Abstract                          

Introduction

   But the text, which this present project would deal with, is not simply a description of nature or human beings. It is made up of stronger stuff that has the capability to order our lives. I am talking of theories. The present project, therefore, will examine the nature of theories and advance the concept of textualization and further propose the “Textualized Nature of Theories.” But looking at the nature of the text would also necessitate the investigation of the nature of its subject. Since the subject of theories is the world, the nature of the world would then be investigated. Amazingly, however, as theories are the product of human invention, then theory by itself is also capable of structuring the world of humans. In this view, the nature of human beings will partly be unveiled.

Theories would perhaps have been born amid sleepless nights and bouts of coffee brew. When reading a novel or watching a movie, you come home discussing the story as if it is a real life story in real time. But most of it is simply fiction. Theories are not fiction. You talk about theories. You attack theories. You teach theories. You try to debunk theories. Then you use theories. Theories are alive even if those conditions for which they were conceived do not exist anymore for the debates, discourses and references resuscitate them beyond the deathbed of the bookshelf. Theories don’t just live in mental abstractions, or on the yellowing pages of the book, but theories exist through debates, discourses and interactions. 

The problem with condemning theories as simply abstractions comes from the idea that what is real is observable. The empiricist hegemony that knowledge emanates from sense impressions would be shaken if challenged that not all that is real could be directly observed. The atoms with which any matter is constructed cannot be observed. No one will ever see an atom for an atom is smaller than the smallest quantity (quanta or photon) of light. If an atom is that minute, how much more the protons and electrons? But atoms and their sub-atomic compositions have been calculated to be real. Their effects (and not they exactly) have been observed.

Neptune was discovered not because of its physical traces passing through the lens of a telescope but that planet was discovered because of the aberration on the orbit of its neighboring planet Uranus. William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781 but the irregularity in its orbit had been an astronomical puzzle among scientists since it defied Newton’s Law of Gravity. In 1843, an English astronomer John Couch Adams, fresh from his graduate studies, started plotting the traces of Uranus’s path and predicted that another undiscovered planet was causing the discrepancy in Uranus’s orbit. In October 1845 Adams finished his calculations and submitted them to other astronomers only to be shunned. Meanwhile, French astronomer Urbain Jean Leverrier theorized on the same problematique and sent his calculations to Johanne Galle at the Berlin Observatory in September 1846. Galle went to work on his telescope and in the evening of September 1946, he found Neptune, only 2^o short of Adam’s predicted position (Seeds 1988, 526). What brought this to the open? How did they know these things before hand? The answer is… theory. Human beings have brought theories to life and they are sustaining the life of theories through their interactions.  

Through theories the world can be explained. The world can be organized. The world can be mastered. But what is the world in the first place?

The world can be understood in different viewpoints. Human beings are familiar with separating their social world with that of the physical world. That is fair enough. Human beings anyway are different from the environment they live in. In this view, we are entities placed in a physical habitat. There is the physical world serving as the dough and the social world acting like toppings. There is the universe and we human beings are in it. But there can be another way of looking at the world.

There is the world-already-constructed. It is the world already made. It is the world that is already there even before it impinges on the observer. It is the world already in existence. The universe is an example. It is something, which human beings never constructed. But it is already there. Since this world is already constructed, what the observer does is to discover it in order to uncover its nature and its dynamics. The idea is to figure out the principles on how it works. And since such principles are generalized and can apply to all phenomena of the same nature, then such principles become a “law.”

Don’t ever think that this refers only to the physical world. The social world of human beings can also be seen as a world already made. For human beings, this is a world that has already transpired or is transpiring according to some sets of principles. These principles are like gullies where water flows. Unless there are other routes, water will naturally flow on those canals. The principles are like these gullies. And these principles can be generalized. This world is already constructed because of the principles at work. In all cases this is a predictable world, as long as the principles have already been discovered. This world is highly regular and patterned. Insufficient principles that could not account for some phenomena could be termed an anomaly which could be resolved if another principle could be discovered to account for the regularities occurring along the thread of such anomalies.

