scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessBook

Science of Science and Reflexivity

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Bourdieu's "Science of Science and Reflexivity" as mentioned in this paper argues that science is in danger of becoming a handmaiden to biotechnology, medicine, genetic engineering, and military research that it risks falling under the control of industrial corporations that seek to exploit it for monopolies and profit.
Abstract
Over the last four decades, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu produced one of the most imaginative and subtle bodies of social theory of the postwar era. When he died in 2002, he was considered to be a thinker on a par with Foucault, Barthes, and Lacan a public intellectual as influential to his generation as Sartre was to his. "Science of Science and Reflexivity" will be welcomed as a companion volume to Bourdieu's now seminal "An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology." In this posthumous work, Bourdieu declares that science is in danger of becoming a handmaiden to biotechnology, medicine, genetic engineering, and military research that it risks falling under the control of industrial corporations that seek to exploit it for monopolies and profit. Science thus endangered can become detrimental to mankind. The line between pure and applied science, therefore, must be subjected to intense theoretical scrutiny. Bourdieu's goals in "Science of Science and Reflexivity" are to identify the social conditions in which science develops in order to reclaim its objectivity and to rescue it from relativism and the forces that might exploit it. In the grand tradition of scientific reflections on science, Bourdieu provides a sociological analysis of the discipline as something capable of producing transhistorical truths; he presents an incisive critique of the main currents in the study of science throughout the past half century; and he offers a spirited defense of science against encroaching political and economic forces. A masterful summation of the principles underlying Bourdieu's oeuvre and a memoir of his own scientific journey, "Science of Science and Reflexivity" is a capstone to one of the most important and prodigious careers in the field of sociology."

read more

Citations
More filters

Unbehagen: A Gallantry with Excess

TL;DR: In this article, the human impact of material technology under the conditions of capitalism is investigated in terms of the Lacanian struggle for subjective articulation, and two related propositions concerning material technology are interrogated.
Journal ArticleDOI

Oestrogen receptors and breast cancer. are we prepared to move forward? A critical review

TL;DR: This article critically review the scientific literature for the period 1960–2016 and examines the rise and persistence of the oestrogen hypothesis as well as the neglect of alternative hormonal explanations, using Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of the scientific field alongside feminist science scholars to explore the impact of gendered assumptions on science.
Journal Article

A Nomos for Art and Design

TL;DR: The authors examines the relationship between reflecting and making in the context of the new institutional connection between research and art/design, and argues that a parity of esteem between reflect and making is vital not only for the sake of the stability of the fields of art and design but for the ongoing development of the broader university.
Journal ArticleDOI

Aspiration, Achievement and Abandonment in ‘The World’s Best Country’: Merit and Equity or Smoke and Mirrors?

TL;DR: In this paper, a self-ethnography of career trajectories within Finnish higher education is designed to call attention to institutional social dynamics that have escaped the attention of scholarly literature and contemporary debates about academic work and practice.
Journal ArticleDOI

On Peirce's Claim that Belief Should Be Banished from Science

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the ground and validity of Peirce's claim that "belief has no place in science" and argue that such a claim should not be understood as merely an overreaction to William James' thesis that there can be legitimate non-evidential reasons to believe.