Paradigmatic Incommensurability of Thomas Kuhn: Interdisciplinary Study of Jainism and 1SSJS 2007

Summary

"This article critically examines the communication challenges encountered during the 2007 session of the International Summer School for Jain Studies (ISSJS), using Thomas Kuhn’s theory of paradigmatic incommensurability as an interpretive lens. Demers explores how differing disciplinary backgrounds and worldviews—between scholars and between scholars and Jains—can lead to epistemological dissonance, even while engaging with a shared object of study: Jainism. A) Kuhn’s Framework Kuhn's concept of incommensurability describes the disconnect between scientific paradigms that lack shared terminology, values, or problem-solving frameworks. Demers adapts this framework to describe interdisciplinary and intercultural tensions within ISSJS. He highlights three key forms of incommensurability: i) Observational – differing empirical referents. ii) Methodological – lack of common criteria for problem-solving. iii) Conceptual – divergent terminologies and worldviews. B) Case Studies from ISSJS 2007 Demers identifies two broad types of communication problems: i) Interdisciplinary Conflicts – Particularly between historico-philological and socio-anthropological approaches. Scholars often misunderstood one another due to different assumptions about what constitutes valid knowledge (e.g., debates on karma, orthodoxy, or ""Jain identity""). ii) Scholar–Practitioner Gaps – Jains often approached presentations with devotional or doctrinal expectations, while researchers adopted external analytical frameworks. Examples include misinterpretations of embodiment studies, discomfort with critiques of ahimsā, and differing views on the historicity of Jain traditions. C) Reflections and Proposed Solutions Rather than viewing these tensions as failures, Demers argues they reflect the very modernity and dynamic interface of Jainism with global academic discourses. He proposes: i) Epistemological Pluralism – Recognizing diverse disciplines as equally valid in interpreting Jainism. ii) Complementarism (following Georges Devereux) – Allowing multiple paradigms to engage with the same object sequentially, not simultaneously, to preserve clarity and disciplinary integrity. iii) Linguistic Awareness – Careful usage and clarification of key terms (e.g., ‘orthodoxy,’ ‘asceticism,’ ‘religion’) to prevent semantic conflicts. iv) Acculturation and Translation – Encouraging mutual learning between participants, especially from vastly different epistemic traditions.\