可怜的发展。对社会正义领域的认识论反思

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY Cinta de Moebio Pub Date : 2020-09-14 DOI:10.4067/s0717-554x2020000200134
M. A. Jiménez
{"title":"可怜的发展。对社会正义领域的认识论反思","authors":"M. A. Jiménez","doi":"10.4067/s0717-554x2020000200134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Development studies is concerned with two issues: the development of normative theories of development and justice (development discourse), and the empirical study of the effects of interventions and their impact on the global policy context (development policy). These distinct theoretical aims of the discipline lead to epistemological difficulties in practice. In this paper I argue that development studies suffer from two main conceptual deficiencies. The first one corresponds to an analytical incapability for providing a definitive version of social justice that is simultaneously impartial and plural. The second weakness involves an empirical deficiency related to development discourse and current policies and practices. Identifying both epistemic deficiencies inherently embedded into what development has traditionally been about, may help to shed light on its analytical and technical boundaries and thus its ability to truly carry out its stated goals. To that end, this paper focuses on highlighting the consequences of these two epistemic oversights. I conclude that the field of development has no other alternative than (re)turning to its epistemic roots to adequately review the very essence of its conceptualization and effects.","PeriodicalId":54112,"journal":{"name":"Cinta de Moebio","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Poor development. An epistemic rethinking to the field of social justice\",\"authors\":\"M. A. Jiménez\",\"doi\":\"10.4067/s0717-554x2020000200134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Development studies is concerned with two issues: the development of normative theories of development and justice (development discourse), and the empirical study of the effects of interventions and their impact on the global policy context (development policy). These distinct theoretical aims of the discipline lead to epistemological difficulties in practice. In this paper I argue that development studies suffer from two main conceptual deficiencies. The first one corresponds to an analytical incapability for providing a definitive version of social justice that is simultaneously impartial and plural. The second weakness involves an empirical deficiency related to development discourse and current policies and practices. Identifying both epistemic deficiencies inherently embedded into what development has traditionally been about, may help to shed light on its analytical and technical boundaries and thus its ability to truly carry out its stated goals. To that end, this paper focuses on highlighting the consequences of these two epistemic oversights. I conclude that the field of development has no other alternative than (re)turning to its epistemic roots to adequately review the very essence of its conceptualization and effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cinta de Moebio\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cinta de Moebio\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2020000200134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cinta de Moebio","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-554x2020000200134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

发展研究涉及两个问题:发展和正义的规范理论(发展话语)的发展,以及干预措施的效果及其对全球政策背景的影响的实证研究(发展政策)。这门学科的这些不同的理论目标导致了实践中的认识论困难。在本文中,我认为发展研究存在两个主要的概念缺陷。第一个问题对应于一种分析上的无能,无法同时提供公正和多元的社会正义的最终版本。第二个弱点涉及与发展话语和当前政策和实践有关的经验不足。认识到传统意义上的发展所固有的认知缺陷,可能有助于阐明其分析和技术界限,从而真正实现其既定目标的能力。为此,本文着重强调这两种认识疏忽的后果。我的结论是,发展领域除了(重新)转向其认识论根源,以充分审查其概念化和影响的本质之外,没有其他选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Poor development. An epistemic rethinking to the field of social justice
Development studies is concerned with two issues: the development of normative theories of development and justice (development discourse), and the empirical study of the effects of interventions and their impact on the global policy context (development policy). These distinct theoretical aims of the discipline lead to epistemological difficulties in practice. In this paper I argue that development studies suffer from two main conceptual deficiencies. The first one corresponds to an analytical incapability for providing a definitive version of social justice that is simultaneously impartial and plural. The second weakness involves an empirical deficiency related to development discourse and current policies and practices. Identifying both epistemic deficiencies inherently embedded into what development has traditionally been about, may help to shed light on its analytical and technical boundaries and thus its ability to truly carry out its stated goals. To that end, this paper focuses on highlighting the consequences of these two epistemic oversights. I conclude that the field of development has no other alternative than (re)turning to its epistemic roots to adequately review the very essence of its conceptualization and effects.
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
Cinta de Moebio
Cinta de Moebio PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Cinta de Moebio publishes scientific articles and essays on epistemology of social science. The editorial experience of the magazine indicates that some academics send articles of philosophy, but of issues that are not related to the social sciences, as well as academics who sent the results of their research or projects in the social sciences, but its focus is not epistemology, which also are geared out to the purpose of the journal. The journal, put it in some way, it is in the dialogue of philosophy with social science and, therefore, both domains must be present in the articles.
期刊最新文献
Intervención en lo social y filosofía del contagio Una defensa restringida a la teoría de las preferencias reveladas Desacuerdos profundos, desacuerdos gratuitos y el riesgo de la postverdad A systemic problem cannot be solved systemically Describir y reflexionar: sobre las autodescripciones de la sociedad en la teoría de Niklas Luhmann
×
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