Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:36:35 +0100
From: Karl Maton <karl.maton-AT-dtn.ntl.com>
Subject: autonomy of the field


Something Kent wrote in what was a positive and helpful contribution to the
ongoing debate, sparked off a question which I thought I'd lay open to
the list
for discussion.  (This is not to say I'm looking for 'the answer' - I
have my
own ideas here, but I'll open it up for debate first).

this is the excerpt from Kent's posting:

> Within this conception, distinctions must
> be made between fields and science be granted or should strive for an
> autonomy from other fields, such that within academic discourse and the
> attempt to further science, everyday language and making it accessible to
> others outside the academy can be politically repressive in that it
> naturalizes the world producing a transparent representation of the world
> that maintains the status quo.

Now, I'm now going to raise the obvious question about the political,
but ask
instead what people think should be the basis of the autonomy of the scientific
field (or, more precisely, the various disciplines which comprise
science).  PB
says we should strive for autonomy, but I'd be interested to hear what people
think this actually means.

With best wishes,

Karl

Karl Maton
School of Education, University of Cambridge

Correspondence address:
108 Avenue Road Extension, Leicester LE2 3EH
Tel: 0116 220 1066
Email: karl.maton-AT-dtn.ntl.com

I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the heart’s affections and the
truth of the imagination
Keats
**********************************************************************
Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu