The Triumph Of Mechanistic Thinking In The Social Sciences

In every one of the natural sciences, the destructiveness of mechanistic thinking is contained in its characteristics:

1) It is causal in a mechanistic way.  For example, all that needs to be done to have a democratic society is to get rid of the repressive regime.  Nothing is said of what the conditions in social living must be before this change from a dictatorship  to a democracy can happen or why the repressive regime has been in power in the first place.

2) Quantitative factors to achieve a democracy are the only ones that are considered important; qualitative factors are ignored.  For example, what is necessary to have a successful revolution is to have a majority of people who are opposed to the regime in power.  It does not matter whether or not these people share the same ideas about what the goals of the revolution are.  These qualitative differences in people’s socio-political character structure, which in reality may be insurmountable, are things that somehow can be worked out later.

3) Only external, environmental factors are important in determining human behavior; internal factors such as people’s emotional dependency on others and their inability to do productive work do not count.  Thus, the effects of character armor in influencing how people think and behave in society can be effectively ignored and the source of human destructiveness pass unnoticed by almost everyone.

History has repeatedly shown that when  dictators have been brought down and people are faced with having to govern themselves, their political differences, inability to organize rationally and personal problems come to the surface.  Then, social armor becomes even more entrenched and social conditions become worse than they were before the revolution.


  1. It is astounding to realize that the (anti-feeling) intellectuals who are the purveyors of mechanistic thinking do not really accept modern psychology at all, but just pay lip-service to it. This puts them on a most superficial level when they try to understand social problems since their solutions -as you have stated- are causal. Whereas orgonomy understands the three different layers of character from a biological domain and puts the mechanist at the superficial one, the very fact that from a psychological domain they do not believe in the unconscious should be a wake-up call to their ignorance. In lieu of having rational logic with a true understanding of human nature, the mechanist resorts to using the emotional plague/political correctness, with all its destructive outcomes.

  2. hAB3Yp Sounds great to me BWTHDIK

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 137 other subscribers
  • Follow Charles Konia, M.D.’s Tweets on Twitter

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Amazon

  • See Charles Konia, M.D. on Facebook

  • American College of Orgonomy