A Foucauldian Critique of Scientific Naturalism: “Docile Minds”

IF 0.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Critical Horizons Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/14409917.2020.1790754
P. Giladi
{"title":"A Foucauldian Critique of Scientific Naturalism: “Docile Minds”","authors":"P. Giladi","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2020.1790754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT My aim in this paper is to articulate a Foucauldian critique of scientific naturalism as well as a Foucauldian critique of the nomothetic framework underlying the Placement Problem. My Foucauldian post-structuralist critique of scientific naturalism questions the relations between our society’s imbrication of economic-political power structures and knowledge in a way that also effects some constructive critical alignment between Foucault and Habermas, helping to undermine the traditional view of their respective social critiques as incompatible. First, I will outline a brief genealogical backstory for the rise of scientific naturalism, and I will then reconstruct the Placement Problem. In the second part of the paper, I introduce Foucault’s notion of pouvoir-savoir (“power-knowledge”), namely his account of the interconnection between power and knowledge. I then go on to articulate the Foucauldian critique of scientific naturalism by arguing that the levelling nature of nomothetic rationality and its conservative naturalistic vocabulary involves regulative discourse: anything that resists placeability/locatability is labelled “odd”. By being thus visibly marked, “odd” phenomena become “queer” phenomena, which then become “problematic” phenomena. They are, thereby, construed in need of discipline (and even punishment). Understood in this Foucauldian way, scientific naturalist disciplinarity produces subjected and practised minds, “docile” minds.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":"21 1","pages":"264 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14409917.2020.1790754","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Horizons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2020.1790754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT My aim in this paper is to articulate a Foucauldian critique of scientific naturalism as well as a Foucauldian critique of the nomothetic framework underlying the Placement Problem. My Foucauldian post-structuralist critique of scientific naturalism questions the relations between our society’s imbrication of economic-political power structures and knowledge in a way that also effects some constructive critical alignment between Foucault and Habermas, helping to undermine the traditional view of their respective social critiques as incompatible. First, I will outline a brief genealogical backstory for the rise of scientific naturalism, and I will then reconstruct the Placement Problem. In the second part of the paper, I introduce Foucault’s notion of pouvoir-savoir (“power-knowledge”), namely his account of the interconnection between power and knowledge. I then go on to articulate the Foucauldian critique of scientific naturalism by arguing that the levelling nature of nomothetic rationality and its conservative naturalistic vocabulary involves regulative discourse: anything that resists placeability/locatability is labelled “odd”. By being thus visibly marked, “odd” phenomena become “queer” phenomena, which then become “problematic” phenomena. They are, thereby, construed in need of discipline (and even punishment). Understood in this Foucauldian way, scientific naturalist disciplinarity produces subjected and practised minds, “docile” minds.
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
傅对科学自然主义的批判:“Docile Minds”
摘要:我在这篇论文中的目的是阐明傅对科学自然主义的批判,以及对布局问题背后的法理框架的批判。我对科学自然主义的傅式后结构主义批判质疑了我们社会的经济政治权力结构与知识之间的关系,这也影响了福柯和哈贝马斯之间的一些建设性的批判一致性,有助于破坏他们各自社会批判不相容的传统观点。首先,我将概述科学自然主义兴起的一个简短的系谱背景故事,然后我将重建安置问题。在论文的第二部分,我介绍了福柯的pouvoir savoir(“权力知识”)概念,即他对权力与知识之间相互联系的描述。然后,我继续阐述了傅对科学自然主义的批判,认为法治理性及其保守的自然主义词汇的平准性涉及调节话语:任何抵制可放置性/可放置性的东西都被贴上了“奇怪”的标签。通过这样明显地标记,“奇怪”现象变成了“奇怪”的现象,然后变成了“有问题”的现象。因此,他们被认为需要纪律(甚至惩罚)。以这种傅式的方式理解,科学自然主义者的自律性产生了服从和实践的头脑,“顺从”的头脑。
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
Critical Horizons
Critical Horizons SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊最新文献
Giorgio Agamben’s Critique of the Covid-19 Response has Little to Do with Biopolitics Political Judgment and Ingenium: Rethinking the Sensus Communis Through Arendt and Vico The Politics of Bodies: Philosophical Emancipation with and Beyond Rancière Of Israel, Forst & Voltaire: Deism, Toleration, and Radicalism The Human Crisis Revisited: Albert Camus and Climate Rebellion
×
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