Rebecca:
I am certainly no fan of rigid disciplinary boundaries, and I agree that we
need more synthesizing visions that illustrate a fundamental disrespect for
sometimes useless specialization. Spare me one more inapplicable
mathematical model in economics.
That said, I am quite suspicious of the kind of grand synthesis represented
by E. O. Wilson. Any "consilience" would need to be more attentive of the
concerns of interpretive social scientists and post-modern critics of social
science than Wilson appears capable. I certainly think there is a place in
social science for genealogical studies that disrupt syntheses.
In my vision of social science, I am more eager to see disciplines
bastardized than synthesized. Calling for bastard studies is different from
both totalizing approaches like that of Wilson or mere calls for
methodological pluralism since I want social scientists who are willing to
use or at least listen to competing, apparently contradictory approaches.
That is utopian too.
I am not sure my position or my concerns differ that greatly from yours.
Cheers.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebecca Moskow" <rmoskow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> I agree with your concerns. I'm not arguing however for "a general
pattern
> to these transformations" but rather that just as social theory critiques
> "hard" science, so should it recognize influences that operate in the
other
> direction. Ultimately, in my utopian version of the academy, scholars
would
> recognize the interconnectedness of areas of knowledge to the point where
we
> could actually acknowledge the falsity of disciplinary boundaries and the
> resultant disctinctions between methodologies, and instead approach the
> project of more fully understanding "life the universe and everything"
from
> a position of integrated inquiry. This by no means requires a positivist
> approach; rather, just as theories of eugenics are now considered suspect
> because of shifts in both sociological and scientific thinking, so other
> theories could be examined from an integrated standpoint, not with an eye
to
> discounting their previous influence and contribution to current thinking,
> but rather with an eye to assessing their continued usefulnes and
> applicability.
>
> >From: Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> >Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 11:18:25 -0000
> >
> >Rebecca:
> >
> >To have genetics simply abolish the issues surrounding the social
> >construction of gender and sexuality would require resolving the debates
> >concerning the social constructedness of "science." The idea that any
> >special science can draw special authority from a fiction like
"scientific
> >method" is a debatable product from the high tide of logical positivism.
> >
> >I agree that debates get transformed by changes in scientific
> >investigation.
> >I do not think there is a general pattern to these transformations. What
> >sort of discovery would falsify Foucault's claim that sexualities are not
> >cultural invariant. Could genetics disprove Dover's claims about the
unique
> >character of male-male courtship patterns in ancient Greece? How would
> >genetics deal with the indeterminability of gender in a case like the one
> >Foucault explores in "Herculine Barbin"?
> >
> >For genetics to settle questions concerning the etiology of sexuality it
> >would have to have some special purchase on the question WHAT a sexual
> >identity is. Does it? If the answer is "yes," you are reading different
> >geneticists than the ones I read.
> >
> >Larry
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rebecca Moskow" <rmoskow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:00 PM
> >Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> >
> >
> > > To a certain extent, yes, I am looking forward to it. But I'm
> >interested
> >in
> > > more than the sociological implications. For example, last quarter I
> >wrote
> > > a paper that examined the implications of the increasingly small scale
> >of
> > > science (such as nanotechnology, mapping genomes, etc) for an
ecological
> > > feminist ethic of flourishing (based on Chris Cuomo, Feminims and
> >Ecological
> > > Communities: An Ethic of Flourishing, Routledge, 1998). I think that
> > > students and theorists in all disciplines need to be more aware of the
> > > interactions between scientific and other types of knowledge. For
> >example,
> > > consider the possible implications for theories regarding the social
> > > construction of sexual orientation if we were to find conclusive
> >evidence
> > > regarding genetic propensity toward one orientation or another. Would
> > > theories of social construction become irrelevant? I don't think so,
> >but
> > > they would need to be reconfigured to account for either the presence
or
> > > absence of a biologically deterministic element. And of course one
must
> > > also consider the implications for individuals and groups who operate
> > > without an awareness or understanding of academic theory, which also
> > > involves questions of scholarly responsibility ...
> > >
> > >
> > > >Are you looking forward to this? or
> > > >Are you interested in the sociological implications it will bring?
> > > >
> > > >>From: Rebecca Moskow <rmoskow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> > > >>Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:01:40 -0500
> > > >>
> > > >>This also bears on posts re. social/natural sciences:
> > > >>Due to technological advances which make sex unnecessary for
> >reproduction,
> > > >>any arguments regarding sexual orientation and the
> >continuation/extinction
> > > >>of humanity are rendered irrelevant. And this is where I think
social
> > > >>sciences as well as philosophy must consider "natural" or "hard"
> >sciences,
> > > >>in terms of how science and scientific understanding do in fact
> >materially
> > > >>shape not only human experiences but also, to a certain extent, our
> > > >>understandings of humanity itself. This leadds me to wonder how the
> > > >>relevance, value, and implications of various older theories shift
as
> > > >>science and technology shift, particularly for those theorists who
are
> > > >>dead
> > > >>and therefore unable to reevaluate their arguments in light of new
> > > >>information/technology.
> > > >>
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
I am certainly no fan of rigid disciplinary boundaries, and I agree that we
need more synthesizing visions that illustrate a fundamental disrespect for
sometimes useless specialization. Spare me one more inapplicable
mathematical model in economics.
That said, I am quite suspicious of the kind of grand synthesis represented
by E. O. Wilson. Any "consilience" would need to be more attentive of the
concerns of interpretive social scientists and post-modern critics of social
science than Wilson appears capable. I certainly think there is a place in
social science for genealogical studies that disrupt syntheses.
In my vision of social science, I am more eager to see disciplines
bastardized than synthesized. Calling for bastard studies is different from
both totalizing approaches like that of Wilson or mere calls for
methodological pluralism since I want social scientists who are willing to
use or at least listen to competing, apparently contradictory approaches.
That is utopian too.
I am not sure my position or my concerns differ that greatly from yours.
Cheers.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rebecca Moskow" <rmoskow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> I agree with your concerns. I'm not arguing however for "a general
pattern
> to these transformations" but rather that just as social theory critiques
> "hard" science, so should it recognize influences that operate in the
other
> direction. Ultimately, in my utopian version of the academy, scholars
would
> recognize the interconnectedness of areas of knowledge to the point where
we
> could actually acknowledge the falsity of disciplinary boundaries and the
> resultant disctinctions between methodologies, and instead approach the
> project of more fully understanding "life the universe and everything"
from
> a position of integrated inquiry. This by no means requires a positivist
> approach; rather, just as theories of eugenics are now considered suspect
> because of shifts in both sociological and scientific thinking, so other
> theories could be examined from an integrated standpoint, not with an eye
to
> discounting their previous influence and contribution to current thinking,
> but rather with an eye to assessing their continued usefulnes and
> applicability.
>
> >From: Larry Chappell <larchap@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> >Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 11:18:25 -0000
> >
> >Rebecca:
> >
> >To have genetics simply abolish the issues surrounding the social
> >construction of gender and sexuality would require resolving the debates
> >concerning the social constructedness of "science." The idea that any
> >special science can draw special authority from a fiction like
"scientific
> >method" is a debatable product from the high tide of logical positivism.
> >
> >I agree that debates get transformed by changes in scientific
> >investigation.
> >I do not think there is a general pattern to these transformations. What
> >sort of discovery would falsify Foucault's claim that sexualities are not
> >cultural invariant. Could genetics disprove Dover's claims about the
unique
> >character of male-male courtship patterns in ancient Greece? How would
> >genetics deal with the indeterminability of gender in a case like the one
> >Foucault explores in "Herculine Barbin"?
> >
> >For genetics to settle questions concerning the etiology of sexuality it
> >would have to have some special purchase on the question WHAT a sexual
> >identity is. Does it? If the answer is "yes," you are reading different
> >geneticists than the ones I read.
> >
> >Larry
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rebecca Moskow" <rmoskow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 3:00 PM
> >Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> >
> >
> > > To a certain extent, yes, I am looking forward to it. But I'm
> >interested
> >in
> > > more than the sociological implications. For example, last quarter I
> >wrote
> > > a paper that examined the implications of the increasingly small scale
> >of
> > > science (such as nanotechnology, mapping genomes, etc) for an
ecological
> > > feminist ethic of flourishing (based on Chris Cuomo, Feminims and
> >Ecological
> > > Communities: An Ethic of Flourishing, Routledge, 1998). I think that
> > > students and theorists in all disciplines need to be more aware of the
> > > interactions between scientific and other types of knowledge. For
> >example,
> > > consider the possible implications for theories regarding the social
> > > construction of sexual orientation if we were to find conclusive
> >evidence
> > > regarding genetic propensity toward one orientation or another. Would
> > > theories of social construction become irrelevant? I don't think so,
> >but
> > > they would need to be reconfigured to account for either the presence
or
> > > absence of a biologically deterministic element. And of course one
must
> > > also consider the implications for individuals and groups who operate
> > > without an awareness or understanding of academic theory, which also
> > > involves questions of scholarly responsibility ...
> > >
> > >
> > > >Are you looking forward to this? or
> > > >Are you interested in the sociological implications it will bring?
> > > >
> > > >>From: Rebecca Moskow <rmoskow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >>Subject: Re: Taylor, Sartre, and sexuality
> > > >>Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:01:40 -0500
> > > >>
> > > >>This also bears on posts re. social/natural sciences:
> > > >>Due to technological advances which make sex unnecessary for
> >reproduction,
> > > >>any arguments regarding sexual orientation and the
> >continuation/extinction
> > > >>of humanity are rendered irrelevant. And this is where I think
social
> > > >>sciences as well as philosophy must consider "natural" or "hard"
> >sciences,
> > > >>in terms of how science and scientific understanding do in fact
> >materially
> > > >>shape not only human experiences but also, to a certain extent, our
> > > >>understandings of humanity itself. This leadds me to wonder how the
> > > >>relevance, value, and implications of various older theories shift
as
> > > >>science and technology shift, particularly for those theorists who
are
> > > >>dead
> > > >>and therefore unable to reevaluate their arguments in light of new
> > > >>information/technology.
> > > >>
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>