CALL FOR PAPERS
Spaces of Knowledge and Bildung
– The institutions and
social conditions of the humanities
Conference venue: University of Oslo, Norway
17th-18th March 2011
Organizers: Forum for University History, University of Oslo and
Nordic Summer University, study circle 5: “Humanities in Society”
The NSU study circle is visiting Forum for University History in the year of the 200 Year anniversary of the University of Oslo
See more at: www.uio.no/english/about/news-and-events/uio200/
The creation and social circulation of humanistic knowledge is dependent on social institutions. What institutions contribute to the realization of the general knowledge interests of humanistic knowledge? The institutions that exist today are a legacy of the institutionalization of different earlier ideas of the roles of the humanities. What institutions participate in the production and social circulation of humanistic knowledge? With the history of the humanities in mind, how can we think creatively, responsibly, and constructively about the institutions needed for the humanities of the 21st century?
The educational institutions are obviously important spaces for knowledge and Bildung, both the university as the location and crucial intersection of research and education, and the secondary and primary schools. But also other institutions participate in the ecology of humanistic knowledge, such as libraries, archives, “folk high schools”, study circles, museums, radio, television, and newpapers. How can these institutions be taken into account when thinking about the institutional set-up of Bildung and humanistic knowledge? To what extent is the public sphere a necessary condition for the development of Bildung – and vice versa?
How do the changing conditions of the public sphere affect the role of the humanities in society? To what extent do such changes affect the forms of knowledge and their criteria of legitimacy? Consider for example the effects of the internet on both finding (in endless databases), producing and disseminating humanistic knowledge to previously unimagined numbers of “googling” individuals, and the democratization of knowledge through Wikipedia. New cultural TV-channels inevitably influence the public’s expectations and demands on the humanities and the form of knowledge asked for (a visual turn?). The legitimacy of the humanities depends not only on the humanities themselves, but also on the perceptions of the institutions carrying the humanities and norms among people and the politicians. How have the perception and the cultural conditions of legitimacy of the humanities changed since the 19th century, concerning relevance, validity, usefulness etc.? How are the humanities and their institutions to preserve and develop their legitimacy in the future?
The social conditions of the humanities also concern the systems of funding, accountability, and uses of knowledge. How have “patrons” such as the church, the nation state often through both national research councils and direct state financed institutions, the market, private foundations etc. shaped our understanding of the humanities? What “patrons”, institutions and conditions best guarantee the autonomy and the fulfilment of general purposes of the humanities?
Scholars, Ph.D. students and advanced students are invited to present papers at the conference. Send an abstract (< 300 words) to Martin Wiklund (Gothenburg University) martin.wiklund@lir.gu.se no later than the 1st of December 2010.
Conference language: English. Conference fee: 300 NOK.
PLEASE OBSERVE: All Nordic and Baltic participants will be given financial support for their travel expenses and accommodation in Oslo (within a budget limit – own expenses can occur). Accommodation will be arranged by the coordinators. Travel is to be purchased as cheap as possible by the conference participants themselves.
The conference is organized by the Nordic Summer University (NSU, Study Circle 5) in co-operation with Forum for University History, Oslo University. NSU is financing this event by the support of the Nordic Council of Ministers.
For further information/questions, please contact the coordinators:
Jesper Eckhardt Larsen: jel@dpu.dk or Martin Wiklund: martin.wiklund@lir.gu.se
Winterseminar 2010
Soft knowledge in hard times
– The concept of knowledge and the present challenges to the
humanities and the social sciences
Programme for winter seminar and one day conference
9th–11th March 2010
Organised by Nordic Summeruniversity, Humanistisk Forum, and the
EPOKE-programme at The Danish School of Education, Aarhus University
Venue: The Danish School of Education (DPU), Aarhus University
Copenhagen campus, Tuborgvej 164, DK2400 Copenhagen NV
Venue contact: Jesper Eckhardt Larsen (jel @ dpu.dk)
This open seminar has the object of discussing the challenges that are facing the humanities and parts of the social sciences in a new epoch of knowledge production and dissemination. Our argument is that the character of knowledge is being deeply challenged and changed in light of new forms of policies and politics of knowledge. A few characterisations could be put into play: Soft knowledge in hard times? Slow knowledge in a fast society? Pure knowledge in times of instrumentalism and pragmatism? Deep knowledge in times of superficiality? Local knowledge in times of globalisation? Premodern knowledge in postmodernity? Some questions to be addressed are: What kind of knowledge should the humanities produce in order to fulfil its purpose in society? What concept of knowledge is appropriate for humanities with regard to its basic interests of knowledge? Should humanities strive for objectivism or some kind of relativism/ contextualism? What concept of knowledge corresponds to how humanities are actually used in society? How is the form of knowledge of the humanities challenged by new systems of accountability and financing and how should the humanities meet these challenges?
