The Viewpoint Creates the Object: Revisiting Saussure’s Insight and Its Universal Application

Introduction

Ferdinand de Saussure revolutionized linguistics by proposing that the object of study is not given independently of analysis but is instead shaped by the observer’s framework. His analysis of the French word nu (‘naked’) illustrates this idea: depending on the perspective, the term may be perceived as a series of sounds, a conceptual expression, or a historical derivative of Latin. By highlighting how different fields within linguistics construct their own units of study, Saussure challenged the belief that language exists as an objective entity, separate from interpretation.

However, he mistakenly confined this principle to linguistics, assuming that other sciences deal with pre-existing entities independent of the conceptual scheme. This supposition does not hold. Scientific theories, like linguistic analyses, are fundamentally shaped by their underlying premises. Modern philosophy of science, particularly through Kuhn’s paradigms, Feyerabend’s critiques and Karl Popper's falsificationism, further supports the idea that empirical observation is always shaped by hypothetical assumptions.

Newton and Einstein, for example, proposed contrasting but equally valid conceptions of gravity, each determined by their respective viewpoints. Similarly, geology presents multiple perspectives on the same rock formations, depending on whether they are examined from a structural, mineralogical, or paleontological standpoint. A single phenomenon may be perceived differently depending on the theoretical lens through which it is examined. Recognizing the universality of Saussure’s claim fosters a deeper understanding of how knowledge is constructed across disciplines and underscores the importance of embracing diverse viewpoints in scientific progress. By extending Saussure’s insight beyond linguistics, we uncover a fundamental truth: academic investigation does not merely reveal an objective reality; it actively constructs it through the lens of its guiding premises.

Saussure’s Linguistic Insight

Saussure’s statement that “the viewpoint creates the object” challenges the notion that language is a static, pre-existing entity: “The object is not given in advance of the viewpoint: far from it. Rather, one might say that it is the viewpoint adopted which creates the object.” His analysis of the French word nu underscores the multiplicity of interpretations that arise depending on the disciplinary lens. To a phonetician, nu is a sequence of articulatory and acoustic events. A psychologist sees it as a cognitive representation tied to mental processes. A historical linguist perceives it as a link to its Latin root, nūdum. Each approach highlights a different aspect of the same phenomenon, demonstrating that the epistemic field is not inherently fixed but shaped by the perspective adopted. Saussure illustrates this stating: “Suppose someone pronounces the French word nu (‘naked’). At first sight, one might think this would be an example of an independently given linguistic object. But more careful consideration reveals a series of three or four quite different things, depending on the viewpoint adopted. There is a sound, there is the expression of an idea, there is a derivative of Latin nūdum, and so on”.

Despite this groundbreaking insight, Saussure maintained that other sciences, unlike linguistics, investigate predefined fields of inquiry. He presumed that disciplines such as physics or geology merely analyze existing realities from various angles without fundamentally shaping them: “What is it that linguistics sets out to analyse? What is the actual object of study in its entirety? The question is a particularly difficult one. First, let us simply try to grasp the nature of the difficulty. Other sciences are provided with objects of study given in advance, which are then examined from different points of view. Nothing like that is the case in linguistics.” However, this assumption overlooks the fact that all scientific disciplines construct their objects through notional models and methodological choices. For instance, in physics, Newton and Einstein provided distinct yet complementary perspectives on gravity, each dictated by their conceptual starting points. This illustrates that the construction of knowledge is not exclusive to linguistics but is a characteristic of scientific inquiry across disciplines.

Newton, Einstein, and the Shaping of Scientific Objects

Scientific theories are not objective reflections of reality but are contingent on the presuppositions that guide them. This is particularly evident in the history of gravitational principles. Newton conceptualized gravity as an invisible force acting at a distance. From this premise, he developed a mathematical model based on force equations, enabling precise calculations of planetary motion and terrestrial phenomena. His model provided an extraordinarily useful explanation of physical interactions and remained unchallenged for centuries.

Einstein, however, redefined gravity not as a force but as a curvature of spacetime. His general theory of relativity rejected Newtonian assumptions and replaced them with a geometric interpretation. This shift in paradigm led to a radically different mathematical framework, one that better accounted for extreme gravitational conditions, such as those near black holes.

Despite their fundamental differences, both postulations describe the same underlying phenomenon. Newton’s equations remain applicable in most everyday contexts, while Einstein’s model is essential for understanding relativistic effects. The contrast between these two theories illustrates how the nature of scientific inquiry is shaped by initial assumptions. Had Einstein’s perspective been dismissed outright, physics would have lost a crucial advancement in understanding gravity. Just as a linguist’s approach determines how they interpret language, a physicist’s theoretical approach shapes their perception of physical phenomena.

The Universality of Perspective in Science

Beyond physics, other sciences demonstrate that the object of study is inseparable from the mode of inquiry adopted. Geology, for instance, provides multiple, equally valid interpretations of rock formations. A structural geologist examines rocks through the lens of stress and deformation, focusing on tectonic forces that shape the Earth’s crust. A petrologist, by contrast, studies the mineral composition of rocks, investigating how they formed under specific temperature and pressure conditions. Meanwhile, a paleontologist sees those same rocks as repositories of biological history, analyzing fossils embedded within them to reconstruct past lifeforms and ecosystems.

These perspectives are not mutually exclusive; rather, they reveal different aspects of the same physical reality. Just as Newton and Einstein described gravity from distinct yet complementary angles, geologists construct their understanding of rock formations based on their disciplinary focus. Modern philosophy of science further validates this principle. Kuhn’s concept of intellectual paradigms illustrates how scholarly research operates within dominant theoretical frameworks that shape what is considered legitimate research. A paradigm shift occurs when fundamental assumptions change, altering the interpretation of data. Feyerabend’s critiques reinforce this by arguing that there is no single universal method of inquiry and that observation is always theory-laden. Moreover, Popper's falsificationism proposes that a theory is scientific only if it can be falsified, emphasizing that progress in science occurs through conjectures and refutations, rather than verification. Such insights confirm that objects of study, like linguistic ones, are not simply “given” but shaped by the conceptual tools used to examine them.

Conclusion

Saussure correctly observed that linguistic objects are shaped by the angle from which they are studied, but he failed to extend this insight beyond language. As seen in physics and geology, observed entities are also constructed through foundational premises. The differing conceptual lens of Newton and Einstein illustrate that there is no singular, objective reality waiting to be uncovered—only various perspectives that illuminate distinct facets of the same phenomenon.

Acknowledging the universality of Saussure’s claim enriches our understanding of knowledge formation across disciplines. Science does not merely uncover a pre-existing truth; it shapes reality through conceptual and methodological lenses. Kuhn and Feyerabend’s insights reinforce that all  observation is shaped by ontological commitments, further solidifying Saussure’s principle across disciplines. By embracing multiple standpoints, we foster intellectual openness and scientific progress, ensuring that no valid interpretation is prematurely dismissed. Recognizing that the viewpoint creates the object is not just a linguistic insight but a foundational principle of all scholarly inquiry.

Related Post

A Copernican Linguistic Turn: Reframing Saussure’s Impact Through Kuhn and Feyerabend

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2025/02/blog-post_25.html

Bibliography

Malkawi, Hani. "Obstacles to the Definitive Vision of Scientific Thinking: An Epistemological Perspective." Quora. Accessed February 23, 2025. https://www.quora.com/profile/Hani-Malkawi/Obstacles-to-the-Definitive-Vision-of-Scientific-Thinking-An-Epistemological-Perspective.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. With a new introduction by Roy Harris. Bloomsbury, 2013.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method. 4th ed. London: Verso, 2010.

Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, 1959.

Worrall, John. "Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?" In Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, edited by Thomas M. Lesley, 135-154. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Misner, Charles W., Kip S. Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler. Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973.

Fossen, Haakon. Structural Geology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.