Then there is also the world-under-construction. If the world-already-constructed appeals more to the physical world, the world-under-construction finds more affinity to the social world. This world considers human beings as active participants in the world, which they build and change through their interactions. This is a world that is never complete and will never be, since human beings are prone to change or to reconstruct it. Human beings may not know it, but their interactions continually produce and reproduce their world. Their world may have patterns, but such patterns may be obsolete. Another pattern at some point in time is recreated. What an observer does with this world is not to discover, but to interpret it. The idea is not to discover principles, for such discovery may not have regularity across time and space, but the objective is to uncover it, and in the process of uncovering, an interpretation is made.

If principles are the tasks of discovery in progress, it is meaning which interpretation hopes to derive. Meanings are not like gullies where water flows. They are like the humans themselves wading on those gullies, who may wish to go to any direction they like. Principles create the box, but meanings provide the various trappings.

Nevertheless the physical world can also be viewed as a world-under-construction. We are capable of changing our physical habitat consciously or unconsciously through the same acts directly or indirectly affecting the environment. You can change the structure of the landscape and recreate torn out structures, even present your bodies for bacteria and virus to mutate. The universe is expanding and stars die and others are created.  But the challenge which quantum mechanics poses on how we view the world also changes the way the physical universe can be conceived. The traditional view that the world can exist even without consciousness is shattered by the thought that since the observer can affect the motion of particles, the physical world would not have been without a consciousness.

It is these worlds then, that theories are concerned with. This does not mean, however, that there is a complete separation of these two worlds. Plato, a Greek philosopher of rich imagination, devised an analogy to depict human’s search for knowledge. He wrote of the “Allegory of the Cave.” This time, make your own imagination work.

There is a cave that descends deep in the earth with two men shackled facing a wall. They were chained there all their lives and could not look back towards the entrance of the cave. Several objects pass by the entrance which cast shadows on the wall. Since these two individuals had only seen these moving shadows all their lives, they would think that these shadows are the real objects. Plato goes on to ask, “what if one fellow was able to get out of his chains and was able to emerge out of the cave?” At first glance of the light at the entrance, he would have had difficulty looking at the glare of light he had seen for the first time. If he saw the same objects pass by, then he would realize for the first time that what he was seeing all along on the cave’s wall were simply shadows. He wouldn’t have believed it at first. But upon close examination, he would have had associated the shadows with the real objects he was observing. At this point, he had a confrontation with the natural world. This is the “world-already-constructed” but at that point, he was constructing it on his own. Plato goes on by posing, “what if he goes back to his friend and tells his discovery?” Either his friend would believe him or not. What is important is that, at the time of their interaction, they were both constructing their world. Thus we have a “world-under-construction.”

My point is, these two worlds are never separate from each other. There is the world-already-constructed, a world which needs to be discovered, a world out there which will perpetuate even without human beings to tinker on. But that’s not the end. This world has impinged on us because of our construction of it. This is the world-under-construction. Our interaction, processes of interpretation and discovery lead us to build this already constructed world into a world we construct for our own. Simply put, this is science in our language. Science therefore is nothing but the meeting of these two worlds. Science is a human invention. It is the result of a constructed world based on the empirical outlines of the world-already-constructed. And that is not the end of it. As theories attempt to mirror the world, theories however, shape the way we configure it. Since theories are a construction or reconstruction of the world, theories on the other hand, construct or reconstruct our reality.  What then is the theories’ role in these two worlds? If science is a human invention, theories are also human inventions. Human beings have created them.    

The amazing thing about this, in fact, is that though theories are born in a world-under-construction, the subject matter may be about the world-already-constructed or the world-under-construction itself. Theories therefore bridge the world of discovery and the world of interpretation. Theories are, in fact, an interpretation of these two worlds. But don’t be mistaken that theories bring about the world-already-constructed. It is already built. Theories do not create that world. That world exists and perpetuates even without theories or even if theories don’t faithfully reflect that world.

