- May 2022
I think it may have been the British Library interview in which Wengrow says something like, you know, no one ever challenges a new conservative book and says, so and so has just offered a neoliberal perspective on X. But when an anarchist says something, people are sure to spend most of their time remarking on his politics. I think it's relevant that G&W call out Pinker's cherry-picking of Ötzi the ice man. They counter this with the Romito 2 specimen, but they insist that it is no more conclusive than Ötzi. So how does a challenging new interpretation gain ground in the face of an entrenched dominant narrative?
This sentiment is very similar to one in a recent lecture series I'd started listening to: The Modern Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida #.
Lawrence Cahoone specifically pointed out that he would be highlighting the revolutionary (and also consequently the most famous) writers because they were the ones over history that created the most change in their field of thought.
How does the novel and the different manage to break through?
How does this relate to the broad thesis of Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
The comment Wengrow makes about "remarking on [an anarchist's] politics" as a means of attacking their ideas is quite similar to the sort of attacks that are commonly made on women. When female politicians make relevant remarks and points, mainstream culture goes to standbys about their voice or appearance: "She's 'shrill'", or "She doesn't look very good in that dress." They attack anything but the idea itself.
- Mar 2022
There are some additional interesting questions here, like: how do you get to the edge quickly? How do you do that across multiple fields? What do you do if the field seems misdirected, like much of psychology?
- How do you get to the edge quickly?
I think this is where literature mapping tools come in handy. With such a tool, you can see how the literature is connected and which papers are closer to the edge of understanding. Some tools on this point include Connected Papers, Inciteful, Scite, Litmaps, and Open Knowledge Maps.
- How do you do that across multiple fields?
I think this requires taking an X-disciplinary approach that teeters on multiple disciplines.
- What do you do if the field seems misdirected, like much of psychology?
Good question. It is hard to re-orient a field unless you can find a good reason (e.g., a crisis) for a paradigm shift. I think Kuhn's writing on [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/Kuhn.html) may be relevant here.
Immersion in previous work may bia s creativity and limit imagination if users cannot break free from tradition.
Being bound in the shackles of prior traditions and even one's own work can be stifling for future creativity and the expansion of our imaginations.
Link to the scientific revolution thesis of Thomas Kuhn.
- Jun 2021
that sometimes we don't give you know uh you know credit to or sort of like survive underneath in the subterfuge of what's happening
you could kind of go deeper with that is um do the work of like fred moten and stephanos harney's uh black study or radical study in in the undercommons of of this idea of like um there are these molds intellectual practice you know that sometimes we don't give you know uh you know credit to or sort of like survive underneath in the subterfuge of what's happening—Christopher R. Rogers (autogenerated transcript)
He's talking about work (scholarship) that may sit outside the mainstream that for one reason or another aren't recognized (in this case, because the scholars are marginalized in a culture mired in racist ideas, colonialism, etc.). At it's roots, it doesn't necessarily make the work any more or less valuable than that in
cf. with the academic samizdat of Vladimir Bukovsky who was working under a repressive Russian government
cf similarly with the work of Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Consensus can very often only be consensus until it isn't.
How do these ideas interoperate with those of power (power over and power with)? One groups power over another definitely doesn't make them right (or just) at the end of the day.
I like the word "undercommons", which could be thought of not in a marginalizing way, but in the way of a different (and possibly better) perspective.