Episteme
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 22:15, 6 December 2008 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 22:16, 6 December 2008 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | :"Several versions of [[critical theory]] have focused on the processes of [[status nascendi|synthesis, production, or construction]] by which the phenomena and objects of human communication, culture, and [[political consciousness]] come about. Whether it is through the transformational rules by which the [[deep structure]] of language becomes its [[surface structure]] (Chomsky), the universal pragmatic principles through which mutual understanding is generated (Habermas), the semiotic rules by which objects of daily usage or of fashion obtain their meanings (Barthes), the psychological processes by which the phenomena of everyday consciousness are generated (psychoanalytic thinkers), the ''[[episteme]]'' that underlies our cognitive formations (Foucault), and so on, there is a common interest in the processes (often of a linguistic or symbolic kind) that give rise to observable phenomena. Here there is significant mutual influence among aspects of the different versions of critical theory. Ultimately this emphasis on production and construction goes back to the revolution wrought by [[Kant]] in philosophy, namely his focus in the ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]'' on synthesis according to rules as the fundamental activity of the mind that creates the order of our experience." | + | [[Image:Efez Celsus Library 5 RB.jpg|thumb|Personification of Episteme in [[Celsus Library]] in [[Ephesus]], Turkey.]] |
| + | Distinguished from ''[[techne]]'', the word '''ἐπιστήμη''' is [[Greek language|Greek]] for ''[[knowledge]]'' or ''[[science]]'', coming from the verb ἐπίσταμαι "to know". | ||
| + | [[Michel Foucault]] used the term ''épistémè'' from an essay by [[Miya Osaki]], in his work ''[[The Order of Things]]'' to mean the historical ''[[A priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|a priori]]'' that grounds knowledge and its [[discourse]]s and thus represents the [[condition of possibility|condition of their possibility]] within a particular epoch. In subsequent writings, he made it clear that several epistemes may co-exist and interact at the same time, being parts of various power-knowledge systems. But, he did not disown the concept: | ||
| - | == In Linguistics == | + | <blockquote>I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific |
| + | </blockquote> | ||
| - | In [[linguistics]], and especially the study of [[syntax]], the '''deep structure''' of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, in particular [[Noam Chomsky]], have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct ''surface forms'' that derive from a common ''deep structure''. | + | Foucault's use of ''episteme'' has been asserted as being similar to [[Thomas Kuhn]]'s notion of a ''[[paradigm]]'', as for example by [[Jean Piaget]]. However, there are decisive differences. Whereas Kuhn's ''paradigm'' is an all-encompassing collection of beliefs and assumptions that result in the organization of scientific worldviews and practices, Foucault's ''episteme'' is not merely confined to science but to a wider range of discourse (all of science itself would fall under the ''episteme'' of the epoch). While Kuhn's paradigm shifts are a consequence of a series of conscious decisions made by scientists to pursue a neglected set of questions, Foucault's epistemes are something like the 'epistemological unconscious' of an era; the configuration of knowledge in a particular episteme is based on a set of fundamental assumptions that are so basic to that episteme so as to be invisible to people operating within it. Moreover, Kuhn's concept seems to correspond to what Foucault calls theme or theory of a science, but Foucault analysed how ''opposing'' theories and themes could ''co-exist'' within a science. Kuhn doesn't search for the conditions of possibility of opposing discourses within a science, but simply for the (relatively) [[invariant]] dominant paradigm governing scientific research (supposing that ''one'' paradigm always ''is'' pervading, except under paradigmatic transition). Like [[Althusser]], who draws on the concept of [[Ideology#Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction|ideology]], Foucault goes deeper through discourses, to demonstrate the constitutive limits of discourse, and in particular, the rules enabling their productivity. However, Foucault maintained that though ideology may infiltrate and form science, it need not do so: It must be demonstrated how ideology actually forms the science in question; contradictions and lack of objectivity is not an indicator of ideology. Kuhn's and Foucault's notions are both influenced by the French philosopher of science [[Gaston Bachelard]]'s notion of an "[[epistemological rupture]]", as indeed was Althusser. [[Judith Butler]] would use the concept of episteme in her book ''Excitable Speech''. After Foucault and [[Garth Fowden]], [[Victoria Nelson]] uses episteme ("the state of knowing") in opposition to gnosis ("the process of knowing"; see also [[Hermeticism]] and [[Gnosticism]]) in her book ''The Secret Life of Puppets''. |