But when we become confronted with how this world was constructed, we begin to inquire, interact and textualize how this world has become, thereby creating the world-under-construction and bringing theories about. The inquiry, interaction and textualization never stop. Theories are brought into being, even if they have been a previous mistake or an inconsistent. In this case, a theory is revised or another competing theory is created to attack and debunk the former one. Still theories are being interacted with. But either way, in a theory’s lifetime, being supported or attacked blows the breath of life on a theory and keeps it alive.

But amazingly still, we are not satisfied in finding out how the world-already-constructed has been made and sustained. We are also intrigued on how our interactions take place. We are concerned with how the world being constructed occurred. Thus another theory is again created to account for it. Theories are human inventions. They are a text. Through them the world already constructed and the world we construct can be read.

Is a theory therefore, the world that impinges on our senses? If you read the theory of gravity for example, and saw the spoon fall on the floor, you did not see a theory. That is the world-already-constructed at work. When you consult the Theory of Gravity, read about how it accounts for the falling of the spoon on the floor, that is the theory at work. If you witness a group of people interacting by way of speech and gestures and there construct their reality on how to deal with certain issues, you did not witness a theory. If you read about Symbolic Interactionism, a theory` that could explain such an occurrence, then you have a theory at work.

A theory is not therefore the world-already-constructed or the world-under-construction. A theory is a text. It lives in another world for which human beings are also confronted with. This is the textual world. What a theory does is to give account of these two worlds. Theories do not search for patterns. That is the work of the researcher or scientist. What a theory does is to pull some principal threads and weave out an overall view of how these patterns work. Theories are made of logically fitted symbols with precisely designated vocabularies possessed with their own values and meanings.

What is a theory then? We have to bear in mind that science is a human invention. Human beings have assumed that science is out there concrete and not affected by the subjectivity of their practitioners. It is true that if an astronomer gazes at the sky through his telescope and theorizes about the exploding stars, he is investigating something concrete. But how the pieces of what he knows are systematized in a body of knowledge and how this embodiment and exposition are accepted in a community of scientists make up what science is all about. The world that a scientist is theorizing is out there but that is not yet science. Once the scientist conceptualizes, systematizes, and exposes his knowledge in a market of ideas where it is challenged and falsified, then what you have is science. Thus science is a human enterprise. It is a human invention.  Even if scientists talk of the natural world, they are still rationalizing a world in the eyes of human beings. The only difference is that they have a method. This is not the world in the eyes of God. If you ask God about a natural phenomenon and He answers you, He may use different terminologies even explain it in a different way.

Thus, as human beings are imperfect, science which they invent is diluted with imperfection. This is the reason why the whole practice of science carries with it the need to challenge, confirm or falsify claims. Yes, once human beings hark on the word science, they clarion that science is divorced from the biases of the practitioner. But in practice, a claim in science is presumed to be correct if many scientists agree with such a claim. Remember, practitioners of science are limited in their view of the world. While truth and validity are not determined by how many scientists agree with the claim, the claim, however, is adjudged to be correct by how many illustrious practitioners agree with the claim, only to be dumbfounded in the future that what they agreed on is not true or deficient of truth. This whole endeavor, therefore, is a human invention.

Scientists discover and interpret. They discover or interpret concepts. Then they invent.  They invent terminologies to account for certain concepts. They invent labels. They try to interpret how these concepts relate with each other. They invent a system of how these concepts are interpreted. They invent how these systematized concepts can be validated. In short, they invent a text. They invent theories. They invent theories with a goal to capture and reflect the world. Theories are therefore a system of language designed, with evidence, to mirror the intricacies and dynamics of the world. This last statement is very significant.

As a system of language, theories are made up of terms precisely defined to capture concepts. These concepts are units which theories analyze. For this purpose theories could be likened to a virus which has a designated zone or part of the body to attack. The terms with which theories are made up of are precisely defined to analyze a unit in order to bring about a concept. These terms and concepts are linked together by virtue of certain relationships. Here is a system made.

