罗蒂安对话的承诺与危险

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. J. Bono
{"title":"罗蒂安对话的承诺与危险","authors":"J. J. Bono","doi":"10.1215/0961754x-10332719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n As a contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium “Whatever Happened to Richard Rorty?,” this essay elucidates how Isabelle Stengers's signature idea of an “ecology of practices” offers a way to establish claims to expertise and—within limits that are, in effect, the limits of specific scientific practices—claims of authority within science that Rorty would have denied. The problems facing Rorty's understanding of science also imperil his vision of a society admirably seeking to realize what he calls “social hope.” Once again, Stengers's ecology of practices, together with her cosmopolitical perspective, offers grounds for questioning Rorty's utopian belief that endless conversation should lead to continual expansion of the “we” who constitute liberal society. Her idea also provides tools for engaging, in mutually respectful and sensitive encounters that reopen prospects for social hope, the multiplicity of voices, perspectives, and practices of the “others” who have been excluded from liberal society.","PeriodicalId":45679,"journal":{"name":"Common Knowledge","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promises and Perils of Rortian Conversation\",\"authors\":\"J. J. Bono\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/0961754x-10332719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n As a contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium “Whatever Happened to Richard Rorty?,” this essay elucidates how Isabelle Stengers's signature idea of an “ecology of practices” offers a way to establish claims to expertise and—within limits that are, in effect, the limits of specific scientific practices—claims of authority within science that Rorty would have denied. The problems facing Rorty's understanding of science also imperil his vision of a society admirably seeking to realize what he calls “social hope.” Once again, Stengers's ecology of practices, together with her cosmopolitical perspective, offers grounds for questioning Rorty's utopian belief that endless conversation should lead to continual expansion of the “we” who constitute liberal society. Her idea also provides tools for engaging, in mutually respectful and sensitive encounters that reopen prospects for social hope, the multiplicity of voices, perspectives, and practices of the “others” who have been excluded from liberal society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common Knowledge\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common Knowledge\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754x-10332719\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common Knowledge","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754x-10332719","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为对常识研讨会“理查德·罗蒂发生了什么?”,这篇文章阐明了伊莎贝尔·斯坦厄斯(Isabelle Stengers)的标志性思想“实践生态学”(ecology of practices)是如何提供了一种方法来确立对专业知识的主张,并在实际上是特定科学实践的限制范围内,确立罗蒂可能会否认的科学权威主张。罗蒂对科学的理解所面临的问题,也危及他对一个令人钦佩地寻求实现他所谓的“社会希望”的社会的看法。再一次,斯坦格斯的实践生态学,连同她的世界政治视角,为质疑罗蒂的乌托邦信念提供了依据,罗蒂认为无休止的对话应该导致构成自由社会的“我们”的不断扩张。她的想法也为参与提供了工具,在相互尊重和敏感的遭遇中,重新打开了社会希望的前景,重新打开了被排除在自由社会之外的“他者”的声音、观点和实践的多样性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Promises and Perils of Rortian Conversation
As a contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium “Whatever Happened to Richard Rorty?,” this essay elucidates how Isabelle Stengers's signature idea of an “ecology of practices” offers a way to establish claims to expertise and—within limits that are, in effect, the limits of specific scientific practices—claims of authority within science that Rorty would have denied. The problems facing Rorty's understanding of science also imperil his vision of a society admirably seeking to realize what he calls “social hope.” Once again, Stengers's ecology of practices, together with her cosmopolitical perspective, offers grounds for questioning Rorty's utopian belief that endless conversation should lead to continual expansion of the “we” who constitute liberal society. Her idea also provides tools for engaging, in mutually respectful and sensitive encounters that reopen prospects for social hope, the multiplicity of voices, perspectives, and practices of the “others” who have been excluded from liberal society.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Common Knowledge
Common Knowledge HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信