Originally posted by TC:
In it's more common (in my experience) usage it is used as a term that encompases the point of view, thinking methods and the point of view of a culture.
Quite right, and it’s one of the most interesting if not amazing words in the English language right now, both for its current use and its history. Imagine “Cinderella” morphing into “Frankenstein’s Monster” and you’ll start to have a good handle on it.
Prior to 1962, the word was basically a simple synonym for a “pattern” or an “exemplar”. But then
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was published, written by Thomas S. Kuhn, a historian/philosopher of science (trained in theoretical physics) who chose the word in order to describe a key element of science that accounts for its success or “progress”. The book was (and still is) a milestone in the field, but unfortunately Kuhn’s use of the word at that time was less than precise (one critic counting a total of twenty-two different contexts).
As a result, and otherwise propelled by the academic success of
Structure, the word literally took on a life of its own and “escaped”. First, social scientists adopted the word to argue that the so-called soft sciences like economics or psychology were no different in kind from the hard sciences like chemistry or physics. Next, philosophers in general expanded their use of the word to characterize distinct schools of thought and complex theories (in history, art, ethics . . . you name it). And finally, inevitably, it “trickled down” and has since spread out (like a weed some would say) into the common culture as TC noted.
The great and/or horrible thing about all this is that because it has become such an elastic and ethereal word its meaning or context is hard to pin down when people do use it or hear it used. Which is why you see its use satirized from time to time (e.g., in a
Simpsons episode, a
New Yorker cartoon, and other venues).
But I must say it does sound good on a capital ship.