Why is social change sometimes resisted or forced? Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Revolutions Explained

Societies sometimes reform in spite of opposition or because members’ demands for change are not accepted. Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions can be applied to analyze the roles of conservatives and progressives: conservatives promote stability, while progressives drive change. This article emphasizes that the participation of both positions is essential for social development.

 

A society is made up of its members. Members of a society have the right to participate in many of its decisions. Sometimes, however, their demands for change are not accepted, or reforms are made despite their opposition to change. Why do these seemingly contradictory phenomena occur? An explanation was found in a seemingly unrelated scientific theory, and the answer lies in the participation of the people.
Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions is as follows. Traditional scholars thought that scientific revolutions (progress) happened gradually, but Kuhn disagreed. He argued that progress happens in stages. There is a “paradigm” at the top of the staircase, “normal science” at the bottom, and “anomalies” at the top. This sequence is then transformed into a new paradigm through a ‘revolution’. Progress is the line that connects paradigm to paradigm, so progress does not happen gradually, but when a paradigm that has been disproven and criticized crosses a threshold at some point, an anomaly occurs, and progress is made with the beginning of a new paradigm.
To explain Kuhn’s terminology a bit further, a paradigm is the starting point of a ‘staircase’ of concepts, approaches, methodologies, values, etc. Normal science is the opposite of scientific revolution, which can be better understood as conservatism. Normal science can be seen as a paradigmatic behavior that complements and reinforces a paradigm. Scientists who defend normal science resist change, and when faced with cases that cannot be explained by the paradigm, they blame their own incompetence, as in the proverbial “bad carpenters blame the extension,” rather than examining the errors of the paradigm. In the absence of normal science, new paradigms would be introduced with each new discovery, adding to the confusion and eventually rendering paradigms meaningless. Finally, anomalies are the trigger for the collapse of one paradigm and the beginning of another, and they are a refutation of normal science. Without anomalies, one paradigm would have to explain all phenomena without changing paradigms, and science would be locked into one theory without change and progress. We can categorize three responses to anomalies. There are three main responses to anomalies: resolution within the existing normal science, postponement to the next generation, and the introduction of a new paradigm.
It is the third, the introduction of a new paradigm, that we are interested in here. In fact, the introduction of a new paradigm is an uncommon phenomenon. It only happens when normal science has reached its limits. But when a new paradigm is introduced and normal science collapses, progress, or in other words, revolution, occurs. It is called a revolution because the fundamental structure of the underlying science is completely changed.
Let’s apply Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions to society. Paradigms can be understood in many ways: laws, social institutions, norms, etc. Normal science can be understood as a conservative position that adheres to the paradigm, and anomalous phenomena as a progressive position that demands change. In society, conservatives and progressives are pitted against each other under one paradigm. Whichever position is taken, those who support it will defend it. When conservatives win, it can be seen as normal science surviving an anomaly. Progress wins when an anomaly leads to a new paradigm. However, it’s not the position that wins that matters; it’s the process that matters. As mentioned earlier, if normal science did not exist, every new discovery would introduce a new paradigm, and eventually paradigms would become irrelevant. Without anomalies, science stops progressing without change and development, which means that without conservative political participation, frequent paradigm shifts would lead to an unstable society where politics would eventually become meaningless and swept away by public opinion. Similarly, without the political participation of progressives, society’s development may stall or even regress because they do not see the need for change in politics.
In March 2017, South Korea experienced an event that captured the world’s attention. It was the impeachment of the former president. Although the removal of the president, the highest head of state, cannot be called a social development, it can be thought of as a clash between conservatives, including the president and his entourage, and progressives, including civil society organizations. During the president’s tenure, the president and his entourage set policies and implement them. Of course, they will make policies for the good of the country, but as long as their values and interests are intertwined, this is similar to “normal science” that adheres to a paradigm. On the other hand, groups demanding reform or change induce ‘anomalies’. It can be explained that the new ‘paradigm’ that started with the president’s ascension to the presidency reinforced ‘normal science’ through the implementation of various policies, but the accumulation of ‘anomalies’ eventually led to the introduction of a new paradigm with reforms.
For a stable society, a paradigm needs time to be established. For this to happen, rewarding social participation is important. On the other hand, a paradigm reform is necessary for a society to develop. This requires the social participation of progressives. For a society to grow stably, it needs both time for a paradigm to be established and paradigm reform. In other words, it needs the participation of both conservatives and progressives to grow and develop. Regardless of your personal social and political stance, I would like to conclude this article by calling for social participation for a developing society.