Precise venue:
The seminar is taking place on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday morning in room
A412/Main building A – top floor – Thursday afternoon conference is in Auditorium
D174/White building D, ground floor
Tuesday March 9th 13.30 – 14.00
Welcome and introduction to participants and themes A-D by the NSU-coordinators Martin
Wiklund and Jesper Eckhardt Larsen.
Theme A. – Historical treatments of concepts of knowledge
Tuesday, March 9th 14.00- 14.45 Humanistiska kunskapsbegrepp och vetenskapens legitimeringsstrategier
Ragnar Nielsson,
Institutionen för litteratur, idéhistoria och religion, Göteborgs universitet
Under 1900-talet har på olika sätt ett vetenskapligt perspektiv anlagts på vetenskapen själv. Från början tycks utgångspunkterna ha varit mer eller mindre abstrakta och filosofiska, frågan gällde mer hur säker kunskap kan berättigas än hur vetenskap faktiskt bedrivs. Den bild av säker och tillförlitlig kunskap som samtidigt utgjorde utgångspunkt och mål för dessa resonemang utgör också en vanlig utgångspunkt för vardagsresonemang om vetenskap och forskning. Den bygger på ett kunskapsrealistiskt perspektiv, där forskningen antas avtäcka en yttre verklighets objektiva beskaffenhet som vetenskapen genom sina resultat oproblematiskt förväntas spegla i neutrala beskrivningar. Detta kunskapsbegrepp ligger till grund för en objektivistisk och positivistisk vetenskapssyn, som fortfarande sätter ramarna för många resonemang kring vetenskapens legitimitet och auktoritet.
På 1960-talet utvecklades istället mer empiriskt orienterade vetenskapsstudier, som ofta har motsagt denna kunskaps- och vetenskapssyn. Dessa ligger istället till grund för mer relativiserande perspektiv på vetenskap och forskning. Detta sätt att se på vetenskap och forskning kan också relateras utvecklingen av västvärldens kunskapsinstitutioner under samma tid. Under decennierna efter 1950 byggdes ett tidigare småskaligt elituniversitet ut till ett modernt massuniversitet, där allt fler forskare och lärare hade att utbilda allt fler studenter. Det innebar att institutionerna integrerades i ett samhällsbyggnadsprojekt, som satte ramarna för såväl utbildnings- som forskningspolitiken. Detta ledde också till en avsevärd breddning av forskningsverksamheten, när allt fler forskare blev verksamma parallellt, och dessutom med ansvar för en allt vidare krets av yrkesutbildningar.
