The Social Sciences, Epistemic Violence, and the Problem of the "Invention of the Other"

Santiago Castro-Gómez, Desirée A. Martín
{"title":"The Social Sciences, Epistemic Violence, and the Problem of the \"Invention of the Other\"","authors":"Santiago Castro-Gómez, Desirée A. Martín","doi":"10.4324/9780429027239-11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the last two decades of the twentieth century, postmodern philosophy and cultural studies developed into important theoretical currents that impelled a strong critique, inside and outside the academy, of the pathologies ofWesternization. Their many differences notwithstanding, both currents attribute these pathologies to the exclusive, dualist character thatmodern power relations assume.Modernity is an alterity-generating machine that, in the name of reason and humanism, excludes from its imaginary the hybridity, multiplicity, ambiguity, and contingency of different forms of life. The current crisis ofmodernity is seen by postmodern philosophy and cultural studies as a historic opportunity for these long-repressed differences to emerge. I hope to showhere that the proclaimed “end” ofmodernity clearly implies the crisis of a power mechanism that constructs the “other” by means of a binary logic that represses difference. I also argue that this crisis does not imply the weakening of the global structure within which this mechanism operates. What I will refer to here as the “end of modernity” is merely the crisis of a historical configuration of power in the framework of the capitalist world-system, which nevertheless has taken on other forms in times of globalization, without this implying the disappearance of that world-system. I argue that the present global reorganization of the capitalist economy depends on the production of differences. As a result, the celebratory affirmation of these differences, far from subverting the system, could be contributing to its consolidation. I defend the claim that the challenge now facing a critical theory of society is precisely to reveal what the crisis","PeriodicalId":343953,"journal":{"name":"Nepantla: Views from South","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"42","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nepantla: Views from South","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429027239-11","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 42

Abstract

During the last two decades of the twentieth century, postmodern philosophy and cultural studies developed into important theoretical currents that impelled a strong critique, inside and outside the academy, of the pathologies ofWesternization. Their many differences notwithstanding, both currents attribute these pathologies to the exclusive, dualist character thatmodern power relations assume.Modernity is an alterity-generating machine that, in the name of reason and humanism, excludes from its imaginary the hybridity, multiplicity, ambiguity, and contingency of different forms of life. The current crisis ofmodernity is seen by postmodern philosophy and cultural studies as a historic opportunity for these long-repressed differences to emerge. I hope to showhere that the proclaimed “end” ofmodernity clearly implies the crisis of a power mechanism that constructs the “other” by means of a binary logic that represses difference. I also argue that this crisis does not imply the weakening of the global structure within which this mechanism operates. What I will refer to here as the “end of modernity” is merely the crisis of a historical configuration of power in the framework of the capitalist world-system, which nevertheless has taken on other forms in times of globalization, without this implying the disappearance of that world-system. I argue that the present global reorganization of the capitalist economy depends on the production of differences. As a result, the celebratory affirmation of these differences, far from subverting the system, could be contributing to its consolidation. I defend the claim that the challenge now facing a critical theory of society is precisely to reveal what the crisis
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会科学、认知暴力与“他者的发明”问题
在二十世纪的最后二十年里,后现代哲学和文化研究发展成为重要的理论潮流,在学术界内外推动了对西方化病态的强烈批判。尽管存在诸多差异,但这两种思潮都将这些病态归因于现代权力关系所具有的排他性、二元论特征。现代性是一个产生另类的机器,它以理性和人文主义的名义,从它的想象中排除了不同生活形式的混杂性、多样性、模糊性和偶然性。后现代哲学和文化研究认为,当前的现代性危机是这些长期被压抑的差异出现的历史机遇。我希望表明,现代性所宣称的“终结”,显然意味着一种权力机制的危机,这种权力机制通过压抑差异的二元逻辑来构建“他者”。我还认为,这场危机并不意味着这一机制赖以运行的全球结构正在减弱。我在这里所说的“现代性的终结”仅仅是资本主义世界体系框架内的权力历史配置的危机,尽管在全球化时代,这种危机以其他形式出现,但这并不意味着世界体系的消失。我认为,目前资本主义经济的全球重组取决于差异的产生。因此,对这些差异的庆祝肯定,非但不会颠覆这一体系,反而可能有助于巩固这一体系。我为以下观点辩护:社会批判理论现在面临的挑战恰恰是揭示危机是什么
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Empires of Nature The Art of Transition: Latin American Culture and Neoliberal Crisis (review) Lost in the Translation Lead Us Not into Translation: Notes toward a Theoretical Foundation for Asian Studies Orientalism, Anti-Orientalism, Relativism
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1