In teaching theory, we risk rendering theory meaningless. Economists, political theorists, literary critics, sociology — all are in the same boat. Like scientists and psychologists, sociologists must take into account the Hawthorne Effect, which, generally speaking, is a theory concerning how participants alter their activities once they are aware that they are in an experiment.1 The very presence of countless sociological and educational articles, lectures, and books online — which can spread quickly like memes — may change the very way societies act.2 This may render what the data claims about societies wrong, making it seem as if the data was always wrong; on the other hand, the data may make societies suddenly act in the way the data suggests, making it seem as if the data was always right.
The writer who is aware of James Joyce may see his or her self ‘like Joyce’, and this simile will result in the writer acting and creating differently. The society that is aware that it is becoming less violent will not act the same as a society that is becoming less violent and unaware of it. The society aware of Marxism will not develop the same way as does the Marxist society unaware of Marxism.
A reader reinvents his or her self with every book; though the reader can later change, with every page turn, the reader has no choice but to be who he or she has now become. Likewise, a society aware of Marxism cannot go back to being a society unaware of it; it must deal with the cards it has been dealt. As a scientist must stand on the shoulders of those who came before, so societies must do the same. As this ‘standing’ robs glory from a scientist who invents a light bulb on his own today, so too it may render the advancements of nations void. Therefore, it is important that societies today be aware of ‘Theoretical-Awareness’ lest they simply ‘invent the wheel’ over and over again in their efforts to address real and present problems. Yet, ironically, the more a society becomes aware of previous modes of thought and accomplishments, the more it risks rendering its own thoughts and accomplishments vain: the thrill of ignorance is lost. If it never runs this risk, it can never see the greatest distances, for it will stand in place, afraid of standing upon shoulders.
For the first time, humans live in a world in which the majority is conscious of how societies historically change, function, and collapse; furthermore, they are aware of how historical epochs come about and understand themselves within the context of such epochs. Few during Modernism considered themselves Modernists in comparison to the number of individuals who consider themselves Postmodernists during Postmodernism today. Through history, there has been a gradual increase in the number of individuals who readily align themselves with theoretical constructs that define the age they are living in, and this has transformed the way people live and act. Lacking modern technologies, those alive during the French Revolution would not have seen themselves as living during a time that was the subject of the works by Burke and Tocqueville. Though Burke predicted the rise of Napoleon, most were ignorant of Burke.3 Today, many are aware of Burke’s prediction; as a result, many feel equipped to predict which policy decisions will lead to a modern ‘Reign of Terror’, and, in concordance, the way they think and act changes. Consciousness of historical periods transforms how present history unfolds. Perhaps this causes a ‘Reign of Terror’ to be avoided; perhaps this causes something worse — I don’t know. My point is simply that, for the first time, societies are conscious of themselves, and theories that do not take this into account will not be as valuable as they could be in determining how societies should act presently (assuming theories can be of service at all).
Julian Huxley claimed humans are ‘in whose person the evolutionary process has at last become conscious of itself’.4 Similarly, I believe the present world is in what history and socioeconomics have finally reached self-awareness. There have been sociologists, anthropologists, and such for years, but until now, the majority lacked an awareness of their own self-awareness; the rampant access to information that has made this self-awareness more influential and prevalent. This doesn’t mean the majority does or doesn’t have any expertise in these given fields of study, but that many think they have expertise. Never before has there been a society so full of sociologists and those who believe they are sociologists. Consequently, as will be explored, sociological theories that predict how societies will act no longer readily apply. When societies seem most predictable they are most unpredictable.