Denna breddning skedde också inom varje disciplin och vetenskapsområde. I ett tidigare småskaligt forskarsamfund hade varje disciplin sin egen modell, som samlade alla forskare i ämnet – många gånger under tyst och oartikulerat samförstånd. Nu bedrevs många typer av forskning inom varje ämne, och nya problem och frågor började ställas. Då kunde även olika typer av metoder aktualiseras, vilket ökade medvetenheten om de tidigare outtalade utgångspunkterna för forskningen. Det kan ha gjort det mer filosofiskt motiverade objektivistiska kunskapsbegreppet svårare att hantera. I detta sammanhang tycks de nya metateoretiska vetenskapsbeskrivningarna tacksamt mottas som lösning på ett framkrypande legitimeringsproblem – inom många olika vetenskapsområden. I avhandlingen God vetenskap visas hur ett absolut kunskapsbegrepp förlorar mark i bedömningar av god forskning inom såväl fysik och statsvetenskap som inom litteraturforskningen. Istället tycks ett mer instrumentellt synsätt etableras, där den kunskap som fungerar, som får förklaringsvärde eller låter sig omsättas i tillämpningar, betraktas som legitim. Och detta utan att man behöver fundera över innehållets koppling till en tänkt oberoende verklighet eller ett traditionellt sanningsbegrepp. Denna kunskapssyn svarar väl mot den metateoretiska beskrivning som växte fram parallellt. När det objektiva och positivistiska vetenskapsbegreppet förlorat mark tycks forskare inom samhälls- och naturvetenskaper börja grunda sin professionalitet i ett nytt språkbruk. Det synliggör olika komponenter i kunskapsprocessen, och tar intryck av den metavetenskapliga terminologin. Det tycks inte förekomma i samma grad inom humaniora. Istället förefaller de heterogena forskarmiljöernas förlust av objektivitetssträvandena utgöra ett större problem för dessa discipliner. Det kan tänkas hänga samman med många faktorer; humanisters eventuellt högre krav på självreflexivitet och därmed en större medvetenhet om kunskapsbegreppets relativisering, humanisters större kontaktytor med ett utomvetenskapligt sammanhang där deras kunskapsobjekt generellt betraktas som direkt tillgängliga för alla parter, eller på att den offentliga retoriken tycks ha svårare att nagla fast humanioras externa värde för samhället.
14.45-15.00 coffee break
Tuesday, March 9th 15.00- 16.00
Scientific governance. A history of scientific citizenship in Sweden before 1977
Fredrik Bragesjö, Aant Elzinga og Dick Kasperowski,
Institutionen för Filosofi, lingvistik och vetenskapsteori, Göteborgs universitet
As a culmination of political initiatives, several parliamentary investigations, lengthy discussions and controversies, a new law of higher education and research in Sweden were decided upon in 1977. The new law defined the relationship between university science and Swedish citizens as a project of knowledge dissemination. Using a typology of scientific governance together with the concept of scientific citizenship, the present paper argues how different but coexisting modes of governance science existed prior to 1977. These modes entailed attribution and appropriation of various rights and obligations on the part of different actors concerning their tasks and those of the universities. We understand this as a way of managing social order by scientific knowledge. In the process at hand, science and citizenship appears to be intertwined with different modes of governance. The relationship between citizenship and science during the period under investigation embodies two extremes. On the one hand state authorities expressed an ambition of creating stability. Through science and research the political aspirations of citizens are blocked out in contexts of societal unrest, whereas more stable periods were marked by greater tolerance by authorities towards political, economic or other interests of the parts of citizens. In times of political turmoil, as in the beginning of the 20th century or at the end of the 1960s, scientific knowledge and method were the means by state authorities to create a citizen less affected – as scientific beings – by political and religious influences. The educational mode of governance as such has been and remains an important stabilizing element for Swedish society were the expert/researcher is held up as a model citizen. The humanities and the social sciences in this process of a stabilizing and destabilizing have primarily been used as, in an educational mode of governance, to suppress too radical a societal change.
