Disciplinary Boundaries and the Rhetoric of the Social Sciences

In this paper, I argue that the rhetorical character of disciplinary boundaries in the social sciences provides an especially good context for examining the embodiment of knowledge as a source of worldly power, a topic typically neglected by epistemologists and philosophers of science, who still tend to think of knowledge as a politically indifferent or "disembodied" phenomenon. I start with what seems to be a technical problem in the philosophy of science, namely, whether it is possible to demarcate criteria for demarcating science from nonscience. Recent philosophers have despaired of finding such "meta-boundaries" and as a result have begun to call into question the very identity of the philosophy of science. Against this line of reasoning, I argue that the failure of the demarcation project only shows that attempts to study science scientifically, as the philosophers have wanted to do, tend to result in science deconstructing its identity. But, clearly, the epistemic authority of science has worked to block such self-deconstructive moves in the normal course of inquiry. How? I propose a strategy for addressing this question, namely, to examine how science exercises worldly power by rhetorically drawing our attention to the fact that scientific knowledge repre-

[1]  S. Toulmin.  Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity , 1990 .

[2]  K. Ameriks,et al.  The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte , 1989 .

[3]  D. Campbell.  Psychology of science: Fragments of the fragile history of psychological epistemology and theory of science , 1989 .

[4]  Henry E. Kyburg,et al.  Science as Process. , 1993 .

[5]  J. Morawski,et al.  The Rise of Experimentation in American Psychology , 1988 .

[6]  Steve Woolgar,et al.  Science, the very idea , 1988 .

[7]  Peter T. Manicas,et al.  A history and philosophy of the social sciences , 1988 .

[8]  Joseph T Rouse,et al.  Knowledge and Power: Toward a Political Philosophy of Science , 1987 .

[9]  B. Latour.  Science in Action , 1987 .

[10]  Arthur Fine,et al.  Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science , 1986 .

[11]  W. Bechtel.  Integrating Scientific Disciplines , 1986 .

[12]  David M. Ricci.  The tragedy of political science , 1984 .

[13]  F. Black,et al.  The Rhetoric of Economics , 1986 .

[14]  T. Gieryn.  Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[15]  D. Shapere.  Reason and the search for knowledge , 1983 .

[16]  S. Collini.  That noble science of politics , 1983 .

[17]  Larry Laudan,et al.  The Demise of the Demarcation Problem , 1983 .

[18]  Loren R. Graham,et al.  Functions and uses of disciplinary histories , 1983 .

[19]  Michael Mulkay,et al.  Knowledge and Utility: Implications for the Sociology of Knowledge , 1979 .

[20]  R. Nisbet,et al.  A History of Sociological Analysis , 1979 .

[21]  A. Lowe.  On Economic Knowledge , 1977 .

[22]  N. Luhmann,et al.  Differentiation of society , 1977 .

[23]  G. Stocking.  Race, culture, and evolution , 1968 .

[24]  M. Harris,et al.  The Rise Of Anthropological Theory , 1968 .

[25]  B. Crick,et al.  In Defense of Politics , 1962 .

[26]  C. Wright Mills,et al.  Images of Man. , 1961 .

[27]  Don Albert Martindale,et al.  The nature and types of sociological theory , 1963 .

[28]  K. Popper.  The Poverty of Historicism , 1959 .

[29]  Maurice Merleau-Ponty,et al.  Phenomenology of perception , 2016 .

[30]  Talcott Parsons,et al.  The Structure of Social Action , 1938 .

[31]  H. Reichenbach.  Experience And Prediction , 1938 .

[32]  L. Robbins,et al.  An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. , 1934 .

[33]  E. Boring.  A History of Experimental Psychology. , 1930 .