The role of the paradigm in the social sciences

Zozan Sima

In these days we are witnessing how changing one’s perspective can open new solution doors to the most intractable problems. This has also revived paradigm debates. The discussion about the paradigm, which in its simplest form means “perspective” or “point of view”, began in the 1970s and became increasingly widespread in the 1990s. However, those who declared the collapse and bankruptcy of the old paradigm failed to formulate a new paradigm. The Kurdistan Freedom Movement started to discuss a new paradigm with the Athens Defense Writings of Rêber Apo, written in 2003. In other words, for 22 years we have known what our new paradigm is. However, knowing it does not mean that we have entered this paradigm and have developed perspectives according to it. In this respect, we are at a time when we need to discuss the development of perspectives in terms of the new paradigm more intensively than ever, albeit with a delay. Moreover, since women’s liberation is one of the cornerstones of our paradigm and women have a pioneering role in its vitalization, our responsibilities are growing. In this respect, it is also important to define the role of the paradigm in science, especially in the social sciences, and the link between our goal of social transformation and the paradigm.

Opening the way for science

The ideas and inventions that are the source of all sciences are a common heritage of humanity that has accumulated over thousands of years. In every period, there have been geographies, schools of thought and philosophers who have paved the way for scientific developments. The first geography and epoch in which scientific development made a leap was the Neolithic period in the Fertile Crescent. The Neolithic revolution, which took place between 10,000 and 4000 BC and culminated around 6000 BC in the ancient Kurdish region of Tell Halaf, was a village and agricultural revolution as well as a scientific and technological revolution. Gordon Childe was the first to describe the Neolithic Revolution as a scientific and technological revolution, comparable to the scientific revolution in 16th century Europe. These technological and scientific developments, which developed around Tell Halaf, gradually spread to other regions and peoples. Rêber Apo defines the Neolithic Revolution as a women’s revolution. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that the first scientific revolution took shape in the hands of women. Science is a common value and an achievement of society, but subsequently entered a process in which it was increasingly separated from women, society and life by patriarchal dominance and the rule of the state.

Science and power

The confrontation between science and power began very early on. First around the Ziggurats of the Sumerians, then the Babylonian, Egyptian and Indian civilizations turned knowledge and science into instruments of their power. We can clearly say that it is not the state civilization that produces knowledge and science. Nor are scientific developments the product of the male mind. Rather, knowledge stolen from women and society has been used to institutionalize the dominant civilization. Throughout history, however, there have always been those who have stood up for free science.

There were repeated conflicts between science in the service of rule and free science. The library of Alexandria was burned down three times, and the philosopher Hypatia, a representative of free science, was brutally murdered. The library of Baghdad was looted due to the attacks of the Mongols, and it was rumoured that so many books were destroyed that the river Tigris flowed the colour of ink for days. The oldest academies in history, of Haran, Nisibis and Gunde Shapur, were plundered and the researchers and students had to emigrate to continue their studies in freer lands. Socrates was killed on the pretext of misleading the youth. Mani, Suhrawardi and Hallac-i Mansur were murdered for opposing religious dogma. In medieval Europe, alchemists and wise women were killed on the grounds that they were enemies of religion. Bruno was burned to death, Galileo was forced to deny that the earth rotates. Because of this legacy, the scientific and technological revolution in Europe initially advocated free thought, as opposed to religion and dogmatic philosophies.

It is important to shed light on the origins and sources of science and the scientific revolution in Europe. This is because one of the main causes of the crises and disasters we are experiencing today is the capitalist appropriation of the scientific developments that emerged in 16th century Europe. Capitalism legitimizes itself most through developments in science and technology. However, these are not achievements of capitalism, but the result of experience and the accumulation of knowledge over the course of history. Capitalism has exploited these. The mechanistic paradigm and positivism, on which the scientific method is based, are decisive for the processes of exploitation.

Paradigm, understanding of truth and methodology

Physics professor Thomas Kuhn was the first to point out that we can only understand scientific developments on the basis of the paradigms that influenced science in the respective period. A paradigm determines the understanding of truth, the way it is interpreted and the methods with which it is approached: What questions does science ask? What research is carried out? Which sources are used for this research? And what methods are used to share and publish knowledge and information?

