Why Structuralism Goes Unnoticed: A Guide to Practical Hybrid Thinking Through the Lens of Medicine

承知いたしました。完成稿の記事を英訳いたします。 専門的な内容を含みますので、意図を正確に伝え、かつ英語の読者にとって自然で格調高い文章となるよう翻訳しました。 現在は20時03分です。 Why Structuralism Goes Unnoticed: A Guide to Practical Hybrid Thinking Through the Lens of Medicine Abstract Structuralism is a powerful lens for visualizing "invisible" relationships, differences, and functions. However, in our daily lives and many professional fields, a realist approach—one that grasps tangible "things" and "forms"—takes precedence, often relegating structural understanding to the background. This article explores two questions: Why does structuralism so often go "unnoticed"? What are the historical and psychological reasons behind this? In practical situations, how should we best utilize both perspectives? In conclusion, this article argues that a hybrid way of thinking—one that pragmatically "blends" realism and structuralism from the outset—is the most efficient and powerful approach in practice. This is demonstrated through the concrete example of medicine (morphology vs. physiology). The goal is to master an intellectual rhythm: "Dissect to understand, and synthesize to act." 1. Introduction: The Challenge of Seeing the Invisible When explaining structuralism, the term "invisible structures" was often used. This very "invisibility" or "difficulty to notice" may be the fundamental reason why structuralism took so long to establish itself in the history of thought and why it remains underutilized in modern society. Everything possesses both a realist aspect (its existence as an object) and a structuralist aspect (its relationships and functions). Yet, unless we make a conscious effort, our attention is heavily biased toward the former. This article aims to uncover the nature of structuralism's "invisibility." Furthermore, it will demonstrate how a pragmatic, "blended" approach is far more practical than strictly separating the two, using the understanding of the human body in medicine as a prime example. 2. Why "Structure" is Hard to See: A Parallel Between Intellectual History and Cognitive Development Why was the establishment of structuralism historically delayed, and why does it require deliberate learning for us to master it? The reasons are tied to the nature of human cognition and the developmental stages of academic thought. The Journey of Intellectual History and Individual Growth In biology, the famous phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" suggests that an individual's development from an embryo mirrors the evolutionary history of its species. A similar analogy can be drawn between the history of philosophy and the cognitive development of a single human being. History of Philosophy (Phylogeny): The history of philosophy began with a naive realism that perceived the world as "things." It progressed through Plato's theory of Forms, Aristotle's hylomorphism, and the modern conflict between rationalism and empiricism. It was Kant who shifted focus to the "framework of cognition (a structure)," leading eventually to phenomenology and the establishment of structuralism in the 20th century through linguistics and anthropology. This was a journey from concrete objects to the abstract relationships behind them. Individual Cognitive Development (Ontogeny): According to the psychologist Jean Piaget, a child's cognition follows a similar path. It begins with the "sensorimotor stage," responding to immediate objects, moves to the "concrete operational stage," where logical thought about physical objects is possible, and finally reaches the "formal operational stage" during adolescence, enabling abstract and logical reasoning. In other words, each of us, in our own growth, retraces the multi-millennial path of philosophy from "substance" to "structure." This may be why structuralism, as an abstract mode of thought, is not intuitive and requires conscious learning. 3. Practicality is Faster When Blended: Medicine as the Ultimate Example Unless one is applying structuralism at the cutting edge of academia, strictly separating it from realism is often inefficient in daily life and applied fields. A hybrid approach is far more practical. The most outstanding example of this is medicine. Medical education approaches the human body from two perspectives:

