A Response Paper by Torrysta Alvanso

The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding

Introduction

This journal has a unique perspective on emphasizing understanding of a social issue. In

the latest issues, Oran Young firmly argues that collecting empirical materials is not the final goal

in explaining a phenomenon; with adequate theoretical analysis in determining the right instrument

or methodology, it will be easier to analyze a case. Therefore, in many cases, a theorist has very

high prestige because he uses excessive language that can compete with sensuous delights, thus

forming what is known as an interesting theoretical subject and is now called a stimulating

theoretical insight or a paradigm. The author tries to provide constructive criticism of the concept

of compulsive and mindless theory, which the author describes as a common disease and can

weaken an understanding of a problem, especially for social science scholars in the United States

who have an urgent need to explain and control a series of social realities because of their position

as a superpower country and as a part of hegemonic power. So, the United States needs a shortcut

to understand those specific issues that need to be addressed rapidly by looking for existing

paradigms that lead to the tendency of stereotypes and tend to generalize and ignore the complexity

and the story behind every issue. Starting from this issue, the author wants to discuss that when

looking at a social phenomenon, we might focus on something other than a paradigm because it

will hinder understanding.

The importance of understanding

In my opinion, the ideas conveyed by the author are very constructive and enlighten the

wider community, especially those who rely too much on specific theories or paradigms over

understanding. The habit of ignoring understanding will be crucial for many people because by

understanding existing social and legal realities, we can realize all social changes that occur,

whether on the scale of reform or revolution. The author finds revolutionaries very interesting

because indirectly, they have the same impulse in assessing understanding, even though they like

to quote Marx, whose impression is that understanding the world is more important than changing

it. Revolutionaries are well aware of the enormous power that can be obtained from the beliefs of

someone who truly understands social reality and the laws of change. Confidence equipped with

understanding gives excellent determination to do anything. I agree with the author's description

of how important understanding is as a basis for obtaining an explanation of a series of lives (Albert

O. Hirschman (1970), p. 329).

Two essential works for reflection

In writing this journal, the author refers a lot to the works of John Womack's Zapata and

the Mexican Revolution and James L. Payne's Patterns of Conflict in Colombia as the basis of the

argument. Two works written by young North American Scholars published in 1969 have striking

differences in the opposing reactions conveyed by each author (p. 330). In his writings, it is clear

that Womack loves revolutionary Mexico and the Zapatistas, unlike Payne, who expressed dislike

for Colombia, especially the politicians there. But what is more important is the difference in

cognitive style between these two authors. In Payne's writing, on the first page, readers are
presented with a complete understanding of the Colombian political system. He triumphantly

opened all the doors of Colombian political life, past, present, and future.

Meanwhile, Womack rejects any pretense of complete understanding right in the foreword

of his book by writing that his book is not an analysis but a story that looks at the truth of the

revolution in Morelos, which is accompanied by feelings that he cannot understand. For him, this

feeling also cannot be explained by defining the factors alone, but the only appropriate way for

Womack is to tell it. For me, Womack's work provides a very soft and easy-to-understand analysis

because the elements of a story and the feelings he tries to include in a narrative are

straightforward. From the first page to the end, Payne has reached a complete conclusion and

understanding of his subject, unlike Womack, who wrote his conclusions carefully. For the author,

by looking at the differences between the two scholars above, it can be seen that third-world

countries have become fair game for model makers and paradigm shapers to an absolute level (p.

331). So, understanding will undoubtedly be hindered if we only focus on looking for a paradigm.

Conclusion

To illuminate the path of change, the ability of paradigmatic thinking is still very limited,

and other things may be more fundamental, so an understanding is needed. In Latin America, many

of us are still worried about large-scale changes, whether reforms, revolutions, or transition

processes. By relying on paradigms, no one can guarantee certainty or predictability. I see that all

changes in social events cannot only be analyzed using scientific methods because this method

cannot explain the complexity or uniqueness of existing social events. So, it is necessary to

understand a country's historical, cultural, and political narratives. This will make us not be too

hasty in providing a conclusion (la rage de vouloir conclure by Falaubert, p. 335) because dynamic
social processes cannot be understood by searching for paradigms alone but require an

understanding and feeling in seeing existing values.

Reference List

Hirschman, Albert O. (1970). "The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding."

World Politics, 22 (3): 329-343