权力、政治和美洲政治科学的发展。

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 Q2 Arts and Humanities Science in Context Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.1017/S0269889720000150
Thibaud Boncourt, Paulo Ravecca
{"title":"权力、政治和美洲政治科学的发展。","authors":"Thibaud Boncourt, Paulo Ravecca","doi":"10.1017/S0269889720000150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social scientists tend to think about their disciplines as the objective analysis of society. However, numerous critical theorists such as Edward Said, Max Horkheimer, Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and Herbert Marcuse, as well as interpretativists and reflexivists (Jackson 2011; Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Flick 2007) have challenged the notion that knowledge production is politically neutral and argued that, in fact, it is a key component of the broader social and political relations in which it occurs. By taking part in the production of knowledge on society, social scientists participate in the production, legitimization or critique of the social order, social hierarchies, power relations, and political regimes. Several empirical, contemporary phenomena illustrate this idea, and make it particularly topical. Economics notoriously plays a key role in grounding the monetary policies implemented by central banks and the International Monetary Fund (Chwieroth 2010). Social scientists are regularly enrolled by political actors to help design institutions, policies, or electoral programs related to their field of expertise – for example, promoters of European institutions have heavily relied on social sciences to legitimate the integration process (Aldrin 2010; Bailleux 2013; Boncourt 2019). When not seen as a tool, social sciences are perceived as a threat: some increasingly authoritarian regimes like Erdogan’s Turkey and Orban’s Hungary have been taking concrete measures to thwart the development of these disciplines (Paternotte and Verloo 2020). Multiple questions arise from these examples: what is, concretely, the relationship between the development of the social sciences and the emergence of critical or legitimizing discourses on the social and political order? How do social and political contexts and actors influence the activity of social scientists? Why are some disciplines more heavily enrolled by established powers or movements critical of such powers at a given time? What are the profiles and trajectories of the scholars who get involved in the production of legitimizing or critical intellectual tools? What concrete forms do these tools take, from scientific ideas (paradigms, methods, arguments, etc.) to policy instruments (surveys, data banks, etc.)? This special issue contributes to answering these questions by focusing on the case of political science in the Americas. A discipline par excellence concerned with producing narratives on power relations, political science offers an interesting case study for observing the interplay between the development of the social sciences and the production of the social and political order (Ravecca 2019). The articles gathered in this special issue explore how politics and power dynamics affect political science and vice versa. They focus on the relationship between political regimes, contexts, and events on the one hand, and the academic field and the knowledge it produces on the other hand.","PeriodicalId":49562,"journal":{"name":"Science in Context","volume":"33 2","pages":"95-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0269889720000150","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Power, politics, and the development of political science in the Americas.\",\"authors\":\"Thibaud Boncourt, Paulo Ravecca\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0269889720000150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social scientists tend to think about their disciplines as the objective analysis of society. However, numerous critical theorists such as Edward Said, Max Horkheimer, Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and Herbert Marcuse, as well as interpretativists and reflexivists (Jackson 2011; Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Flick 2007) have challenged the notion that knowledge production is politically neutral and argued that, in fact, it is a key component of the broader social and political relations in which it occurs. By taking part in the production of knowledge on society, social scientists participate in the production, legitimization or critique of the social order, social hierarchies, power relations, and political regimes. Several empirical, contemporary phenomena illustrate this idea, and make it particularly topical. Economics notoriously plays a key role in grounding the monetary policies implemented by central banks and the International Monetary Fund (Chwieroth 2010). Social scientists are regularly enrolled by political actors to help design institutions, policies, or electoral programs related to their field of expertise – for example, promoters of European institutions have heavily relied on social sciences to legitimate the integration process (Aldrin 2010; Bailleux 2013; Boncourt 2019). When not seen as a tool, social sciences are perceived as a threat: some increasingly authoritarian regimes like Erdogan’s Turkey and Orban’s Hungary have been taking concrete measures to thwart the development of these disciplines (Paternotte and Verloo 2020). Multiple questions arise from these examples: what is, concretely, the relationship between the development of the social sciences and the emergence of critical or legitimizing discourses on the social and political order? How do social and political contexts and actors influence the activity of social scientists? Why are some disciplines more heavily enrolled by established powers or movements critical of such powers at a given time? What are the profiles and trajectories of the scholars who get involved in the production of legitimizing or critical intellectual tools? What concrete forms do these tools take, from scientific ideas (paradigms, methods, arguments, etc.) to policy instruments (surveys, data banks, etc.)? This special issue contributes to answering these questions by focusing on the case of political science in the Americas. A discipline par excellence concerned with producing narratives on power relations, political science offers an interesting case study for observing the interplay between the development of the social sciences and the production of the social and political order (Ravecca 2019). The articles gathered in this special issue explore how politics and power dynamics affect political science and vice versa. They focus on the relationship between political regimes, contexts, and events on the one hand, and the academic field and the knowledge it produces on the other hand.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science in Context\",\"volume\":\"33 2\",\"pages\":\"95-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0269889720000150\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science in Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889720000150\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science in Context","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889720000150","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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
Power, politics, and the development of political science in the Americas.
