« Voltaire and Final Causes | Main | Spinoza, the PSR, and Voltaire, again (with a nod to Hume/Kant) »

04/04/2018

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Filippo Contesi

Hear, hear!

Shelley Tremain

"when a sub-field's major hiring decisions are made by those with no true interest in seeing it develop, then it's those who are best capable of speaking to (in Pasnau's terms) 'the majority' who will look most promising and interesting; who in a way seem to be doing what the majority is already doing.+ And this, perversely, reinforces and entrenches what I call the servility that is a consequence of all the hierarchies which operate in the profession. The more general epistemic problem with this is this: rather than turning non-core areas into fields of lively experimentation that can feedback, as it were, into the majority's outlook, they risk becoming dull backwaters. Those of us who live and breath in those waters do share the blame if we allow that to happen."


Eric,
these remarks crystallize the problem with respect to bioethics and philosophy of disability that I discuss in the first and fifth chapters of my new book, Foucault and Feminist Philosophy of Disability (University of Michigan Press, 2017). The duress (productive constraints) in this context is to (continue to) represent philosophical work on disability as bioethics, an established discourse and, in doing so, implicitly endorse a medicalized and individualized understanding of disability, which is, in fact, a historically specific apparatus of power (in Foucault's sense).

Eric Schliesser

Shelley, I am pleased that we agree over this. I have been very influenced by reflection on Foucault in the context of social epistemology, so I am not surprised we're converging.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad