This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.
Hide this

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies…

Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity (Knowledge:…

by Ellen Messer-Davidow

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingConversations



Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

“The various connotations of ‘discipline’ have until recently been entirely positive; to call a branch of knowledge a discipline was to imply that it was rigorous and legitimate. The name did not reveal that knowledge was produced by regulating or controlling knowledge-producers, nor that the training of disciples produced the general producers, nor that the training of disciples produced the general acceptance of disciplinary methods and truths. The branches of knowledge themselves, as well as what ‘a branch of knowledge’ even means, have changed radically since the classical era.”
“Modern disciplines, however, came into being only with the breakup of natural philosophy into independent natural sciences at the end of the eighteenth century. Moral philosophy broke up somewhat later into the social sciences. ‘The humanities’ is a twentieth-century term of convenience for those disciplines excluded from the natural and social sciences. While modern philosophy was defined by what was removed from it in the creation of the sciences, the other modern humanities emerged first in the form of classical philology, which produced history, modern languages, and even art history as descendents.”
Disciplines partition themselves off from one another through “boundary-work,” which “entails the development of explicit arguments to justify particular divisions of knowledge and the social strategies that prevail in them…When the point is to regulate disciplinary practitioners, boundary-work determines which methods and theories are included, which should be excluded, and which may be imported.”
“To take disciplines as historical artifacts is to refuse to equate disciplinary knowledge with ‘truth.’ This approach to disciplinarity leads away from the issues that have preoccupied philosophy of science and epistemology.”
  profsuperplum | May 21, 2009 |
no reviews | add a review
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Series (with order)
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Awards and honors
First words
Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Publisher series
Original language
Canonical DDC/MDS

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English


Book description
Haiku summary

Amazon.com Product Description (ISBN 0813914299, Paperback)

The editors of this volume have brought together a distinguished and truly diverse group of contributors to examine how all sorts of knowledges have been constituted and to reconsider their constitution.

(retrieved from Amazon Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:09:50 -0400)

No library descriptions found.

Quick Links

Popular covers


Average: No ratings.

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.


About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 134,777,648 books! | Top bar: Always visible