Each elimination of obscure constructions or notions that we manage to achieve, by paraphrase into more lucid elements, is a clarification of the conceptual scheme of science. The same motives that impel scientists to seek ever simpler and clearer theories adequate to the subject matter of their special sciences are motives for simplification and clarification of the broader framework shared by all the sciences. Here the objective is called philosophical, because of the breadth of the framework concerned; but the motivation is the same. The quest of a simplest, clearest overall pattern of canonical notation is not to be distinguished from a quest of ultimate categories, a limning of the most general traits of reality.--Quine Word and Object, 146-147
Quine's philosophy of science is now primarily understood in terms of his naturalism which makes the distinction between science and philosophy, or metaphysics, blurry. But as is, I assume, well known, he also embraced a distinct task for the philosopher: to paraphrase and thereby regiment scientific language into a simpler and clarified language. This task turns philosophy into a mopping up operation behind the research frontiers of science, but better a job than no job. And while Quine keeps his distance from Neurath's preference for orchestration of the unified language of science, it is notable that Quine thinks there is a possible regimented language of the broader framework shared by all the sciences. This part of Quine ("ultimate categories, a limning of the most general traits of reality") is beloved by post-Lewisian metaphysicians with their fondness for fundamental languages at the end of scientific development.
Quine devotes the whole of chapter 5 of Word and Object to regimentation, so I do not mean to suggest my previous paragraph is suitable paraphrase for the idea. In particular, there are interesting questions to be asked about the nature of the regimented (logical) language, the relationship between the regimented languages of the special sciences and the broader framework language, and what the further point of a regimented language is. Later in the book, Quine casually notes that regimentation in the way he understands it has already a glorious history: "how powerful this combination is has been borne out by extensive logical regimentations of parts of science, especially mathematics, at the hands of Frege, Peano, and their successors."* (208) Quine's use of 'successors' is a bit cheeky, because back in 1936, in a little known essay, "A theory of classes presupposing no canons of type," Quine himself had deployed a "principle of regimentation" he had contributed to this glorious history.
My interest today is in the word, ''regimentation,' used to describe this philosophical task. In 1957, Quine had used 'regimentation' in the sense intended here in "The scope and language of science," (BJPS, 8:29: 10). And as Peter Hylton and Gary Kemp note, he gives a nice sense of the point of regimentation there: "To some degree…the scientist can enhance objectivity and diminish the interference of language, by his very choice of language. And we concerned to distill the essence of scientific discourse, can profitably purify the language of science beyond what might reasonably be urged upon the practicing scientist." (7) In so far it is profitable, I leave aside here to what degree the return on investment is worth the opportunity costs.
But Quine does not comment on his choice for using this word. An unscientific search in scholar.google, suggested that the idea of regimenting language was not altogether uncommon in the half century before Quine (as the reference to his 1936 paper suggests). To the best of knowledge, however, Quine invented the coinage of regimentation in the sense under discussion.
I was reminded to reflect on this by a late essay by Herbert Spencer, "Regimentation," which appeared in his collection Facts and Comments (1902).+ Spencer himself knew that the "volume herewith issued I can say with certainty will be my last," and so it can be understood as a kind of literary last testament. As Davies notes, the tenor of the collection is fiercely anti-imperialist. (For an excellent treatment of Spencer's views, which dispels many common myths about him.) And the main argument of the essays I have read so far involves the ways in which imperialism corrupts and infects all of social life, including language, which takes on militaristic tropes and metaphors.** For, Spencer "regimentation is another aspect of that general retrogression shown in growing imperialism and accompanying re-barbarization. "
And like a contemporary cultural critic, Spencer notes that the widespread use of 'regimentation,' and not just it, indicates the "graduated subordination which we see in an army, characterizes a militant society at large more and more as militancy increases." One of the subtexts of the essay is the co-constitution of imperialism, militancy, and social planning. And echoing Mill, Spencer deplores the way homogeneous society is the product of nation-building at home: "we see that even in a single generation great strides have been taken towards a regimental organization for moulding children after an approved pattern." In particular, regimentation involves the subordination of spiritual ends toward society's directed use of our bodies.++ One of Spencer most striking claims is that such regimentation is directed and developed by city governments in their provision of public goods and services: "each of these is, as we see, like a military administration is having ranks subordinate one to another."
As an aside, the broader thrust of Spencer's essays serve as a record of the retreat of liberalism even in Victorian England at the end of the nineteenth century. This was echoed by a later generation of liberals confronted by its near collapse in the 1930s. I think Spencer's essays can also help explain why liberalisms' ideas lost their vitality in this period. But that's for another occasion.
Let me tie the two threads together. First, Quine's use of 'regimentation' is associated with concepts like purification, clarification, and distillation. These, we may say, chemical metaphors of refinement tend to avoid the militant network of associations that Spencer had diagnosed. This alone is peculiar.
Here's a speculative thought. There had been a brief, polemical debate about the tendency of the tropes and metaphors used within (let's call it) scientific philosophy. Neurath, when (in 1946) explaining his fondness for, and responding to Kallen's criticism of, his "pet word," 'orchestration,' had gone out of the way to distance it from various totalitarian and programmatic connotations. Instead, for Neurath, orchestration should be understood as a "democracy of cooperation." Kallen had charged the unity of science movement with "imperialistic" designs. The whole exchange is worth reading.*** My present point is that there was self-conscious reflection on the way the network of words used for specialized terminology within scientific philosophy may be associated with wider political trends.
I have already reflected with the help of Greg Frost-Arnold on Quine's understanding of clarity. So, let me leave that aside here. Regimentation is a form of disciplining (a word notably absent from Quine's idiolect). And, it is worth asking who is, thereby, disciplined. It turns out both science and philosophy. The main benefit of regimentation is more disciplined metaphysics which can take place, as it were, in the regimented language. So, regimentation is a kind of self-disciplining of philosophical activity.
But Quine-ian regimentation is also, a species of disciplining of science; not, I hasten to add, to pursue "practical language reform," (as a Marxist might) or to tell scientists how to do science. Quine thinks, however, that no language is fully "neutral" and that language shapes scientific activity. And a purified language may well improve actual science, indirectly, by avoiding ambiguity and other sources of interferences within science. One important effect of this is that scientists do not have (ahh) the last word on their own output. (Quine here echoes Toland, Berkeley, Hume, in response to Newton.) Their authority is, thus, partially subordinated to philosophy.+++ And, while I would hesitate to call this an 'imperial philosophy,' in this sense, 'regimentation,' seems an apt choice.
*Presumably reflection on these examples are also instructive for the utility or value of regimentation.
+HT Stephen Davies, on Facebook, who called attention to the collection.
**There is an interesting question how Spencer can explain the rise of imperialism from a healthy body politic; but I leave that for another time.
++Spencer notes an irony that the very laws which were intended to protect children from child-labor are used to regulate the labor of everyone else.
***I assume Quine was present at the fifth Unity-of-Science Congress at Harvard in 1939 where Kallen had delivered his lecture. But need to check that.
+++Since Quine is fond of indispensability arguments, which appeal to the authority of science to settle debates within philosophy, this may come as a surprise to some.
Comments