Similarly, the quest for the afterlives of area studies is underpinned by epistemological imperatives of a North American style of knowing, which has strongly shaped post World War II discourses of area studies. The throwing back of studies to local scholars comes at a time when the epistemological rules of the day appear to be about a search for diversity rather than similarity, an eschewing of western and nation state frameworks and a rejection of the possibility of any bounded geographical and identity conceptions in the current world
More poignantly, underpinning these imperatives is a vicious polarization of opinions over disciplinarity in the context of epistemological challenges to disciplinary foundations, and debates on the politics of knowledge production. In this polarization where there is often no middle ground, disciplines are either seen as immutable and to be strictly defended or as oppressive and to be dismantled. Equally theoretical-political differences between the right and left and even amongst these groups themselves, are bitterly divided, and an growing more dogmate in the face of postmodern challenges .7 in such an atmosphere, concepts and social categories become part of a social science language game they are hijacked, reified. and frozen by dogmatic ideological and disciplinary purposes making alternative persuasions simply dificult or misunderstood.
In this context , how might local scholars negotiate the difference in what counts as "scholarship" in Southeast Asian and Euro-American settings, while the remaining true to their calling to prioritize local perspectives? Given the global diffusion of Euro-American ideas in today's world. how are alternative
Similarly, the quest for the afterlives of area studies is underpinned by epistemological imperatives of a North American style of knowing, which has strongly shaped post World War II discourses of area studies. The throwing back of studies to local scholars comes at a time when the epistemological rules of the day appear to be about a search for diversity rather than similarity, an eschewing of western and nation state frameworks and a rejection of the possibility of any bounded geographical and identity conceptions in the current world
More poignantly, underpinning these imperatives is a vicious polarization of opinions over disciplinarity in the context of epistemological challenges to disciplinary foundations, and debates on the politics of knowledge production. In this polarization where there is often no middle ground, disciplines are either seen as immutable and to be strictly defended or as oppressive and to be dismantled. Equally theoretical-political differences between the right and left and even amongst these groups themselves, are bitterly divided, and an growing more dogmate in the face of postmodern challenges .7 in such an atmosphere, concepts and social categories become part of a social science language game they are hijacked, reified. and frozen by dogmatic ideological and disciplinary purposes making alternative persuasions simply dificult or misunderstood.
In this context , how might local scholars negotiate the difference in what counts as "scholarship" in Southeast Asian and Euro-American settings, while the remaining true to their calling to prioritize local perspectives? Given the global diffusion of Euro-American ideas in today's world. how are alternative
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
