X hits on this document

240 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

50 / 80

Discourses of knowledge and action

Attractive though in its terms of the liberation of the possibility (. .) post-modernism is fatally disabled, in crucial respects, for the enterprise we consider here (. .). The social order and any form of social action require agreed norms of meaning and it is action which is our target when we seek to promote greater cooperation among

disciplines (. .).

Nowhere have the implications

for social and political

action (. ..) or reaching

practical

understandings

through

processes

systematically examined than in the work and social theorist Jiirgen Habermas (. . ).

of

the

of communication been more contemporary German philosopher

Habermas’s theory of communicative action argues that the grounding of the social order and its legitimation in modern, pluralist, post-traditional society is to be sought

among the participants (. ).

One of his sympathetic but critical commentators (

. .) Gerard Delanty, [makes] an

extended collective

analysis identity

of communicative theory conflicts of our time, in an

in the

context

epoch in

which,

of the cultural and in Habermas’s words

<<theaccelerated pace

life. and

Culture survive if

secession)) (

).

of change they draw

in modern societies explodes all stationary the strength to transform themselvesfrom

forms of criticism

Delanty (. .) argues that universal truth and morality can be articulated in more than

one cultural Habermas’s

form and more than one

Occidental

rationalism

logic to

of a

development. He attempts to

cosmopolitan

model

of

reorient cultural

transformation.

Such transformation

must

proceed

in two

stages, he argues, of,

firstly,

reflection

and understanding,

and, only

secondly,

of

deliberation

and agreement.

cc27ze

aim of reflection is mutual understanding, not consensual agreement (...) Reflective discourse is more concerned with bringing to a heightened level of awareness cultural potentials and (with) recognising difSerence>>(. .). This is a thought, which can bear careful consideration when we try here to articulate the conditions for cooperations among different, and often contending, disciplinary cultures (. ..).

Conclusion

I

have

extensively

interdisciplinary

activity

promoted

the

considerable

in

education

and

other

policy

possibilities

for systematic

contexts, but

I

confess that my

personal experience of cooperation (. .).

has caused

me to

be

sharply

aware

of

the

difficulties

of

this

sort

career (. .). At each transition Like had others here I have to become sensitive had an interdisciplinary I have values sharply diverging cultural assumptions , l a n g u a g e to s , changes, or anyway significantly , practices and power structures. One litterally m o d i f i e s , o n e s i d e n t i t y a t e a c h t a k i n g u p o f a n e w t r i b a l m e m b e r s h i p ( . . . ) .

Document info
Document views240
Page views240
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 15:19:24 UTC 2016
Pages80
Paragraphs4322
Words23493

Comments