Miscellaneous
This page contains:
Focus questions for selected readings
*********
Reading Guide and Focus Questions #1
Brief background on these readings:
These essays come from a couple of classic books that bring together leading European and American philosophers, anthropologists and sociologists who are concerned with a (the?) central issue in the philosophy of knowledge: the character of human rationality. At the point these essays were written, the debate has divided our protagonists into two general camps: 'rationalists' (a.k.a. 'objectivists' or 'universalists') vs. 'relativists' (a.k.a. 'contextualists'). In these debates, the main questions are: how are we to understand the beliefs, knowledge and actions of people in other cultures when, on the surface at least, the differences are so profound? How do we explain apparently irrational actions or beliefs? Why does Western science seem to be more effective at manipulating the world than other knowledge systems is it because it is more objective, rational and able to know nature? Can we translate the meanings and the reason of one culture into another? Is human rationality culture-bound, or does it have universal attributes? If people have the same physiological structure, do they all have the same cognitive organization and abilities? At some point, any attempt to understand and explain the apparent diversity of human knowledge systems, beliefs, and actions will engage these foundational questions.
Ultimately, these are questions about the nature of reality and the cognitive filter(s) that humans use to know it. It should go without saying that these are very old and persistent questions that have preoccupied Western philosophy for millennia in one form or another, and that we are jumping into these debates at a very recent point using a very specific lens. These essays come from a time of great interest in the topic among philosophers and social scientists, from the 1960s to the 1980s. Their advantage is that they successfully summarize the major outlines of the philosophical debate during the 20th century, and themselves make some interesting claims that are instructive as we begin to construct our own analysis of theory and knowledge. Based on your knowledge of the world (or Western philosophy), you might want to ask yourself why this debate would have come about in the beginning, and why it might be a pressing concern for American and European philosophers and social scientists during the last 40 years.
Horton, R. 'African Traditional Thought and Western Science'
This essay comes from the influential book Rationality published in 1970. Horton explores the similarities and differences between Western, scientific-based ways of knowing and traditional patterns of African thought. He starts his essay exploring the nature of theory, suggesting that the capacity to generate theory is present in other cultures, not just 'scientific cultures,' as believed by some philosophers. Pay close attention to his definition of theory and its attributes.
Throughout, Horton is sensitive to the old and ongoing debate in the social sciences and humanities over what some have called 'The Great Divide,' or, as he says "the well-worn dichotomies used to conceptualize the difference between scientific and traditional religious thought" (p. 150). These distinctions suggest that the Western way of knowing (epitomized by science) is intellectual, rational, reality-oriented, causally-oriented, open, and abstract while traditional cultures are emotional, mystical, fanstasy-oriented, supernaturally-oriented, closed, and concrete. You should ask yourself: why this distinction between types of knowledge systems? Horton goes on to argue that the dichotomies philosophers have assumed are not as strong they seem ('Africans have theory too') - and yet, he contends that there still are important differences in Western scientific thought and traditional African thought. One question for us: does he reinstitute a 'Great Divide' that essentially separates Western ways of knowing from others?
As you read this essay, keep these questions in mind and try to answer them:
Barnes and Bloor: 'Relativism, Rationality and the Sociology of Knowledge'
This essay comes from another influential book, Rationality and Relativism (1982), which is the next major installment in the debate after Rationality. Barnes and Bloor's essay is a classic statement in favor of 'relativism,' or the idea that knowledge of the world (and, for the ethical relativist, morality) is dependent on the specific context of persons, places and times. In this essay, they address many of the arguments against cognitive relativism and try to counter them. Pay very close attention to the arguments that one can use against relativism, as well as Barnes and Bloor's justifications for their own relativism.
As you read this essay, keep these questions in mind and try to answer them:
Reading Guide #2
Brief background on these readings:
Both of these readings challenge us to move beyond the most simplistic conclusions of the rationality-relativism debate, including such difficult questions as: if all knowledge is relative, can we not communicate across the divide of cultural difference; or that some people have cognitive superiority over others because their categories or theories are inherently more realistic. These authors suggest ways to get around such questions. Interestingly, both authors here would also reject the idea that they are not somehow themselves doing or contributing to science; yet they are resistant to give any special cognitive priority to science, that, for example, a rationalist would. In fact, they both seem bent on discrediting science's most basic rationalist propositions and ideologies, and you should pay close attention to how they do this. I will give you a hint: they both have a strong commitment to empirical study. We can ask: do either, or both, of these authors offer us a viable and systematic road map for moving beyond Great Divide thinking and the potential quagmire of rationality-relativism? What are the dilemmas if we follow either one of them? How do they explain the scientific endeavor, if it is not the the product of a special rationality?
Geertz: Anti-Anti Relativism
Geertz, an anthropologist, is a curmudgeon about the rationality-relativism debate and believes we shouldn't waste our time with it anymore, but get on with the business of doing anthropology. I understand if you find his writing difficult at times - it has many deliberately funny references and is replete with side comments and inside jokes, many of them only anthropologists would get - but try to stick with it, since his conclusions are graspable enough. It is a commonly-known fact among anthropologists that Geertz's writing is 'recursive,' or full of internal twists and turns that one can easily get lost in. My advice: grab onto his short declarative statements - they get his point across clearly and cleanly.
In this essay, Geertz takes what he considers to be a novel position in this debate - a position of anti-anti-relativism. It is an oppositional position, one that defines itself in terms not so much about what he believes is right, as what he believes is wrong. This does not mean that he supports the original proposition ('relativism') though. He sees a special task for anthropologists that all the theorizing about rationality ignores: we are 'merchants of astonishment.
As you read this essay, keep these questions in mind and try to answer them:
If you have the time and inclination, pay close attention to his rejection of the notions 'Human Nature' and 'Human Mind.' What do these mean and why does he reject them?
Harding: Is Science Multicultural?
Harding is a feminist philosopher who is well-known for her critical analysis of scientific practice and ideology. In this essay she takes on three central and provocative questions about science's presumed 'Western' and 'modern' character. She rejects the traditional tendency to reduce scientific success to a superior rationality, and I think a central task of reading this article is answering the question: OK, then, so how do you explain the empirical successes of modern science? She attributes Western science with qualities we are normally not accustomed to hearing and that may seem downright hostile: that it has 'borrowed' insights or concepts from other cultures without honestly acknowledging the origins; that modern science is 'Eurocentric;' that scientific practice and ideology represent the interests of a certain social classes and political agendas; etc. The least controversial of her arguments here is that many of the basics and insights of Western science are not necessarily 'Western;' it is well established that other cultures have throughout history generated very effective ways of knowing and manipulating the world. A key question we must ask: are these also sciences? Pay close attention to the end of the essay where Harding explains that 'good science' requires that we take her arguments into account.
As you read this essay, keep these questions in mind and try to answer them:
*********
Overheads