{"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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。