Tuesday, March 9th 16.00-16.45 The Forms of Knowledge and the Humanities. Max Scheler, the Sociology of Knowledge, and the Role of the Humanities in the ’Age of Equalization’
Lars Axel Petersen
Roskilde Universitetscenter
Discussions of the role and legitimacy of the humanities were highly prevalent during the Weimar Republic in Germany (1919-1933). It was an age of multidimensional crisis, but also an age of sustained growth of scientific institutions in Germany. The discussions were concerned with the shaping and institutionalization of old as well as new scientific disciplines, rather than with their very right to existence. Max Scheler (1874-1928) was a prominent philosopher of the age, whose thinking was metaphysical and religiously inspired; but he is best known for his seminal contributions to the interdisciplinary fields of the sociology of knowledge and philosophical anthropology. Prominent in Scheler’s teaching figures the idea of ’forms of knowledge’. Since the present symposium is concerned with the form(s) of knowledge in the humanities, I would like to spell out this idea of Scheler’s, and the implications for the humanities (in Germany often called ’the historical sciences of mind’) he attributed to it. Based mainly on Scheler’s lecture Die Formen des Wissens und die Bildung (1925), and his book on the sociology of knowledge, Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft (1926) I will investigate what he understood by ’forms of knowledge’, which forms of knowledge there are, according to him, and how they relate to the humanities, and to the particular role of the humanities in a time he diagnosed as the ’Age of Equalization’ (Weltalter des Ausgleichs). I will then discuss the contemporary significance of Scheler’s concept of ‘forms of knowledge’, his time diagnosis (how does it relate to contemporary diagnoses like ‘globalisation’, ‘late modernity’, etc.?) – and not least, the relevance of the idea of forms of knowledge to the humanities today (is it fruitful in order to identify and justify the role of the humanities?).
Theme B. – The present battles on knowledge
Wednesday march 10th 9.45 – 10.30
Uneven playing fields – materialism in science studies and science policy
David Budtz Pedersen
PhD Fellow, Section of Philosophy, Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen
In recent years humanist knowledge has increasingly been delegitimized. Due to new mechanisms of accountability in public research institutions, indicators have been installed that thoroughly underdetermine the value and utility of humanist knowledge and expertise. The legitimacy of science is ascribed exclusively in terms of quantification, benchmarking and commercialization – neglecting the more generic societal relevance of humanist and social scientific knowledge. Taking into account how the “techno-scientific” paradigm of Science and Technology Studies has influenced the analytic framework of current science policy, this paper opts for a more balanced notion of socio-epistemic practices and, hence, a less reductionist concept of institutional legitimacy.
10.30 – 10.45 Coffee break
Wednesday 11th 10.45-11.30 Do methodologies have politics? Epistemic values and the normativity of knowledge
Adam Netzén
Department of Sociology, Göteborg Universitet
There is currently a growing discussion about the values that guide scientific practice –
referred to as epistemic (or sometimes cognitive) values or virtues. This discussion was
opened up in the 70s when Thomas Kuhn showed that the criteria we use when judging the rationality of a theory should all be understood as values. A non-exhaustive list of epistemic values includes empirical adequacy, simplicity, complexity, scope, accuracy, fruitfulness, certainty, internal coherence, external consistency with accepted theories, replicability, precision, utility, quantification and objectivity. Some have wanted to make a distinction between the values present on the inside of science, which are intrinsic to scientific practice, and those on the outside. Outside values are then labelled cultural, contextual or non-cognitive. The nature and validity of the distinction between epistemic and cultural values is currently debated. Why do we need the knowledge that science can give us? What is the purpose or purposes of finding knowledge? Is it to pay respect to God’s glory? To understand the world? To manipulate and control the world? To dominate others? To predict phenomena? To understand others? To increase human happiness? To build character? To realise the good life? Our views on the good life and the good society tell us what the purposes of finding knowledge are. Depending on what the purpose of knowledge is, that knowledge will take different forms, with differing criteria for judging proper knowledge. Different forms of knowledge, with their respective epistemic values, carry with them different normative ideals built into the very conception of knowledge. Ideals of knowledge embody ethical and/or political viewpoints. Science suddenly appears as politics by other means, although not just as a simple struggle for power. Politics should here be understood as the pursuit – in the form of scientific practice – of values that a group of actors consider valuable. What is the politics present on the inside of rational science? Any conception of proper knowledge embodies a conception of the purpose that this knowledge should fill. The purpose of knowledge, in its turn, relates to a specific conception of the good life. Views about the good life have more to do with scientific practice than is commonly thought. Drawing together philosophical and empirical analyses of science with theories of power, politics and the good life, I will sketch the possible relations between normativity and knowledge.
