Worldviews, Science and Us: Interdisciplinary Perspectives

October 13, 2010 10:36 Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in 01˙Diederik

INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES ON WORLDS, CULTURES AND SOCIETY

DIEDERIK AERTS AND BART D’HOOGHE Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]

RIK PINXTEN Center for Intercultural Communication and Interaction, University of Ghent, Belgium E-mail: [email protected]

IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN Department of Sociology, Yale University, USA E-mail: [email protected]

This volume is part of the ‘Worldviews, Science and Us’ series of proceedings and contains several contributions on the subject of interdisciplinary perspectives on worlds, cultures and societies. It represents the proceedings of several workshops and discussion panels organized by the Leo Apostel Cen- ter for Interdisciplinary studies within the framework of the ‘Research on the Construction of Integrating Worldviews’ research community set up by the Flanders Fund for Scientific Research. Further information about this research community and a full list of the associated international research centers can be found at http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/res/worldviews/ The first contribution to this volume, by Koen Stroeken, is entitled ‘Why consciousness has no plural’. Stroeken reflects about the way philosophical questions of epistemology influence theories of anthropology. More specifically, he focuses on how the notion of ‘spirit’ plays an important role in many cultures studied by anthropologists, analyzing how different ele- ments of worldviews, but also specific aspects of modern physics, can lead to original hypotheses on this notion. The next contribution, by Hendrik Pinxten, is entitled ‘The relevance

1 WORLDVIEWS, SCIENCE AND US - Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Worlds, Cultures and Society Proceedings of the Workshop on "Worlds, Cultures and Society" © World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. http://www.worldscibooks.com/general/8173.html October 13, 2010 10:36 Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in 01˙Diederik

of a non-colonial view on science and knowledge to an open perspective on the world’. Pinxten argues that the so-called ‘Methodenstreit’ was wrong- headed, because both camps were guilty of the colonial attitude. They failed to take into account the perspectives on knowledge and other tradi- tions in any genuine way, let alone allow for conceptual openness. Pinxten scrutinizes the conceptual and epistemological problems involved as well as the methodological issues of praxiology and performance theory. The third contribution is by Jeroen Van Bouwel and is entitled ‘An atlas for the social world: What should it (not) look like? Interdisciplinarity and pluralism in the social sciences.’ Van Bouwel’s aim is to examine how an interdisciplinary approach may produce an atlas to help navigate the social world. For this purpose, he looks into different social theories to evaluate how they might work together or start a mutual dialogue, after comparing the features of theories and maps, and relying on the different strategies that have been defended for interdisciplinarity in the social sciences. He illustrates his approach with actual proposals made by, inter alia, World-Systems Analysis, Critical Realism and Economics Imperialism. He then makes a case for question-driven interdisciplinarity, illustrating his ar- gument by discussing recent developments in economics, i.e. the debate between the orthodox and heterodox theories, the pleas for pluralism, and the impact of globalisation — and related institutional developments — on economics as a discipline. Patricia Frericks and Robert Maier authored the next contribution, entitled ‘Worlds of legitimate welfare arrangements: A realistic utopia on pensions’. Frericks and Maier analyze several pension-determining factors by studying different European pension reforms, presenting an original eval- uation of pension policies in the European Union. Their approach is ‘real- istically utopian’, in the sense that it combines recent political, social and economic reform considerations with normative and theoretical ideas. Their aim is to answer the question of whether there are ideal ways of combining these factors with the ultimate goal to outline a legitimate and sustainable pension system. Hans Alma and Adri Smaling’s ‘Imagination and empathy as conditions for interpersonal understanding in the context of a facilitating worldview’ studies the notion of empathy and its relationship with worldviews. The authors conceive of empathic understanding as a two-dimensional concept. The mental dimension refers to affective, cognitive and interpretive facets or phases of empathic understanding and the social dimension refers to expres- sive, responsive and interactive facets or phases of empathic understanding.