| - | The concept of deep structure plays an important role in [[transformational grammar]]. In early transformational syntax, deep structures are derivation trees of a [[context free language]]. These trees are then transformed by a sequence of tree rewriting operations ("transformations") into [[surface structure]]s. The [[terminal yield]] of a surface structure tree, the surface form, is then predicted to be a grammatical sentence of the language being studied. The role and significance of deep structure changed a great deal as Chomsky developed his theories, and since the mid 1990s deep structure no longer features at all (see [[Transformational grammar]]). | + | ==References== |
| + | * Paul Stoller. ''The Taste of Ethnographic Things''. 1989. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA. | ||
| + | * Foucault, Michel. L'Archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard. 1969. | ||
| - | It is tempting to regard deep structures as representing meanings and surface structures as representing sentences expressing those meanings, but this is not the concept of deep structure favoured by Chomsky. Rather, a sentence more closely corresponds to a deep structure paired with the [[surface structure]] derived from it, with an additional [[phonetic form]] obtained from processing of the surface structure. It has been variously suggested that the interpretation of a sentence is determined by its deep structure alone, by a combination of its deep and surface structures, or by some other level of representation altogether ([[Logical form (linguistics)|logical form]]), as argued in 1977 by Chomsky's student [[Robert May (linguist)|Robert May]]. Chomsky may have tentatively entertained the first of these ideas in the early 1960s, but quickly moved away from it to the second, and finally the third. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the [[generative semantics]] movement put up a vigorous defence of the first option, sparking an acrimonious debate, the "[[Linguistics Wars]]". | + | ==See also== |
| - | + | *[[Epistemology]] | |
| - | The "surface" appeal of the deep structure concept soon led people from unrelated fields (architecture, music, politics, and even ritual studies) to use the term to express various concepts in their own work. In common usage, the term is often used as a synonym for [[universal grammar]] — the constraints which Chomsky claims govern the overall forms of linguistic expression available to the human species. This is probably due to the importance of deep structure in Chomsky's earlier work on universal grammar, though his concept of universal grammar is logically independent of any particular theoretical construct, including deep structure. | + | *[[Phronesis]] |
| - | + | *[[Techne]] | |
| - | According to Middleton (1990), [[Schenkerian analysis]] of music corresponds to the Chomskyan notion of deep structure, applying to a two-level generative structure for melody, harmony, and rhythm, of which the analysis by Lee (1985) of rhythmical structure is an instance. See also [[Chord progression#Rewrite rules]]. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | == In Intercultural Communication == | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | Intercultural Communication is when a member of one culture produces a message for consumption by another culture. The source of cultural views, such as behavior, attitudes, or customs, can be found in a culture’s deep structure. Deep structure is important because they carry the messages that mean the most to people. More importantly, the “we” identity connects the individual to cultural groups and the main organizations of that culture. Since the beginning of time, people have defined themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and institutions. Deep Structure in the intercultural field of study generally consists of three major structures: family, history (community, state), and worldview (religion). | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The family structure involves mainly nuclear and extended families. The family is a universal experience across every culture. It is also the oldest and one of the most essential human institutions. Note that governments have always changed or disappeared, yet the family unit always seems to survive; even though the dynamics and traditions of families in different cultures may be different, the family unit has always been constant across cultures. The family structure has also been influenced by old and new institutions. For example, in the United States, there is a less defined standard of what comprises a family. Noleer and Fitzpatrick regarded family as “a group of intimates who generate a sense of home and group identity, complete with strong ties of loyalty and emotion, and an experience of history and a future.” | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The history structure is vital to the deep structure. It gives cultures a sense of identity. It is what they want to be remembered by in the present and future. History involves formal and informal governments, a sense of community, political system, and geography. Past history has always impacted current behaviors. For example, current events in the Middle East can trace their roots back to conflict over sacred territories throughout the region. The main idea to think about with history is how the historical cultural roots have influenced the behaviors and perspectives of today’s world. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | The worldview structure involves the religion of a culture. The worldview of a culture is its orientation toward God, humanity, nature, the universe, life and death, etc… Religion is the main element through which worldview is derived in a culture. All religions are different in perspectives, yet they all have certain commonalities amongst them. They all have rituals, sacred scriptures, a high power of nature, rules and ethics. Due to religion, there has always been a belief in the existence of a reality beyond that of the human world, and this aspect has served as originator of cultures worldwide. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | == References == | + | |
| - | * Noam Chomsky (1957). ''Syntactic Structures''. Mouton. | + | |
| - | * Noam Chomsky (1965). ''Aspects of the Theory of Syntax''. MIT Press. | + | |
| - | * Noam Chomsky (1981). ''Lectures on Government and Binding''. Mouton. | + | |
| - | * Noam Chomsky (1986). ''Barriers''. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. MIT Press. | + | |
| - | * C. S. Lee (1985). "The rhythmic interpretation of simple musical sequences: towards a perceptual model", in P. Howell, I. Cross and R. West (eds.), ''Musical Structure and Cognition'' (Academic Press), pp. 53-69. | + | |
| - | * Richard Middleton (1990). ''Studying Popular Music''. Open University Press. | + | |
| - | Samovar, L, & Porter, R (August 2003). Communication between Culures .Wadsworth Publishing. | + | |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 22:16, 6 December 2008
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Image:Efez Celsus Library 5 RB.jpg
Personification of Episteme in Celsus Library in Ephesus, Turkey.
Distinguished from techne, the word ἐπιστήμη is Greek for knowledge or science, coming from the verb ἐπίσταμαι "to know".
Michel Foucault used the term épistémè from an essay by Miya Osaki, in his work The Order of Things to mean the historical a priori that grounds knowledge and its discourses and thus represents the condition of their possibility within a particular epoch. In subsequent writings, he made it clear that several epistemes may co-exist and interact at the same time, being parts of various power-knowledge systems. But, he did not disown the concept:
I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific
Foucault's use of episteme has been asserted as being similar to Thomas Kuhn's notion of a paradigm, as for example by Jean Piaget. However, there are decisive differences. Whereas Kuhn's paradigm is an all-encompassing collection of beliefs and assumptions that result in the organization of scientific worldviews and practices, Foucault's episteme is not merely confined to science but to a wider range of discourse (all of science itself would fall under the episteme of the epoch). While Kuhn's paradigm shifts are a consequence of a series of conscious decisions made by scientists to pursue a neglected set of questions, Foucault's epistemes are something like the 'epistemological unconscious' of an era; the configuration of knowledge in a particular episteme is based on a set of fundamental assumptions that are so basic to that episteme so as to be invisible to people operating within it. Moreover, Kuhn's concept seems to correspond to what Foucault calls theme or theory of a science, but Foucault analysed how opposing theories and themes could co-exist within a science. Kuhn doesn't search for the conditions of possibility of opposing discourses within a science, but simply for the (relatively) invariant dominant paradigm governing scientific research (supposing that one paradigm always is pervading, except under paradigmatic transition). Like Althusser, who draws on the concept of ideology, Foucault goes deeper through discourses, to demonstrate the constitutive limits of discourse, and in particular, the rules enabling their productivity. However, Foucault maintained that though ideology may infiltrate and form science, it need not do so: It must be demonstrated how ideology actually forms the science in question; contradictions and lack of objectivity is not an indicator of ideology. Kuhn's and Foucault's notions are both influenced by the French philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard's notion of an "epistemological rupture", as indeed was Althusser. Judith Butler would use the concept of episteme in her book Excitable Speech. After Foucault and Garth Fowden, Victoria Nelson uses episteme ("the state of knowing") in opposition to gnosis ("the process of knowing"; see also Hermeticism and Gnosticism) in her book The Secret Life of Puppets.
References
- Paul Stoller. The Taste of Ethnographic Things. 1989. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
- Foucault, Michel. L'Archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard. 1969.
See also
Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Episteme" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.