People think of themselves living within the schemas of various theories, and they engage with the world through those theoretical lenses rather than directly and with a clear mind. This shift can be dangerous and wasteful, as is the shift to learning about a hammer by thinking about it versus using it (to allude to Heidegger).5 People ‘press’ their thinking down upon the world rather than let their thinking emerge up from the world, per se. As a result, the way people engage with and understand the world changes; for example, those who understand the American economy within the construct created by Adam Smith, having learned it from off Youtube or from a lecture at the University of Chicago, will understand and engage with the economy differently than the one who understands it through Keynesianism and yet both people will be dealing with the same entity. The reality of the system changes relative to the observer in concordance with his or her mindset. This is similar to the phenomenon in Physics called ‘The Observer Effect’, in which a particle presents itself differently depending on who is observing it and how it is being observed.6
Humans select assumptions and beliefs based on what they observe. If what two individuals observe changes by their very act of studying (which is the act that combines the observation with their thoughts), those individuals may acquire differing opinions about what they saw and what theories the observation legitimizes. An example of this phenomenon can be found in how those who believe in Capitalism interpret the 2008 Housing Bubble. They take it as evidence that government involvement caused the failure, while Liberals interpret the incident as proof that more government involvement is needed. Since it is the case that what the two parties observe transforms because of the act of observation itself, it is incredibly difficult if not impossible to show either side something that will make them change their opinion. The awareness the two sides have of economic theory and past events only further justifies the way they interpret their observations, for in studying the past, their act of observing it transforms what they see into that which justifies their positions. Awareness of historic interpretations of the economy by experts who too were prone to the same Observer Effect will only further influence the way those individuals engage with (or fail to engage with) the world.
Hegelians will perceive the actions of their governments differently than will those who are unfamiliar with the German Philosopher. This will cause the Hegelians to vote a certain way and may even influence the overall way the Hegelians chose to live. Though it is unclear whether it is good to think like a Hegelian, I believe it is unwise to title one’s self ‘a Hegelian’, as it is unwise to call one’s self ‘a Capitalist, ‘a Kantian’, etc. — there are countless titles to choose. Never is a person’s capacity to think for their self at greater risk than when they grant themselves a title, for not only will their capacity to observe be affected, but to the degree the person makes such a declaration is to the degree they will be tempted to defend a position rather than pursue the truth. In line with the Observer Effect, since their act of observation will transform what such a person sees, that individual will believe he or she has evidence justifying and necessitating this act of defense, and so be tempted to fall deeper into a self-enforcing cycle. Those who call themselves ‘Liberals’ or ‘Conservatives’, ‘Republicans’ or ‘Democrats’, etc. are those I believe threaten the American political system. Likewise, those who readily call themselves ‘Capitalists’ or ‘Marxists’ threaten economic truth, as those who assert to being ‘a Faulkner’ or ‘a Joyce’ threaten literature. The granting of one’s self such a title results in a transformation in how one conceptualizes and understands their self, acts, lives, and interprets all phenomena. Ironically, the more fields like economics, politics, sociology, etc. are taught, the more individuals will be tempted to grant themselves a title.
A title is a lens. The moment an individual or group is aware of itself within a theoretical construct, like participants aware that they are in an experiment, their actions and attitudes will change. Randall Collins, through his extraordinary A Global Theory of Intellectual Change, makes it clear that new ideas form along the borders of intellectual circles that disagree with one another.7 Unfortunately, a society full of individuals who readily identify themselves as ‘Liberals’, for example, will naturally isolate themselves from the wrongheaded ‘Conservatives’ (in choosing a place to live, social gatherings, etc.), afraid of having their identities undermined or constantly confronted and believing they see evidence justifying such action (due to the Observer Effect). Never before in America has it been easier for people — in the name of justice, saving America, etc. — to separate themselves from those with whom they disagree, and never before has it been so tempting. The more people fall into this temptation, the more idea creation and empathy will decrease (to name some consequence), which will lower wealth creation and intellectual advancement while raising existential angst, psychological tension, spiritual apathy, and depression.
On the other hand, thanks to the same technologies that have contributed to social, intellectual, and political divisiveness, the wide availability of theories, ideas, and material by brilliant minds enables societies to achieve levels of education and knowledge the likes of which the world has never seen before. With so much material readily available, the kinds of achievements that could happen today could far surpass the works that have come before. Assuming, of course, people have not lost their capacity to be creative (something Ken Robinson warns that the education system contributes to), and assuming that people do not sacrifice their ability to think for themselves in order to be ‘a Kantian’, ‘a Marx scholar’, or ‘an INTJ’.8 We need our societies to cultivate citizens who can handle theories and ideas without being negatively altered by them, using them instead to create new, intelligent, and creative edifices. Hopefully, this age is one that doesn’t today lack the institutions which cultivate such people.