WORLDVIEWS, SCIENCE AND US - Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Worlds, Cultures and Society Proceedings of the Workshop on "Worlds, Cultures and Society" © World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. http://www.worldscibooks.com/general/8173.html October 13, 2010 10:36 Proceedings Trim Size: 9in x 6in 01˙Diederik

These two dimensions are intertwined and the optimal form of empathic understanding is called ‘dialogical-hermeneutical empathic understanding’. Furthermore, the importance of imagination and its development for optimal empathic understanding is elaborated. The next contribution is from Lieve Orye, entitled ‘Worldview as relational notion? Reconsidering the relations between worldviews, science and us from a radical symmetrical anthropology’. Lieve Orye develops an anthropological reflection on the notion of worldview. Highlighting the commonly established connection between worldview and map, orientation and globality, as well as the frequent discussions in Christian and other philosophical circles on the worldview-related notion of relativism and the swaying movement between conscious commitment and unconscious bias, she discusses the possibility of the notion used in such reflections being problematic. On the basis of Ed Hutchins’ work on ship navigation and the reflections of two reviewers of the latter’s work, viz. Bruno Latour and Tim Ingold, the author points out a foundational error in human sciences and introduces the possibility of considering the notion of worldview as a relational notion. Richard E. Lee’s contribution is entitled ‘The structures of knowledge in a world in transition’. Richard Lee considers how the structures of knowledge, the separation of facts from values into the two cultures of what eventually would come to be called the sciences and the humanities, emerged as fundamental components of the modern world-system along with the axial division of labor and the interstate system in Europe in the long sixteenth century. He argues that the restructuring that started in the late nineteenth century and resulted in the creation of the social sciences between the poles of the sciences and the humanities, is now in crisis. He investigates how developments in complexity studies and cultural studies put into question the utility of not only the presently accepted disciplinary boundaries, but also the attendant received epistemological, methodological, and theoretical approaches. This is followed by Ellen Van Keer’s ‘On bridging theory and practice in the perspective of history’. Ellen Van Keer reflects about possible bridges between theory and practice in historical studies. She argues that, while traditionally approaches have been evidence-based, focused on practical and empirical matters and largely ignored problems of interpretation and theory, ‘postmodernism’ has brought to light that non-empirical factors are inevitable and pose major epistemological obstacles in the perspective of history. In particular, it has become clear that historians cannot but trans-

late the past into their own words and concepts, and should be wary of hidden linguistic and cultural factors that actively help shape the knowledge they produce. To deal with this problem, Ellen Van Keer proposes a critical examination of the roles and concepts of (1) epistemology, (2) theory, (3) philosophy, (4) methodology, and (5) historiography in the study of history. Historiography emerges as a most promising subject and field to expose and address issues of theory in the practice of writing history. Furthermore, (6) archaeology, while traditionally describing the empirical- analytical study of past material objects, has recently also been developed into a critical-theoretical concept that exposes hidden conceptual founda- tions, implicit modern assumptions, and intrinsic linguistic structures determining our knowledge about the past. Thus, it integrates the main op- posing and complementary tenets and approaches in the ‘new’ perspective of history. The final contribution is by Gert Goeminne, Filip Kolen and Erik Pare- dis and is entitled ‘Addressing the sustainability challenge beyond the fact- value dichotomy: A call for engaged knowledge’. Goeminne, Kolen and Paredis suggest we should stop conceiving of scientists and politicians as mutual antagonists using their own specific weaponry, and instead begin to regard the place of their encounter, not as an arena, a battle stage, but as an agora, a meeting place where experts and lay people alike can join in the shared practice of ‘engaged knowledge’. The authors argue that, to promote the agora as a political space for addressing sustainability issues beyond the fact–value dichotomy, three main tasks are to be addressed. First of all, at the conceptual level, space will need to be opened up to host the agora. If we start thinking in terms of the co-constitution of subject and object and a conception of science as an activity that is necessarily engaged, this will allow us to explore the area in between the subject–object poles, rather than taking biased stances in favor of either side, be this science/policy, fact/value or knowledge/power. Secondly, it should be made clear what politics will look like in the agora. Participation will acquire a different status, characterized by its ‘engagement’, with knowledge practitioners, lay and expert, joining in the same practice. Their acts and statements can be checked against a set of measures constituted from within the dynam- ics of this common practice, in response to what they recognize as what is at issue at any time. Thirdly, the agora needs to be put at work. The authors therefore look into concrete policy approaches in the broad field of sustainable socio-technical transitions as potential entry points for their agora-oriented approach to engaged knowledge.