451
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

The influence of Newtonian‐Cartesian scientific thinking on the interpretation of welfare and development

&
Pages 49-67 | Published online: 27 Feb 2008
 

Abstract

Development planning is essentially an exercise in strategy formulation and implementation. The first step in strategy formulation is the design of effective practice: doing the right things. Therefore strategic thinking requires that the context be considered before the particular. This requires a metaperspective.

In scientific practice such a metaperspective requires first of all an inquiry into the appropriateness of the paradigms, theories and models that are used in research and practice. The purpose of this article is to contribute to the vibrant discourse on development and welfare theory by proposing that this discourse is caught in the thought trap of the Newtonian‐Cartesian scientific culture of reductionism, disciplinarity and multidisciplinarity.

The evolution of scientific tradition from classical to Newtonian‐Cartesian is reviewed and also the contrasting societal and developmental implications of changes in this tradition. Tönnies's social transition theory and technological innovation are used to illustrate the need for a synthesis between the classical and modern traditions of science, in particular between the search for wisdom and understanding which dominated classical science and insight and specialised knowledge which regulate progress in modem science.

It is proposed that the social systems approach (the ‘soft’ systems approach) can provide some guidelines for a metaperspective (a grand synthesis) for studies in social welfare and human development The social systems approach is transdisciplinary and its process of synthesis differs fundamentally from the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary procedures that are often used to provide a synthesis between projects and disciplines in development planning. Its proposed synthesis also differs in important respects from the structure‐functionalist approach ofTalcott Parsons.

Notes

Respectively Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Stellenbosch; and Director, Institute for Futures Research, University of Stellenbosch.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.