Wednesday March 10th 11.30-12.15
Den postmoderne strid på humaniora – et eksempel
Sofie Marie Høegh Nielsen
Cand.mag. Kunsthistorie et b.sc. Matematik
Professor ved Kunsthistorie, Århus Universitet, Jacob Wamberg udgav i 2006 sin doktordisputats Landskabet som verdensbillede. Naturafbildning og kulturel evolution i Vesten fra hulemalerierne til den tidlige modernitet. Afhandlingen er, ifølge Wamberg, blevet modtaget med både tavshed og uret. I afhandlingen beskriver Wamberg noget af den kritik, der var og er rettet mod hans projekt; han tager kritikken op og afviser den. Essensen i problematikken mellem Wambergs afhandling og den modstand han er stødt på, drejer sig ifølge Wamberg selv om de videnskabelige legitimations-tendenser. Wamberg søger, med sin afhandling, at “gentilføre historien krop”, da han mener, at den nuværende kunsthistoriske forsknings “mikrohistoriske metodik” ikke er nok til at beskrive det kunsthistoriske felt. Wamberg sammensætter derfor en stor fortælling om landskabsbilledet i opgør med de små fortællingers æstetiske regel-løshed. Med den nye universitetsreform fra 2003 har universitet gennemgået omfattende ændringer, som også påvirker forskningen. Diskussionen om bevillinger, metrikker og den grundfaglige forskning fortsætter, mens universiteterne nu kan mærke de økonomiske konsekvenser af striden. Viden er en vare, der skal kunne sælges. Med akkrediteringer og ændrede taxameterordninger lægges der pres på universiteterne og deres rolle i samfundet. Den politiske strid om bevillingerne er en strid mellem universiteternes forskere og politikerne. Jeg vil gennemgå min videnskabsteoretiske analyse af Wambergs disputats for at illustrere, hvordan den nutidige kunsthistorieforskning strides indbyrdes. Til dette benytter jeg Jean Francois Lyotards beskrivelse af ‘viden i det postmoderne samfund’ fra 1979. Med dette søger jeg, at lægge op til en debat om forholdet mellem humaniora i samfundet og forskningens interne situation. Som oplæg til diskussion på seminaret ønsker jeg at stille følgende spørgsmål: Samfundspolitikken må accepteres for at vi kan udfolde forskningen under de vilkår den demokratiske borger sætter. Vi kan ikke komme uden om, at samfundet og dermed forskningen er styret af økonomiske interesser.
Hvordan forholder vi os til dette, så vi kan få ro og tid til fordybelse?
Wednesday March 10th 12.15 – 13.15 – Lunch for all participants
Theme C. – Alternative criteria of knowledge relevance
Wednesday March 10th 13.15-14.00 “»Wie es eigentlich gewesen» – some misunderstandings
Svante Nordin
Wednesday March 10th 14.00-14.45
Humaniora som praktisk kunskap bortom instrumentalism – tio teser om humanioras
kunskapsbegrepp
Martin Wiklund
Idéhistoria, Göteborgs universitet
Vetenskapliggörandet och professionaliseringen av humaniora medförde att de moraliska och politiska aspekterna av kunskapsbegreppet försköts från humaniora under 1800-talet. Den pragmatisk-didaktiska aspekten har förvisso funnits kvar i praktiken både inom och utanför vetenskapen, men det rena sanningssökandet och bruket av humanistisk kunskap har ofta satts i motsättning till varandra, som om kunskapens användning innebar en profanerande instrumentalisering. Det skymmer sikten för humanioras relevans och värde. Utgår man istället från humanioras kunskapsintressen ser problemet annorlunda ut. Instrumentalisering innebär då snarare att kunskapen används för yttre, främmande syften. Vilket begrepp om kunskap svarar mot kunskapsintresset orientering? I texten argumenteras i tio teser för en idé om humaniora som praktisk kunskap: kunskap för att leva; bruk av humaniora kontra forskning, förmedling och instrumentalisering; den humanistiska kunskapens användningsområde; relevansen av att värdera och bedöma; den praktiska logiken som modell: rättfärdigande av normativa slutsatser som kunskapsform kontra objektivism och ideologisk instrumentalisering; mening kontra sanning; behovet av bredd för djup och kvalitet kontra specialisering; kontextuell giltighet kontra skepticism och universalism; humaniora som färskvara och långvarig resurs; humanistiska kompetenser (orienteringsförmåga, tolkningsförmåga, bedömningsförmåga m.fl.) – mer än kompetenser för anställningsbarhet.
