Against the Tyranny of the Method
From Theater to Experimental Thinking
When fiction enters the theatre, a game of deception and pretence begins. According to Elena Esposito, it was a problematic innovation during the Baroque but nonetheless, an innovation representing a societal shift towards abstraction and experimentation. Let me elaborate.
In theatre, deception is part of the program. For the spectator, it’s a game of not being able to distinguish truth and fiction anymore clearly. At the same time, however, not only the plot but also the intention of the figures are observable — an ambiguity between the pretended and what is actually observable.
In a time where society continuously increases in complexity, reality becomes unpenetrable. The fiction presented in this way in theatre, on the other hand, offers transparent deception — like observing the reality of a second degree.
Fiction creates a second world, not telling the story of a real person but imitating them. The spectator knows about them being invented but they live in penetrable conditions making observation possible. These are conditions that usually never occur in real life because it’s too idealised and abstracted away from cloudy information.
That’s where we obtain the analogy to experimental thinking. We idealise a certain situation to make it observable and, thus, can derive valuable insights for our lives, which are often too complex to grasp. This marked a shift of modes of thinking towards idealised experiments, optimised methods of observation, and objectification of sensual experience with intellectualisation — a shift also described in the philosophy of technology by Arnold Gehlen.
Rise of the Method
The consequence however of informing of this process of objectification is the replacement of direct sensual experience with intellectualisation. Intellectualisation, for example, the mathematisation of psychology, continues to densensualise us also means that the individual is confronted with a higher degree of multidimensional information and interdisciplinarity. The arts are also affected by this phenomenon. While the word is already a created distance of the directly perceivable sensual experience, poetry goes even further now than this simple objectification of moods. The artistic techniques to perfect one’s poem include also the process of analysis after having actually written it. The same is true for architecture, which can be completely separated from the physical and material reality during the design phase.
In this similar methodical style, the arts and science make use of the intellect in the same manner:
- Reversing conditions (e.g., the architect can start with abstract designs before thinking about the material).
- Attraction towards the purity of these abstract solutions.
- Independence of the self-explanatory, that is isolating the object of discourse.
Another aspect that closely follows this strong abstraction process in methodologies. During the isolation of different disciplines, methods themselves became the object of research by switching the focus of observation. With more developed technologies, the mindset of what is possibly changed. Instead of focusing on what is realisable, the design became an independent process that doesn’t need to think of realisation anymore.
In other words, technology is not bound to its purpose anymore but cares more about means of representation and of thinking, while also varying the types of procedures. By losing sight of the purpose of a certain technology, its realisation is secondary. It’s enough to continue researching its variation and its concrete use will follow. An example of this is the architect who plays with forms and shapes without thinking primarily of the material. Bringing the shape of the material to life will follow later on.
But that means that technology and techniques as such return to their original meaning. It means again craftsmanship, proficiency, and the mastery of controlling successful outcomes. Switching to this focus allows now to introduce experimentalism and methodology into art and science. Yes, even art went through a similar process of abstraction and focusing on techniques.
Of course, we had even earlier single personalities that were so experimental regarding methodology. In the Middle Ages, we made a lot of progress in military technology thanks to artists attempting to represent three-dimensional spaces. However, what is new is that this way of thinking is quite normal in the broader mass of our society.
All in all, this evolution of focusing on methods instead of content is still so prominent as it’s successful. However, rationalising everything such that its form becomes independent of course also desensualise the objects we encounter. This might be another symptom of the alienated modern society that has its roots in the rise of methodology.
Methodological Anarchism
Now we come to the philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend. He is famously known for his rather polemic treatise of what he called “theoretical anarchism” (often also called “methodological anarchism”). Even though he himself is joking with the term “anarchism”, it is quite fitting for his worldview.
When looking at the history of discoveries, it is quite undeniable that a lot of the scientific revolutions were rather many-sided and random. It’s often not clear what methodology was used. Indeed, that was often the case due to methodologies not invented and used yet.
What this should point out is simply the fact that the attempt to create universal methods and to make them absolute remains futile. This path is never able to really encapsulate the complexities of the multidimensional interactions of the history of culture. Participation in developing new methodologies, hence, always requires a pinch of opportunism.
Feyerabend concludes that any rigid tradition of a discipline should therefore be avoided. The object of research is mostly unknown which never gives the observer the guarantee of having chosen the correct method of acquiring knowledge about it. Secondly, the rigid methodology is inhumane. It restricts creativity and individuality, preventing these people from living a free and dignified life.
Of course, one could argue that this is a quite relativistic perspective on science and truth. However, I’d say that this evolution of abstraction into methods that force humans to adhere to certain principles really is tyrannic. It robs us of the freedom to experiment freely while also desensualising us from any real experience. It further leads to an alienated society that understands better understands arbitrary rules of rationality better than actual human values.
Sources
The fiction of probable realities — Elena Esposito
Man in the Age of Technology — Arnold Gehlen
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge — Paul Feyerabend