Terms like ‘Marxism’ and ‘Capitalism’ represent a kind of parameter for social development. People consider themselves a ‘Marxist’ or ‘Capitalist’: they do not consider themselves a ‘John-ist’, even though John down the street may have a superior theory. This ‘John-ist’ term lacks authority; maybe a hundred years from now, John will have passed the test of time and study, but until then, to be a ‘John-ist’ is to be no one. New ideas are naturally resisted, and those who try to align with new theoretical constructs tend to be exiled. In a social context, if a person is to be understood, he or she must align with a familiar/authoritative thinker or system; if the individual refrains from doing this, others will try to push him or her into some category, as those who desire to say ‘I am John’ will be pressured into ‘I am a doctor’. Paradoxically, theories rarely take into account how their very presence results in people pushing and molding one another into their constructs.
The theories and thinkers of the past are the standards by which the present people act and understand those around them. The terms a society accepts will determine the theoretical lenses through which that society understands itself, and this self-awareness will transform the way the society behaves, thinks, and develops. It is because people are aware of Marx and Lenin that the idea to protest on Wall Street dawns upon the people so readily, and it is through these thinkers that spectators of the protestors will interpret and understand what the protestors are doing. The spectators may call them ‘Socialists’ or ‘Anarchists’, aligning the protestors with the theoretical constructs the spectators are familiar with. Believing they ‘know’ what these people are all about — an impression made possible by their understanding of various theories — the spectators will feel immediate admiration or disproval, and it is this kind of ‘knowing judgment’ which can cost a society its creative, holistic, bipartisan, and novel thinking, necessary for prosperity.
Ironically, despite the authority that various terms bear, those terms are ultimately arbitrary in themselves: their power comes more so from a kind of ‘social contract’ than they do from any actual substance. If a term like ‘Marxism’ was attached to the definition of ‘Capitalism’, individuals would, logically and rationally, call America a Marxist country. As numbers cannot be axiomatic or self-justifying according to Gödel, neither can theories.9 And yet people must live as if they are authoritative: citizens cannot live as if Marxism isn’t Marxism, as if 1 = 2 (though, as with theories, once a society is aware that 1 = 1 cannot be axiomatic, the society cannot approach 1 as it did before Gödel: numbers and theories are forever different). Despite their arbitrariness, terms of some nature are necessary for thought to build upon itself through time. Terms and theories will always be present, and so one must study society considering the presence, use, and internalization of these arbitrary terms and theories.
Since a society’s authoritative terms are ultimately arbitrary, one must study society recognizing the possibility of citizens refusing to assent to the ‘social contracts’ granting certain terms legitimacy. Also, in being arbitrary, the meanings of the terms aren’t self-evident; consequently, participants can misinterpret them and formulate interpretations relative to their interests and backgrounds. Therefore, social theories must take into account not only self-aware societies, but societies with self-awareness that are always in flux and open to redefinition, even though the terms of its awareness may seem unchanging. What it means to call a society ‘Marxist’ to one person will mean something different to another, and the two people will respond differently in becoming aware that their society is ‘Marxist’. Like weather forecasts, ‘self-aware’ theories that take into account ‘Theoretical-Awareness’ can map out possible directions of a society based on the different ways a term like ‘Marxism’ can be interpreted. Such theories can ascribe likelihoods to courses of action based on the degree the society is enamored or repulsed by a term like ‘Marxism’ (and so is likely to go full speed in the opposite, socioeconomic direction upon being called it). Ultimately, the possible directions of a society far exceed what any theory can calculate, but since a society must theorize (if for anything, to at least have authoritative terms by which to understand itself and achieve a sense of stability), valuable theories will take into account how there is much more the theories cannot entail than can. In a sense, theories should be anti-theoretical.
