postmodernist age or I suppose the modernist age. Thus we have a modernist theory on theories in postmodernist age and by implication Lyotard could not be considered as a postmodernist.
When the young lecturer referred to above from a department of English mentioned the theory on the political content of the theory I had to question her on the political content of the "political content theory". As she did not have an answer to that question I had to explain the bankruptcy of western linear thinking as opposed to cyclic thinking and to point out that all these theories have a political content associated with western cultural colonialism. In fact most of the paradoxes including Russell's paradox are associated with the linear thinking and in the social sciences only at present the postmodernist theories reveal the bankruptcy of linear thinking, again demonstrating that the western social sciences limp behind western physical sciences. In the course (not the discourse) of the discussion the young lecturer also said something about the subject being determined by the language and that people think using the language. This implies that the children who do not know a language, do not think and when she was questioned on that she gave a startling answer. She said according to theory children do not think!
She was probably referring to the poststructuralist psychoanalyst Lacan who has a theory on how the subject is determined by the social interactions among the individuals. The amazing thing is that she mentioned this fact as if theory is God given and it cannot be wrong. The social scientists in the west (I do not have to refer to their local imitating counterparts) are still to catch up with the concept of theory as it is used in western physical and biological sciences. Freuds and Lacans are western reductionists whether modernists or postmodernists who try to reduce psychology to sex, language or some other concept. If the subject is determined by language and if people can think only using a language (we have to be thankful to them for not declaring that people think using only European languages!) then those unfortunate human beings who lived before languages were evolved (according to western theories) would not have thought anything. It is said that Einstein had difficulties in learning a language and even at the age of three years he had problems in expressing himself using a language. Do people express themselves only using a language. Where do music, painting, drama etc., fit in this description?
Before we analyse Lacan's bankrupt theory we should place theory in the western sciences, whether physical, biological or social, in the correct perspective. Theories as we said earlier are only answers given to questions. They are stories or narratives constructed undoubtedly by gifted people, and in the west describe general properties in the abstract. Theories arise from observations though the latter themselves are not theory independent. As there is no perception without a conception there is no observation without some kind of theory. The theories could be either abstract or concrete if we were to use the word theory to describe an answer given to any question on observations. We may restrict theory to only those answers (narratives) given in the abstract and refer to others answers as "dharmatha". The ancient Bharaths had both theories and dharmathas though it could be that what we call theories were also dharmathas to Rishis who had developed their minds. It may be that what is abstract for an ordinary person is something concrete for an Rishi or some other person who has developed the mind and as far as such persons are concerned what are termed theories are also dharmathas.
Theories and Dharmathas are culture dependent and are constructed or created in a particular culture (or civilisation). In order to grasp this let us consider the well known laws of motion and the theory of gravitation due to Newton. Before Newton and Galileo the western world following Aristotle had a theory of motion according to which bodies when released from their fetters would go (come) back to their natural positions. According to this theory bodies had their natural positions, and just as animals go back to their "natural habitats" ( There are some people who argue for a Tamil homeland in the northern and the eastern provinces using a variation of this theory. However that does not work as almost all Tamils who could afford went to India after the July 1983 incidents.) after a "days work", bodies when released from fetters would "find" their natural positions. This theory was a kind of animation and Aristotelian Physics is referred to as an organismic science (more details on western physics from a Sinhala Buddhist perspective in "Vidya Kathandara"). Foucault refers to this period in western knowledge as that based on an analogy episteme and what is interesting is that in Aristotelian Physics even material objects were treated as animals that "take decisions". A coconut when released would fall to the earth not because of a gravitational force but due to the coconut "deciding" to go to its natural position which is found on the earth and not on the top of the tree.
This theory by Aristotle was the answer given by him to the question why do the coconuts (or apples) fall to the earth. It was an answer given in that particular culture and reflects how people thought about even material objects such as coconuts (apples). The Greeks were not Christians then and did not believe in a God according to whose wish the world was created. Their gods were not very much different from the gods of the Vedic people (except perhaps Brahman) and were like ordinary people living on the earth. They went after females among the humans and had the same emotions. Even the gods were like animals and humans, and were not separated from the latter. Even Brahaman was not separated from the world He created, the world and the Brahaman being the "same" and He in the form of Vishnu has a habit of coming to the world and as Krishna is also the source around whom a number of romantic stories have been woven. Now compare the Aristotelian theory with the Newtonian theory. Newton was influenced by his culture which was Christian and the Christian God being Yehowah of the old Testament is an external entity that is outside the world, and is not organically linked to His creation. Unlike in the case of Brahman the Creator is separated from the created in the cultures based on the old Testament, and Creator has an "objective" existence independent of the observers on the earth. The creator in Judaism and Christianity, unlike the creator in Vedic religions is an abstract concept, so much so that it is forbidden (not possible) to create images of the creator.
In western science from Newton to Lacan this external objectivity can be seen. Newton formulates his laws of motion referring to external forces. An object continues to move uniformly along a straight line or remains at rest with respect to what are "known" as inertial frames, in the absence of external forces. If there are external forces then the state of the motion is changed. In the case of Aristotelian there are "external" fetters. However, they are temporary and the moment the fetters are released the object "goes back" to its natural position. The object has some degree of independence that is exercised the moment the fetters are removed. However in the case of Newtonian Mechanics and hence in Newtonian Physics the object has no independence. It has to obey the external forces. If there are external forces then its state of motion is changed according to Newton's second law of motion. If there are no external forces then the object continues to move uniformly along a straight line with respect to an inertial frame. In Newtonian Physics external forces determine the motion. The object has no role here. A coconut when released from fetters would move under the gravitational force due to the earth. The gravitational force dictates the coconut where to go. The coconut has no independence at all. Moreover the gravitational force is not something that one can see or hear. It is not sensory perceptible. According to Newton, one falls in an "objective" gravitational field that exists independent of the observer. In western science, based on Newtonian mechanics, not only objects are not inanimated, animals that include the human beings have been "objectified". In a sense Lacan makes this "objectification" complete.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>