62
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
it in the light of its ‘indeterminate potentiality’. Matter is the cause of something
through the provision of the material used to create objects. Without marble, an artist
cannot sculpt a statue. Also of importance are the properties, or the substance, of the
material, since these characteristics can enable or constrain how we shape it. The
material is insignificant, when it is considered on its own: it has no intelligence and
needs an action to become a statue. This brings us to formal causes, namely, the form,
idea or essence of things. The formal cause of the statue would be the idea, image or
shape thereof. These reside in the mind of the artist, with the formal cause being the
pattern or form of something (Kurki 2008). According to Kurki (2008: 27) ‘…formal
causes define and “actualise” material potentiality into things or substances’.
Agential or efficient causes are the primary sources of change. These foundations
could be any ‘agential mover’, or an ‘act of doing something’ (Kurki 2008: 27),
namely, a practice. That said, the efficient or agential cause of the statue is the
sculptor or the act of sculpting, while the final cause is the purpose that guides the
change. For instance, we walk and do other exercises to be healthy and by stating
this, we assign a cause to the action (Kurki 2008).
Lebow (2014) has added a fifth type of cause, namely, inefficient causation, which
rests on the notion of singular causation. According to Lebow (2014: 5–6, 36), when
events take place:
[w]e can construct causal narratives about [their] outcomes, but they cannot be explained or
predicted by reference to prior generalisations or narratives. Nor do they allow us to predict
future events. Singular cause refers to events that are causal but non-repetitive.
According to Lebow (2014), David Hume denied the existence of singular causes
and, in the process, this restricts our thinking about non-material types of cause, such
as norms, rules and emotions.
The typology of causes, as described above, is ‘flexible and sensitive to pragmatic
concerns of explanation’ (Kurki 2008: 28). Unlike the Humean restrictive notion of
cause, the different types of causes, as outlined by Aristotle (Kurki 2008) and Lebow
(2014), bring into focus the intangible forces behind the cause, namely, the ideas,
norms, principles and beliefs, as well as the paradigms and theories. These can be
formal causes because they define the structure of social relations when constituting
practices, in that they relate agents and their social roles to each other, and the meaning
that is inherent in them. These ideational elements ‘describe the rules and relations
that define social positions and relationships, and hence’, they are ‘“that according
to which” social reality works’ (Kurki 2006: 207). In a sense, researchers can see
these non-material sources of cause ‘constraining and enabling’ other triggers (Kurki
2006).
Paradigms, Theories and Causation
Why are research paradigms and theories important when considering cause and
causal relations? Since paradigms and theories are formal causes in society and they
have ‘constraining and enabling’ effects on social relations, we are confronted with a
2 The Use of Paradigms and Theories in the PULSE 3 …
it in the light of its ‘indeterminate potentiality’. Matter is the cause of something
through the provision of the material used to create objects. Without marble, an artist
cannot sculpt a statue. Also of importance are the properties, or the substance, of the
material, since these characteristics can enable or constrain how we shape it. The
material is insignificant, when it is considered on its own: it has no intelligence and
needs an action to become a statue. This brings us to formal causes, namely, the form,
idea or essence of things. The formal cause of the statue would be the idea, image or
shape thereof. These reside in the mind of the artist, with the formal cause being the
pattern or form of something (Kurki 2008). According to Kurki (2008: 27) ‘…formal
causes define and “actualise” material potentiality into things or substances’.
Agential or efficient causes are the primary sources of change. These foundations
could be any ‘agential mover’, or an ‘act of doing something’ (Kurki 2008: 27),
namely, a practice. That said, the efficient or agential cause of the statue is the
sculptor or the act of sculpting, while the final cause is the purpose that guides the
change. For instance, we walk and do other exercises to be healthy and by stating
this, we assign a cause to the action (Kurki 2008).
Lebow (2014) has added a fifth type of cause, namely, inefficient causation, which
rests on the notion of singular causation. According to Lebow (2014: 5–6, 36), when
events take place:
[w]e can construct causal narratives about [their] outcomes, but they cannot be explained or
predicted by reference to prior generalisations or narratives. Nor do they allow us to predict
future events. Singular cause refers to events that are causal but non-repetitive.
According to Lebow (2014), David Hume denied the existence of singular causes
and, in the process, this restricts our thinking about non-material types of cause, such
as norms, rules and emotions.
The typology of causes, as described above, is ‘flexible and sensitive to pragmatic
concerns of explanation’ (Kurki 2008: 28). Unlike the Humean restrictive notion of
cause, the different types of causes, as outlined by Aristotle (Kurki 2008) and Lebow
(2014), bring into focus the intangible forces behind the cause, namely, the ideas,
norms, principles and beliefs, as well as the paradigms and theories. These can be
formal causes because they define the structure of social relations when constituting
practices, in that they relate agents and their social roles to each other, and the meaning
that is inherent in them. These ideational elements ‘describe the rules and relations
that define social positions and relationships, and hence’, they are ‘“that according
to which” social reality works’ (Kurki 2006: 207). In a sense, researchers can see
these non-material sources of cause ‘constraining and enabling’ other triggers (Kurki
2006).
Paradigms, Theories and Causation
Why are research paradigms and theories important when considering cause and
causal relations? Since paradigms and theories are formal causes in society and they
have ‘constraining and enabling’ effects on social relations, we are confronted with a