I agree with you, and actually I'd like to give an explanation of this through the concept of the so called
Paradigm Shift:
Paradigm shift (or revolutionary science) is the term first used by Thomas Kuhn in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) to describe a change in basic assumptions within the ruling theory of science. It is in contrast to his idea of normal science.
The term paradigm shift, as a change in a fundamental model of events, has since become widely applied to many other realms of human experience as well, even though Kuhn himself restricted the use of the term to the hard sciences. According to Kuhn, "A paradigm is what members of a scientific community, and they alone, share." (The Essential Tension, 1977).
Yes, here the term is used mainly referring to the Scientific Community and understandings but there are
other uses of Paradigm Shift, analogical to this phenomenon:
Handa, M.L. (1986) introduced the idea of "social paradigm" in the context of social sciences. He identified the basic components of a social paradigm. Like Kuhn, Handa addressed the issue of changing paradigm; the process popularly known as "paradigm shift".
....
Another use of the word paradigm is in the sense of Weltanschauung (German for world view). For example, in social science, the term is used to describe the set of experiences, beliefs and values that affect the way an individual perceives reality and responds to that perception. Social scientists have adopted the Kuhnian phrase "paradigm shift" to denote a change in how a given society goes about organizing and understanding reality. A “dominant paradigm” refers to the values, or system of thought, in a society that are most standard and widely held at a given time.
So we can clearly observe in history the coming and going, in shortening intervals of time, the dominance of different paradigms. But here is an interesting question indeed - can one paradigm be applied to all of society, to all of people? I would say:
NO!As in all social groups the can never be a 100% majority and uniformity in perception, thinking and acting - which is due to many factors of course - take just 2-3 like person's age, social status and personal character and you have a large fragmentation.
There is
a book by Mark Penn examining exactly how this micro group structures or microtrends work:
His book, Microtrends, published by Hachette Book Group USA, examines how small ideas can catch fire and lead to big changes. For example, Penn shows how a mere one percent of the American public, or 3 million people, can create a “microtrend” capable of launching a major business or even a new cultural movement, changing commercial, political and social landscapes.
So maybe paradigm shifts are always driven this way - forming a microtrend which eventually becomes spread enough among other groups to be considered significant and shared among majority of micro trend groups.And yet there is always the micro structures, unique in its charecteteristics forming the big picture - very much like a jigsaw puzzle
