|
|
practical epistemologyJohn Mcreery (jlm@TWICS.COM)Fri, 21 Oct 1994 13:33:55 JST
"In my own work and the work of a few acquaintances, there seems to be trend of turning away from the evil Cyclopean West to discussing particular interactions. What I seem to find is that the constructions andf representations I'm seeing spring from a more complicated process of under- standing and conceptualizing that is not only firmly based in the context of the moment ("the moment of inscription" as Gabrielle Spiegel calls it), but in the events and influences leading up to that moment and the expectations and goals of observer and observed and all others around them." To me, this trend is an altogether happy one. In my own work (in both advertising and anthropology) I've consistently found that digging into particulars is more productive than bellowing across categorical boundaries. Which leads to the following thought--it seems to me that we have reached agreement on Taussig and are ready to move on. There seem to be several contributors to the list who are interested in epistemological issues in doing social science, and Steven's remark seems to me a useful place to begin. My own particular interest lies in what I conceive (depending on my mood) as "less-than-perfect methodology," "practical epistemology" or (when I'm feeling pomo) "epistemological praxis." Then problem, as I see it, is nicely captured in Wittgenstein, in the shift from the "perfect- pictures of the world-as-facts" goal of the _Tractatus_ to the "language games" and "forms of life" of the _Philosophical Investigations_. The latter being specific to particular persons and situations, the kind of analysis Steven's suggests is, I believe, the way to go. Would anyone care to pursue this line? John McCreery (JLM@TWICS.COM)
|