Social scientists tend to think about their disciplines as the objective analysis of society. However, numerous critical theorists such as Edward Said, Max Horkheimer, Antonio Gramsci, Michel Foucault, and Herbert Marcuse, as well as interpretativists and reflexivists (Jackson 2011; Denzin and Lincoln 2011; Flick 2007) have challenged the notion that knowledge production is politically neutral and argued that, in fact, it is a key component of the broader social and political relations in which it occurs. By taking part in the production of knowledge on society, social scientists participate in the production, legitimization or critique of the social order, social hierarchies, power relations, and political regimes. Several empirical, contemporary phenomena illustrate this idea, and make it particularly topical. Economics notoriously plays a key role in grounding the monetary policies implemented by central banks and the International Monetary Fund (Chwieroth 2010). Social scientists are regularly enrolled by political actors to help design institutions, policies, or electoral programs related to their field of expertise – for example, promoters of European institutions have heavily relied on social sciences to legitimate the integration process (Aldrin 2010; Bailleux 2013; Boncourt 2019). When not seen as a tool, social sciences are perceived as a threat: some increasingly authoritarian regimes like Erdogan’s Turkey and Orban’s Hungary have been taking concrete measures to thwart the development of these disciplines (Paternotte and Verloo 2020). Multiple questions arise from these examples: what is, concretely, the relationship between the development of the social sciences and the emergence of critical or legitimizing discourses on the social and political order? How do social and political contexts and actors influence the activity of social scientists? Why are some disciplines more heavily enrolled by established powers or movements critical of such powers at a given time? What are the profiles and trajectories of the scholars who get involved in the production of legitimizing or critical intellectual tools? What concrete forms do these tools take, from scientific ideas (paradigms, methods, arguments, etc.) to policy instruments (surveys, data banks, etc.)? This special issue contributes to answering these questions by focusing on the case of political science in the Americas. A discipline par excellence concerned with producing narratives on power relations, political science offers an interesting case study for observing the interplay between the development of the social sciences and the production of the social and political order (Ravecca 2019). The articles gathered in this special issue explore how politics and power dynamics affect political science and vice versa. They focus on the relationship between political regimes, contexts, and events on the one hand, and the academic field and the knowledge it produces on the other hand.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science in Context
Science in Context 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science in Context is an international journal edited at The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University, with the support of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. It is devoted to the study of the sciences from the points of view of comparative epistemology and historical sociology of scientific knowledge. The journal is committed to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of science and its cultural development - it does not segregate considerations drawn from history, philosophy and sociology. Controversies within scientific knowledge and debates about methodology are presented in their contexts.
期刊最新文献
Modernism, modernity, and politics in the general history of science: Implications of Herbert Mehrtens' work, from "Vienna 1900" to the Nazi era, and beyond. Brouwer and Hausdorff: On reassessing the foundations crisis George Montandon, the Ainu and the theory of hologenesis Textual materiality and abstraction in mathematics The animal model of human disease as a core concept of medical research: Historical cases, failures, and some epistemological considerations
×
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