Like any field, for Sociology to be current rather than historic, the field must understand not just societies, but ‘self-aware’ societies. Theoretical-Awareness, like self-awareness, can be good or bad. Awareness of the ‘Bystander Effect’ has resulted in the phenomenon happening less, as awareness of Revolutionary texts have increased the willingness of individuals to revolt and protest, but even when unjustified.10 Violent videogames and pessimistic news has increased societal capacity for violence and apathy, as awareness of Martin Luther King Jr. has increased capacity for love and justice. The Theoretically-Awareness society is neither better nor worse; it is different. My point is simply that sociological, economic, and political theories that do not take into account the awareness of the participants of those theories will not address reality as well as they could. For one, the theories will fail to recognize that a S Theoretically-Awareness society is one that is prone to sudden and unpredictable changes or accelerations in development; for the very reason that it is self-aware, the society is ‘black swan’-prone.11 Whether this is good or bad depends on the nature and direction of the shift. Also, theories that fail to identify Theoretical-Awareness will not be theories that enable a society to ‘stand upon the shoulders of those before it’; in failing to identify reality, the theories will fail to enable the society to advance as it could, thereby increasing the likelihood of social regression.
Theoretical-Awareness, driven by technology, has contributed to the advent of a highly bipolar, unpredictable, and rapidly altering world. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, an individual who is aware of Capitalism may act in such a way that assumes that what the theory forecasts will be the case, hence making those forecasts come to pass and always seem right. On the other hand, a Christian who hears that America has become ‘Post-Christian’ may be incentivized to launch a series of mass revivals that change the religious landscape of America for generations. The sociological studies that find that marriages are falling apart may contribute either to an increase in divorce or a rebellious increase in marriage stability. No one can say for sure: with knowledge, information increases uncertainty.
Those who believe they are in a Post-Christian world will act differently than those in the same world unaware of it; the student who has read Locke will act differently in a Lockean society, and may contribute to making it un-Lockean or too Lockean; an evolving society aware of Evolution will evolve differently.12 As a television camera directed toward the screen it is hooked into will depict an eternal regression, so it is possible a society aware of itself will regress too, especially if it is unaware of its self-awareness.
In closing, this paper has not intended to argue that theories can never be right or wrong, but rather to point out that as it is difficult to tell if Schrodinger’s Cat is alive, dead, or both, it is likewise difficult to tell which theories by their presence make themselves right or wrong from those that are right or wrong in themselves. Furthermore, theories about the present world that fail to take Theoretical-Awareness into account will simply retrace old parameters long after societies have stepped beyond them, hence failing to provide direction that could save society from mistakes and regression.13 Yet, even this paper may itself fall into the same trap: after reading this work, societies might be ‘Aware of Theoretical-Awareness’, then ‘Aware of the Awareness of Theoretical-Awareness’, and so on. It is perhaps futile to make people aware of their own awareness, for awareness may instantly become an awareness of facades. All theories eternally regress, yet theorize we must lest there be nothing to regress.
We regress if we don’t theorize and if we do.
‘Man is a useless passion’, Sartre theorized, usefully unemotional.14
1For more information on the Hawthorne Effect:
3Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France. Penguin Classics, 1986: 342.
4Huxley, Julian. “The New Divinity.” Essays from a Humanist. Chatto & Windus, 1964.
5Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2008: 98–99.
6Please note that this paper draws a distinction between the Uncertainty Principle, which deals with measurement, and the Observer Effect, which deals with observation itself.
7Collins, Randal. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998: 791 and “Meta-Reflections” (in general).
8For more on Ken Robinson:
9For more information on Kurt Gödel:
10For more information on the ‘Bystander Effect’:
11For more information on ‘Black Swans’:
12Once humans became aware of evolution, humans started wondering why they should be moral, seeing they’re just animals. If evolution developed morality, then becoming aware of the Theory of Evolution worked against this development. Discovering evolution changed evolution.
13The time it takes to study a subject in the academy may all make ‘keeping up’ impossible, but to speed up the process is to make it increasingly unreliable.
14The conclusion of Being and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sartre.