The tendency to reduce theoretical
constructions to what is perceived as their most basic level is
deeply embedded in the minds of many. In some cases it is important
to think of things in simpler terms, as this may help the
understanding to parse difficult theories or statements. In other
cases, however, it becomes a vice. This is readily apparent—what is
not so apparent is how deep the problem really goes. To give a
personal example:
My Asian studies class was discussing
the Vietnamese diaspora, and one of my classmates raised a hand and
said, totally seriously, “I don't understand, aren't we all just
African diaspora?” The confusion continued, with people unable to
grasp that a time-period could simply be defined. They kept trying to
reduce it further back in time for no reason. The fact that we could
go further back in time to define the ancestral homeland did not mean
we had to in order to give the concept meaning. In fact, to reduce it
further back destroyed the meaning in the context of the discussion.
Why do people consistently attempt to
reduce things to basic constituents, to the “first” moment, or
other such things? It is surely a product of society, namely and
primarily the ubiquitous reduction of things to economic factors. The
violence done against phenomena in pressing them into quantitative
economic determinations is mirrored in everyday mental processes such
as trying to understand concepts like diaspora. It obviously was
understood as a concept, as it was immediately applied to Africa; my
classmate's definition was correct. However, a cognitive reflex
occurred thereafter which attempted to invalidate the concept because
it was not “objectively” defined quantitatively. The meaning of
alternative, context-sensitive definitions of time-period for use
with the concept was rejected.
Reduction destroys the specificity of
pronouncements.
