I agree with Bogdan's point about philosophical paralysis (and join him
in thanking everyone for an interesting discussion).
Although the political and philosophical implications of 'standards' (or
ideal-types, mental models or whatever name we given them) are - of
course - important, it is nevertheless still the case that most of us, most
of the time judge 'things' against other 'things' (whether relatively or
absolutely) and this is important when we consider our own sense-
making mechanisms as researchers as well as the ways our research
participants understand things (Hugh's point about sensitivity to the
'origins' of such standards is crucial here).
I think that social explanations for the intersubjective generation of
knowledge or truth are useful here, and these need to be situated in the
social contexts in which such knowledge generation occurs rather than
in abstract philosophical 'musing'..... eg: even classification against so-
called objective measures (eg: weight and height) differs according to
cultural background and purpose for example
And thanks to Leonard for the useful reference!
Best wishes,
Sam
On 29 Oct 2004 at 10:05, Costea, Bogdan wrote:
> Following Leonard's suggestion below, I think that the original
> question (Mike's) can find inspiring lines of analysis in all sorts of
> ways - taxonomic aspects are certainly key to it, literary studies and
> their use of comparative methods can also be a source of thought,
> perhaps the comparative stuff in anthropology can be revealing, etc.
> If taken to the ultimate grounds of philosophical contemplation
> however the question may become a bit paralysing in itself in that it
> seems, to me (but am not very sure I understand things very well),
> that it might well end up back on grounds of 'epistemological
> tribulation' etc: what do we know? What can we know? What is there?
> Etc. (see Heidegger's 'Concept of Ground'). Anyway, it is very, very
> interesting to have a 'little' question like that thrown in every now
> and again - thanks, Mike and everybody else.
>
> Best
> Bogdan
> _________________________________
> Dr Bogdan Costea
> Dpt of Organisation, Work and Technology
> Lancaster University Management School
> Lancaster LA1 4YX, UK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Critical Perspectives on Work, Management and Organization
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leonard
> Holmes Sent: 29 October 2004 00:05 To:
> [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: An Explanation-Why We
> Compare?
>
> I'd recommend 'Sorting things out: classification and its
> consequences', by Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star - originally
> published 1999 by MIT Press, paperback version pub. 2000. ISBN
> 0-262-52295-0
>
> Leonard Holmes
>
>
>
> At 08:48 27/10/2004 +0930, you wrote:
> >Colleagues - I am looking for some references to a theory of
> >comparison
> - an
> >explanation why we compare things as knowledge creation. For example,
> to
> >measure the length of something is to compare it to a standard; to
> question
> >people can be seen as comparing their experiences. I am aware of
> comparative
> >theories in history, sociology, religion etc, and am more interested
> >in
> a
> >philosophical (clarifying concepts) or sociological explanation than
> >a
> strong
> >cognitive science one. Am I making sense - any ideas?
> >
> >Regards and thanks,
> >
> >Mike Metcalfe
> >
> >
|