Beyond the subject–object binary: Towards cosmopolitan knowledge

Rather than distinguishing, as Held’s (2020) article does, between “subjective” and “objective” forms of knowledge, this commentary makes the counter argument that the subject–object relation is an integral feature of all forms of knowledge, which can be more usefully distinguished according to diff...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Theory & psychology 2020-06, Vol.30 (3), p.448-454
Main Author: Neilson, David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Articulation
Epistemology
Imperialism
Intersectionality
Knowledge
Objectivity
Social sciences
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Rather than distinguishing, as Held’s (2020) article does, between “subjective” and “objective” forms of knowledge, this commentary makes the counter argument that the subject–object relation is an integral feature of all forms of knowledge, which can be more usefully distinguished according to differences in the form of the subject–object relation. I specifically differentiate the subject–object relation of Western social science from those of everyday knowledge and non-Western forms of knowledge. Western social science’s epistemological violence to other(ed) forms of knowledge is enabled, this commentary argues, by the false assumption that it is a subject-less objectivity while other forms of knowledge are subjective. The alternative epistemological subject position introduced here contrasts the epistemic imperialism of Western social science with a cosmopolitan vision of a dynamic global knowledge driven by the constructive articulation of differently limited knowledge forms. I then discuss this paper’s epistemological subject position in relation to class and intersectionality theory.
ISSN:0959-3543
1461-7447
DOI:10.1177/0959354320920943