14.45-15.00 coffee break
Wednesday 10th 15.00 – 15.45
Global initiatives and local misunderstandings in the field of educational knowledge
Deivida Vandzinskaite
Wednesday 10th 15.45 – 16.30 What is educational knowledge?
Jesper Eckhardt Larsen,
Adjunkt ved Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitetsskole, Aarhus Universitet
Differing areas of knowledge tend to be understood in their relation to both man and society. Resent discussions on accountability seem to favour an instrumental view of knowledge, knowledge is judged by its applicability or its performativity in professional and/or employment arenas. This development has not meant, I will argue, a total abandoning of the idea of certain kinds of knowledge that are supposed to be specifically relevant to education. This is by far clearest in primary and secondary educational traditions, were there is still use of words like: dannelse (DK/N), bildning (SE), Bildung (D), liberal knowledge (USA/UK), culture générale (F). This paper will investigate both old and new definitions and thoughts on what kinds of knowledge should be heralded as educational – the statement by J.F. Lyotard that “Bildung is more and more passé” will thus be challenged.
Thursday 11th 10.00-12.00
Time for open discussion firstly to follow-up and draw conclusions from this winter-seminar – secondly for thoughts on ways to proceed.
Lunch break 12.00-13.00
Theme D. A global perspective on soft knowledge in hard times
– Open door conference
Thursday March 11th Auditorium D174
13.00 – 13.15 Introduction and welcome notice
Jens Erik Kristensen
Head of the Institute of Education, School of Education, University of Aarhus
13.15 – 13.30 Introduction to the theme – a glocal view on the situation for soft knowledge in hard times
Jesper Eckhardt Larsen
Assistant professor, Institute of Education, School of Education, University of Aarhus
13.30 – 14.15 Performance Driving the Humanities: Implications of New Public Management on Research within the Humanities in Denmark
Mette Thunø
Cand. mag. and Lecturer in Chinese, Dean of Humanities, University of Copenhagen
Coffee break
14.30 – 15.15 Soft Knowledge Gone Hard: Chinese Cultural Linguistics in the 1990s
Barbara Schulte
Ph.d. in Comparative Education, Sinology and History, Research Fellow at Lund University
15.15 – 16.00 Humanistic research in hard times: Hot knowledge and soft theories
Finn Collin
Professor of Philosophy, University of Copenhagen
__________________________________________________________________________
Vinterseminar 2009
d.28-d.29. marts 2009 i Göteborg
Nordisk Sommeruniversitet Kreds 5
Humanioras opgaver og humanisternes roller
Har humaniora (haft) særlige opgaver i samfundet fra renæssancen til idag? Har humanisterne (haft) særlige roller at spille i samfundet? Adskiller humanioras opgaver i demokratiet sig fra de andre videnskabsområder: samfundsvidenskab, naturvidenskab, teknisk videnskab? Skal humaniora være traditionsformidlende og bevarende eller innovativ og kritisk? Har humaniora en kompensatorisk funktion i moderniteten? Hvad er sammenhængen imellem de humanistiske videnskabers udvikling og den borgerlige offentlighed? Hvilken rolle spiller humaniora i udviklingen af medborgerlig dannelse? Hvad er den uddannelsesmæssige og dannelsesmæssige udfordring for humaniora? Har humanioras opgaver og humanisternes roller undergået historiske forandringer fra renæssancen til nyere tid? Spiller humaniora forskellige roller i forskellige moderne samfund? Hvilke forhåbninger/utopier knytter sig til humanioras opgaver i fremtidens samfund?
Se alle abstracts og programmet på www.nsuweb.net
Sommerseminaret for denne kreds finder sted på Nordisk Sommeruniversitets sommersession i 2009 på Tyrifjord Hotell (http://www.tyrifjord.no) fra d.19.-d.26. juli.
Forespørgsler om deltagelse kan ske hos medkoordinator Jesper Eckhardt Larsen – E-mail: jel at dpu.dk