Using the concept of paradigm as a perspective means seeing the reality behind something. Thomas Kuhn explained the concept of paradigm using the example of an iceberg. He compares the small part of the iceberg that is above the surface of the water with theories and ideas; but there is a paradigm that underlies these theories and ideas and that is not immediately visible. The three basic components of a scientific paradigm are defined as the philosophical study of being (ontology), the theory of knowledge (epistemology) and scientific methodology. The idea that science is detached from philosophy and ideology and only analyzes tangible and visible facts has been increasingly challenged over time. In every era, scientists, philosophers and truth-seekers have put forward theories based on the prevailing paradigm. However, if these theories were not sufficient, if they did not provide satisfactory answers to the questions, a change in the scientific paradigm was deemed necessary – just as with social revolutions. Science has evolved through revolutions.

Since the Second World War the damage caused by eurocentric science has been discussed. The paradigm on which this science is based has also been called into question. Let us take a closer look at how the world and human beings are handled in the mechanistic paradigm on which eurocentric science is based.

The eurocentric understanding of science has led to the world being viewed like a mechanical clock. The living beings in the world were viewed like the cogs and screws of a clock. Viewing the world from a hierarchical point of view, with humans at the top and other living beings below, is also the basis for ecological disasters and class divisions. At other times in history, people viewed the world as living and holistic. But the mechanistic paradigm has destroyed this view. It has defined the relationships between humans and nature and between humans and humans on the axis of subject and object. In short, the subject-object distinction means that one side (as subject) has the power and is determinative, while the other side (as object) remains in a passive, subordinate position. In this way, nature was objectified in relation to humans, woman in relation to man, the oppressed in relation to the rulers, and their relationship was constructed as a relationship between subject and object. This mentality of domination has reached the proportions of genocides and massacres.

Once this mentality has become ingrained in people’s minds, corresponding examples will be found in nature: The big fish eats the small fish, the lion eats the deer, the strong defeats the weak. But there are many more examples in nature of creatures that complement each other, that do not harm each other but live together in solidarity.

In these relationships, which we call symbiotic relationships, small creatures support large creatures, predators support those that do not hunt and so on. In an ecosystem, trees, humans, insects, fish and algae share a common life. The paradigm is precisely about how these realities are viewed. This view is also reflected in social relations. Every living being in the ecosystem has meaning and value. For a very long period of history, a holistic approach to the relationships between humans and nature and between humans and humans has been dominant. However, when the subject-object distinction was established within the framework of systems of domination, and it took the place of reality as a scientific method, actual disasters occurred.

In contrast to a mechanistic paradigm that views the world as a machine, there is a need for paradigms that treat the world as alive and holistic. Positivism, which categorizes human society in mechanistic ways of functioning, has brought sociality to the brink of destruction. The consequences of treating society as a mass of facts is one of the main reasons for the great genocides of the last two centuries.

Seeing the world from a different perspective

The paradigm of Democratic Modernity, also known as the democratic, ecological and women’s liberation paradigm, offers an alternative and solution perspectives. Looking at the world with different eyes, starting from different points and finding solutions to problems is related to understanding and vitalizing the new paradigm.

Ecological destruction, genocides and feminicides are the most visible indicators of the crisis of our time. The solution power of the democratic, ecological and women’s liberation paradigm is also linked to this reality. Democratic culture stands for the unity of differences, multiplicities and diversities, like the harmony of colorful threads in a carpet pattern. The paradigm of Democratic Modernity allows us to think of democratic models as the harmony of a necklace of colorful beads and stones. Only with the new paradigm can we think of systems in which everyone preserves their own color and identity, but is part of the whole. We cannot institutionalize a democratic confederal system if we do not look at it from the perspective of the new paradigm. The multiple links between institutions and communities can only take on meaning with the perspective of the new paradigm.

Without an ecological approach, we cannot create a balance between the first and second nature. The idea that humanity is part of nature makes her responsible to nature. Nature has the power to renew and regenerate itself. But the unlimited ambition for power and profit thwarts this. The ecological approach is not limited to an approach to nature, but expresses a holistic view of the universe and society.

The scientific methodology of Jineolojî

In the face of the unlimited patriarchal hegemony, it is impossible to overcome the crisis of the system without building a life based on women’s freedom.