and . This is the very essence of a hybrid between realism and structuralism. Perspective Form (Realist Approach) Function (Structuralist Approach) Key Question "What is it?" "How does it work?" Representative Disciplines Anatomy, Pathology, Histology Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology Object of Focus The "shape" and "physical structure" of organs, tissues, and cells The "system" and "relationships" of metabolism, signaling, and control Typical Interventions To cut, suture, connect, remove To regulate, inhibit, promote Google スプレッドシートにエクスポート In clinical practice, morphological abnormalities (e.g., a tumor) and functional disorders (e.g., hormonal imbalance) are considered separately but are ultimately integrated to form a diagnosis and treatment plan. This process of "dissecting to understand, and synthesizing to act" is the practical hybrid thinking this article advocates. Case Studies: and in the Human Body Applying this framework to various organ systems makes the effectiveness of hybrid thinking even clearer. The Circulatory System: A Pump and Plumbing vs. a Homeostatic System : It consists of the heart as a pump and the arteries, veins, and capillaries as physical plumbing. These are the tangible entities studied in anatomy. : Its purpose is the maintenance of homeostasis—a system that keeps the external environment of all cells (the extracellular fluid) constant. The essence lies in the "flow" and "relationships" of transporting oxygen and removing waste. An electrocardiogram (ECG) can detect abnormalities because it is based on the laws of electromagnetism (a structure) that govern the electrical conduction of the heart muscle. The Kidneys: A Filtration Device vs. a Chemical Control System : They exist as an intricate filtration device, composed of glomeruli that filter blood and tubules that process the filtrate. : Beyond simple waste excretion, the kidneys act as a major chemical control system. Through reabsorption and secretion, they precisely regulate electrolyte balance (like sodium and potassium), fluid osmosis, and blood pH. Dialysis is an attempt to artificially replace this "function." The Digestive Tract and Skin: Physical Boundaries vs. Vast Immune Systems : The digestive tract is a tube running from mouth to anus, and the skin is a sheet covering the body. They are physical boundaries separating the inside from the outside. Topologically, the inside of the digestive tract is "outside" the body. : They operate as the body's largest immune systems, distinguishing "self" from "non-self." Their core function is relational and information-based: incorporating nutrients as "part of the self" while eliminating pathogens as "enemies." Muscles and Fat: Motor Organs and Storage vs. Hubs of a Metabolic Network : Muscles are motor organs for movement and storage depots for protein. Fat is a storage depot for energy. : In recent years, they have been recognized as vast metabolic and endocrine organs that control the body's energy metabolism. Substances released by muscle and fat cells (adipokines) communicate with other organs, forming a complex metabolic network. Thus, understanding the human body is incomplete if based solely on visible "forms." It becomes possible only by comprehending the "functions" and "systems (structures)" that operate behind the scenes. An excellent clinician unconsciously navigates between these two perspectives when diagnosing a patient. 4. Conclusion: Toward an Ambidextrous Intellect for a New Era The argument of this article can be summarized in three lines: Humans are drawn to "forms," while "relationships" remain less visible. This is why structuralism is not intuitive. The maturation of intellectual history and its tools (e.g., mathematics, information technology) propelled the discovery of structuralism. The optimal solution in practice is to "dissect to understand, and synthesize to act." Medicine's is the best textbook for this. In philosophical contexts, structuralism was often used as a tool to overcome realism. However, the two are not inherently in conflict; they are two independent, orthogonal perspectives. Focusing solely on a realist perspective or analyzing things only through a structuralist lens can be necessary for deep specialization. However, to navigate and solve problems in our increasingly complex modern world, an "ambidextrous intellect"—one that can freely combine and utilize both viewpoints—will become ever more crucial. Just as medicine understands the human body, we too should firmly grasp the "form" of the phenomena before us while simultaneously deciphering the "relationships" and "systems" at play behind them. This hybrid method of thinking will surely be a powerful tool for all of us in the times to come. Appendix: A Mini-Checklist for Practice Here are a few simple questions to help put this thinking into practice: ✅ Is the form normal? But what about its function or behavior? ✅ Can the problem be explained as a disorder in a specific "relationship" or "system" (e.g., flow, concentration, communication)? ✅ In your analysis, have you gathered information on both and ? ✅ Does your solution consider both repairing/replacing components (a realist approach) and adjusting/regulating the system (a structuralist approach)?