In the first chapter of Paul G. Hiebert's book, we saw how the author exposed the flaws of positivism and of modern science and Christianity that relied on this epistemological foundation. In the second chapter, Hiebert shifted his discussion to instrumentalism and idealism as alternatives to positivism. In this article, we will only limit our discussion to the characteristics of one of these two alternative post-positivist and post-modernist epistemologies. We will start with instrumentalism.
The first response to the collapse of positivism is instrumentalism. Its other name is pragmatism.
Subjective Reality and Meaning
Instrumentalism doesn't accept objective knowledge. Its first characteristic is defined as subjective realism. Contrary to the positivist stance that reality can be captured by accurate language, instrumentalism interprets language as "cultural conventions" (p. 40). To properly understand words, we must first understand the sentences and paragraphs in which they are found; and then to understand sentences and paragraphs, we must also understand the particular social situations where they are used. Here we see the importance of the context of a specific worldview to understand the meaning of the words.
Since reality and meaning are subjective, it affects our understanding of communication. It cannot be done "by the accurate transmission of objective facts . . ." (p. 41). The orientation in communication shifted from the speaker perspective to the receiver or listener perspective. "Sender-oriented communication does not guarantee that the people understand the message accurately" (p. 42).
Nonreductionistic
Another characteristic of instrumentalism is nonreductionistic. By this term, Hiebert contrasts this to the inherent character of positivism to organize "systems of belief into one coherent picture of reality" (p. 43). In instrumentalism, there is no need for that for "it can accept different theories about different realities without forcing them into one coherent picture" (ibid.).
Truth as Casualty
Since in instrumentalism one cannot conclude which belief system is better, for Hiebert the quest for truth should be given up. An instrumentalist cannot prescribe certain phenomenon as truth; the best it can do is confined to description, a flaw that is similar to positivism.
Since truth is beyond the reach of instrumentalism, the only criterion left then is the utility or the workability of a specific scientific theory.
Philosophical Relativism
The denial of human ability to come up with the truth in instrumentalism, this will logically end in philosophical relativism.
Community of Experts as the New Authority
Reaching this section, I realized that instrumentalism is the air we breath now in the academe. Contrary to the positivist stance that authority resides in the individual, in instrumentalism, the individual has been replaced by the community of experts. The process is to have a dialogue within the community to reach the goal, the experts' consensus that has undergone community validation.
Dealing with Conflicts in Opinion
Unlike in positivism that disagreement is considered a serious matter, in instrumentalism since no one can identify the truth, toleration is the norm. In such an atmosphere, conflict in opinions are embraced as expressions of diversity.
Among the above six identified characteristics of instrumentalism, the last two are most appealing especially the fifth one. I came up to this conclusion after attending a conference hosted by Asia Theological Association I think some time in 2017.
Grace and peace!
Reference:
Hiebert, Paul G. 1999. Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World. PA: Trinity Press International.
Note: Though the image has nothing to do with the content of the article, I find the art work generated by openart.ai too beautiful not to be shared. That's the painting generated by AI after including the key word "instrumentalism" in the prompt.