Wikipedia asserts that “A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition.” It goes on to state “Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together. The word paradox is often used interchangeably and wrongly with contradiction; but whereas a contradiction asserts its own opposite, many paradoxes do allow for resolution of some kind.” The “whatis.com” dictionary modulates this definition by indicating that “A paradox is a statement or concept that contains conflicting ideas” – hence extending the definition from embracing only statements to also embracing concepts. Etymologically speaking, the word means “beyond thinking”, just as orthodox means “right thinking”. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary also adds the following : “one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases”.
In this blog, it is assumed that paradoxes are not only a property of statements and concepts, but also of being. This is similar to the way paradoxes are expressed in zen koans. Zen koans are statements such as the popular “what is the sound of one hand clapping”, and hence fall within the definition given by Wikipedia, but they are statements that may engender profound reorganization of the self. In this sense, they evoke paradoxes of being.
These definitions highlight both the relationships between paradox, conflict and contradiction, but they are, for the most part, careful to distinguish between them. Hence when we say that in a convergent world, contradictions will co-exist side-by-side, this is not itself a paradox. As indicated by Wikipedia, paradox implies that a form of resolution is possible. This actually provides a framework for defining paradoxes of being : that is, these are contradictions within being that can be resolved.
However, it should also be clear that a paradox is, by its nature, opposed to an orthodoxy. Paradoxes may be resolved, but never in obvious or predictable ways, and certainly not according to tenets of doctrine. Orthodoxy, for the most parts, seeks to exclude contradictions, to develop a consistent argument. What I call here “paradoxy”, then, is an alternative to orthodoxy in terms of suggesting modes of being and action. Rather than right action being determined by committee, it derives from the resolution of paradox, a resolution which, by its very nature, must follow from the source of the paradox itself.
Paradox is heavily used within certain kinds of psychoanalysis, especially Jungian and Freudian approaches. Jung characterizes an archetype as 'irrepresentable'. Archetypal representations, are therefore, within Jung’s thought, “representations of the irrepresentable” . Jung was also fascinated by the presence of paradox within Zen Buddhism, as revealed by the following comment : “Above all I would mention the koans of Zen Buddhism, those sublime paradoxes that light up, as with a flash of lightning, the inscrutable interrelations between ego and self.” (C.G. Jung, On the nature of the psyche, p. 135). Freud’s theories are also rife with the presence of paradoxes – the opposition between the search for pleasure and the personal destructiveness this can lead to, or between the desire for things that are of necessity forbidden by social conventions, are two examples. There is even a variant of psychoanalysis called Paradox Theory, based on the observation that both Freud and Jung recognized the human mind as based on “opposite forces”.
These ideas further emphasize the notion that paradoxes may not always refer to statements or concepts, but also to behaviors and states of being.
Let us now explore how paradoxes differ from orthodoxies, as this will lay the groundwork for understanding where one is going if one is leaving orthodoxy behind. If orthodoxies are determined by committee or convention, and therefore imposed from without the individual, then paradoxes are determined by the inherent nature of things, and imposed from within the individual. For this reason, there is a relatively strong relationship between paradox and personal forms of spirituality, while organized religion is more strongly associated with orthodoxy and doctrine.
These are mutually exclusive, also, because if one is attentive to one’s inner paradoxes, orthodox thinking will be irrelevant, while one adopts orthodox ideas if one does not entirely trust one’s inner resources. As has been indicated earlier, the concept of a paradox implies something that can be resolved, or that can resolve itself. The process by which resolution is achieved, however, will rarely be straightforward, due to the nature of a paradox.
Of course, paradoxes of being and action may also occur at organizational levels, and not only within individuals. In such situations, organizational paradoxes may come into conflict with organizational doctrines.
“Paradox is what makes life interesting.” (Charles Handy, 1994, The Age of Paradox, p. 13.)
2 comments:
A thought: How would you respond to the suggestion that orthodoxies have and always will be simply illusions, created by those in power to encourage people to live within existing power structures? In this sense, our lives, cultures, etc have also been deeply paradoxical, yet it is only now that we are recognising this. Thus, can what we are experiencing now truly be termed a paradigm shift from orthodoxy to paradoxy?
I think your comment is precisely the point. However, the illusion of orthodoxy, although maintained to reinforce power relations, it also deeply rooted into a socio-cognitive pattern that seeks reassurance and security in ideological standpoints. Although the human experience is always in flux, many humans seek to create the illusion of stability as a means of gaining reference points in complex world.
The notion of stability itself is interesting in this regard – within chaotic dynamics, there are forms of dynamic stability that do not artificially reduce natural complexity. However, if part of a complex system is frozen or damaged, access to such dynamic forms of stability is limited, and other, more restricted forms of stability must be found to act as reference points. These behaviours operate both at the individual or cognitive level and at the collective or social level.
The use of orthodoxy to enforce power relations, to ensure dominance over other people, is both a result of the restrictions in human functioning at the cognitive level and an exploitation or reinforcement of these restrictions. Orthodoxy is illusory, but it is an illusion with powerful behavioural and systemic consequences. The shift in human cognitive and social organization away from the simplicities of orthodoxy towards the complexities of paradoxy, therefore, represents a significant paradigm shift in understanding, and one with significant are far-reaching consequences in social organization.
Thank you for your very insightful comment, and your interesting blog as well!
Post a Comment