Jineolojî is a science based on the paradigm of Democratic Modernity. Therefore, the subjects it researches, the sources it refers to and the scientific methods it uses are determined on the basis of this paradigm.

Every science is based on a scientific methodology. As Jineolojî develops as a new science, one of the most frequently asked questions is about its scientific method, i.e. its methodology. Since the eurocentric understanding of science has made its own scientific method the only valid scientific criterion, something can only be considered a science if these methods are applied. However, this situation has been increasingly called into question over the last 50 years. The eurocentric positivist scientific method, which imposes itself as a formula for truth, is itself facing a serious blockage. The question of what the scientific method and methodology of Jineolojî is is related to how Jineolojî will resolve this blockage.

Methodology, as the study of methods, is a branch of philosophy that deals with the methods of the various fields of science. If we define “method” as the shortest and most fruitful path to a goal, in this case to knowledge, methodology is the whole and the system of these efforts. While trying to understand and solve the problem of methodology, sayings from the philosophical tradition of the Middle East point the way. For example: “The truth is one, the paths leading to it are a thousand and one,” or “people are deprived of the wusul, i.e. the truth, because they lose the path or method, i.e. the tariqa, or usul”. In this context, we discuss the method of jineolojî. It is based on the principle of taking into account the diversity of methods that enable us to grasp the truth. However, this does not mean that Jineolojî has no method. Rêber Apo clarifies the question of method as follows and shows a way in which we can approach the subject of method:

“Rather than seeking an alternative method, we seek a way out of the serious problems caused by a life burdened with misconceptions and distanced from the value of freedom.” (Rêber Apo)

The scientific method, which has proven to be wrong and does not lead to the truth, destroys the meaning of life, and this situation forms the basis for the destruction of society. There are many criticisms of the current scientific method. The main problem is the imposition of this method. Eurocentric science imposes its own methods and disregards the forms of knowing of other geographies, peoples and women. For example, it denigrates the ancient healing knowledge by calling it “old wives’ remedies”. However, the source of modern medicine, pharmacy and medicines also comes from this healing tradition. The historical knowledge expressed in mythological stories and epics is not considered a significant source, as it is not proven and has not been written down. Topics such as spirituality and metaphysics are not considered scientific. Feelings and intuitions are not valued as sources of knowledge. Eurocentric science analyzes society and human reality as objects. It deals with human beings by detaching them from society, history, time and space. Instead of actually taking events with their historical dimension, it deals with the flow of history in a straight line. For this reason, it falls into a position that is far from the truth and produces information according to the needs of power and capital.

The wisdom tradition of the Middle East, the philosophies of the regions of China and India and the forms of knowing of oppressed peoples outside Europe are still methods with which this way of thinking can be overcome. The development of quantum physics, the critique of classical forms of historiography, as well as the critiques from ecological and feminist movements, have prepared the ground for new methodological paths. From this heritage, Jineolojî determines and develops its own methods.

It is essential for the scientific method of Jineolojî to develop a perspective that can break down the power relations created by the subject-object distinction. Understanding rather than defining and empathizing rather than objectifying lead to a deeper understanding. In any research done in connection with life and society, we experience that subject and object are constantly changing places and affecting each other. The only way to ensure change by looking critically is to be able to understand truth from all angles, to make sense of the truth in every aspect. Overcoming the fragmented perspective that destroys the wholeness of truth is another important issue. For this, it is important to consider the social sciences as the basis of all sciences in a way to overcome the fragmentation between the sciences. Putting social sciences on the basis of all sciences means establishing a connection between scientific developments, including physics, chemistry, biology, natural sciences, and social life. In the research works of Jineolojî many subjects are intertwined, such as economy, demography, politics, ethics and aesthetics, health, education, ecology and medicine. Jineolojî develops its work by starting from women’s experiences, women’s knowledge and women’s forms of cognition and updating them.

As peoples and women facing massacres in a geography where the Third World War is taking place, we have legitimate and vital reasons to object to this science and its methods. The hegemonic scientific method is not able to explain the reasons for the attacks and massacres we are facing, the meaning of the resistance we are waging and the social system we want to build. Jineolojî aims to create ways out where the scientific method causes blockage, destruction and obscures reality. Jineolojî aims to find tools and methods that will reveal the sources of knowledge whose truth has been denied and ignored.