For example, Isaac Newton’s Second Law of Motion states that the body in motion will remain in motion unless force sustains it in its movement. The force (F) needed to sustain its motion is directly proportional to the mass (m) of the body and to the rate of change of the body’s velocity or its acceleration (a). If you roll a ball on the floor, it stops at a certain distance. To keep it moving, you would need to continuously apply certain amount of force. Here we have a concept of force as constituted in Newton’s Second Law of Motion. We have terms defining certain concepts such as mass and acceleration. Independently, mass is the amount of matter in an object while acceleration is the change in speed at a certain time. But if we put them together in regard to certain relationship then we have a concept of force where the greater the mass of the object, the more force is needed. The higher the mass however, the slower the acceleration. 

Here is a system of ideas made. Theories are made up of units of analysis which are linked with each other via certain relationships. This system of ideas is nothing but language. Moreover, language devised to explain the world-already-constructed is simply a medium to reflect the world it seeks to explain. The terms are ascribed by the scientist or theorist. Thus came the project of the Vienna School on the purification of language to correspond with observable reality (Outhwaite 1983, 7). This language serves as the medium for theory to use. But for the world-under-construction, language is the theory in itself. The theorist captures the terms which the subjects use. The terms are not implants by the theorist but they are the actual language which the subjects utilize in their everyday lives. This is theory on the ground or grounded theory.

But through language, theories have been created a text. Theories are texts which make the world readable. They are a system of ideas that translate the world into text. They are language systems that mirror the world in order to construct or reconstruct reality. We build theories to reflect and interpret the world but theories shape the way we configure or make sense of it. This is constructed or reconstructed reality for us. We make theories but theories make us as well. These are the main arguments of this book. It is how we see the world and read it that we have come to change it. The next few chapters will illustrate these arguments through the two worlds I am talking about. But then if theories are a text and they mirror the world, the next question would be how faithful are they in reflecting it? The succeeding chapter will answer this question. In the process, I will advance the “Textualized Nature of Theories.” But you have to remember that theories are constructed not to seek for truth. Human beings who constructed theories have only uncovered or discovered a portion of what we may call truth, which becomes tainted with color, and relational subjectivity once relayed and becomes a subject of human interaction. Sometimes we loosely talk of truth. But it is not objective truth that we seek. It is constructed reality.

Journalism, which is a very unscientific preoccupation, prides itself as one which digs for truth. But when journalists go out in the field and gather facts, observe events, ask for interviews, conceive a slant, write the news, and the editor edits it with his own slant, what was produced is not truth but a story, based on how they conceived the story to be. What they collaborated on, though based on observable facts, is a construction or reconstruction of reality. It is not truth but a reality constructed based on how they conceived it to be or based on how it impinged on their senses and consciousness. It is constructed or reconstructed reality based on how they think or sense it to be. Now take a court trial as a more tedious process than journalism. Here human beings have an equal opportunity to present their own sides of a single story unlike journalism which does not have an institutionalized procedure to present two sides of adverse positions. Now lawyers here do not just speak simply of facts, they talk of pieces of evidence that have undergone strict scrutiny. In the environment of questioning, pleading, manifestations, stipulations, where speech and reason are the weapons, judgment is rendered not on the truth which they pride about they seek. But what the two confronting lawyers in front of the judge and jury have created and confirmed is a constructed or reconstructed reality. It is constructed or reconstructed reality based on how they disputed it to be.

Theories are also constructions and reconstructions of reality. It is made up of verifiable rules that make its construction and reconstruction verifiable as well. More importantly, this construction or reconstruction works. It is this construction and reconstruction that make science a human invention. It is an invention that is made up of rules. It is an invention created in language. And such language is also a human invention. Science is an invention that necessitates the invention of theory to construct or reconstruct reality. It is this construction or reconstruction that has translated the world into a text. And through this text, we have come to understand and master the world. Thus it is the way we see the world and read it, that we have come to change it.      

What the next chapter will present is how theories have made the world readable.