Scholarlink

<p>The social-organism metaphor remains a powerful heuristic in social theory yet carries persistent epistemic risks when transferred uncritically. This paper defends a practice oriented middle path: metaphors are human artifacts and therefore subject to epistemic governance. First, the argument diagnoses three category errors that commonly afflict organismic reasoning, namely teleological importation, reductive biological literalism, and boundary mismapping across levels of organization. Second, the paper connects philosophical criteria for analogical strength to concrete methodological consequences, showing how Hesse, Cartwright, and Kuhn bear on case selection, hypothesis design, and sensitivity analysis. Third, a set of reflexive safeguards is proposed, including explicit mapping of positive and negative analogies, formalization tests, scale audits, and a normative audit that reveals who benefits from particular framings. Two worked examples and practical templates demonstrate how hybrid models that combine organismic, network, and cybernetic perspectives can preserve heuristic value while avoiding distortions. The conclusion recommends procedural rather than prohibitive responses: discipline metaphorical reasoning so that it illuminates rather than obscures social complexity.&#xa0;</p><p><b>Clinical trial number</b>: Not applicable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Epistemological Boundary of the Social-organism Metaphor

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月16日

查看全文
  • Jingduo Hu

摘要

The social-organism metaphor remains a powerful heuristic in social theory yet carries persistent epistemic risks when transferred uncritically. This paper defends a practice oriented middle path: metaphors are human artifacts and therefore subject to epistemic governance. First, the argument diagnoses three category errors that commonly afflict organismic reasoning, namely teleological importation, reductive biological literalism, and boundary mismapping across levels of organization. Second, the paper connects philosophical criteria for analogical strength to concrete methodological consequences, showing how Hesse, Cartwright, and Kuhn bear on case selection, hypothesis design, and sensitivity analysis. Third, a set of reflexive safeguards is proposed, including explicit mapping of positive and negative analogies, formalization tests, scale audits, and a normative audit that reveals who benefits from particular framings. Two worked examples and practical templates demonstrate how hybrid models that combine organismic, network, and cybernetic perspectives can preserve heuristic value while avoiding distortions. The conclusion recommends procedural rather than prohibitive responses: discipline metaphorical reasoning so that it illuminates rather than obscures social complexity. 

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.