M H Johnson wrote:
>
> Perhaps what is needed is not a comparison of the relative merits of
> different disciplines, but rather an analysis of how we can tolerate such
> fragmentation -- how such different and apparently contradictory
> viewpoints continue to coexist and even fail to acknowledge the others'
> existence? When does diversity and a broad church (good) become
> fragmentation and isolation (bad)?
Matthew,
I think that one answer to this is implicit in what you’ve already
said. We can’t avoid the fragmentation of disciplines: heaven forbid
any attempt to impose unity on what we do. Whether pluralism is a good
or a bad thing depends on whether the different traditions maintain a
dialogue with one another. It’s very likely that they will be
incommensurate - partly because they are based in different sets of
metaphysical assumptions about the way that the world is. So I don’t
think that keeping up a conversation between communities who think
differently will necessarily have a dialectical effect, and that we will
all end up with a new synthesis that we can agree on. But I do think
that listening to, and arguing with, and agreeing to disagree with
others is a mutually enriching process.
Julian
--
___________________________________________________
Julian Thomas
Reader in Archaeology,
University of Southampton, Highfield,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
Phone: 01703 593178 Fax: 01703 593032
Departmental Web Page: http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/
___________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|