An exception proves rather than refutes a paradigm’s dominance

Evidence

The theory of paradigms does not deny but fully acknowledges the existence of these exceptions, arguing that the very exception is precisely that which proves the dominance of central domains, however much exceptions remain integral to the power dynamics within these domains. Claims made in this book about Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism—that they acted “paradigmatically” in ways that provide sharp contrasts to modernity—cannot be in the least invalidated by noting cognate or similar voices from within modernity, voices that otherwise constitute exceptions. For instance, there is no philosopher’s anticapitalist philosophy, or a social or political antimaterialist movement, however vigorous, that can affect the validity of the proposition that capitalism is a central paradigm of modernity. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 27

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the theory of paradigms and its treatment of exceptions
• DEEPTHINKING: A subtle methodological move: exceptions are folded into the very structure of a paradigm’s dominance rather than treated as counterevidence — resists easy summary
• XREF: connects to: Rational selfhood against myth must work through exception rather than defiance — Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 65; Empirical failure to find an optimal capital structure helped birth the MM irrelevance theorem. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 1425