armanda,
i could find only
http://www.long-sunday.net/long_sunday/2006/11/hunters_the_his.htmlcan re
Ian Hunter's "The History of Theory"
is there a better account?
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bill,
Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 4:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Shonky theory
Dear Keith,
Sadly, people only hear what we have to say when we speak in the manner
they're accustomed to. Thats academia for you!
cheers,
Amanda
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith Russell
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2008 10:24 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse
Dear Amanda,
I haven't read Hunter, but what he complains about is real enough.
Strangely, he seems to feel the need to write in the manner of the shonkey
theorists that are the subject of his complaint. Stanley Fish covers the
same ground with eloquence and he is a real theorist who doesn't see the
need to use the name or the style. He just does his stuff.
cheers
keith russell
oz newcastle
>>> "Bill, Amanda" <[log in to unmask]> 07/08/08 8:05 PM >>>
Dear Jurgen and list,
If, by 'the discourse model' you mean to include post-structural theory in
general, I'd say that it is limited in its application to design because it
leads to an attitude that substitutes philosophical argument for empirical
description.
Has anyone read Ian Hunter's "The History of Theory"?
According to Hunter, an important Foucauldian insight is his argument that
the human sciences [design?] emerged not from a single theoretical discovery
but as a series of philosophical reworkings of empirical disciplines. This
reworking took place as a series of concrete intellectual struggles. In
Hunter's view, these were struggles "in which academics imbued with
phenomenological thematics and occupying (to varying degrees) the
prestigious persona of the theorist sought to reconstitute a whole variety
of disciplines. They did so by treating them as claustral domains, incapable
of comprehending their own emergence through exclusion of the other, and
hence as ripe for transformation by those capable of abstaining from the
taken-for-granted and preparing themselves to receive the ruptural event in
all its purity"
(Hunter, 2006, p. 103).
Bruno Latour (2004) has a lot to say about this attitude in his article "Why
has critique run out of steam..."
These writings have made me think very hard about my reasons for using
discourse models in design teaching.
But perhaps this is not a useful answer to your question.
best regards
Amanda
Hunter, I. (2006). The History of Theory. Critical Inquiry, 33(1).
Latour, B. (2004). Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact
to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2).
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jurgen Faust
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2008 8:12 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse
Hi Gavin,
it seems that all of us having a different background, that makes it
difficult and frustrating, but it also shows the need to sustain the
discourse we have actually started. I am testing some ideas here, and
therefore it is quite interesting for me to read the answers.
I would be quite pleased Gavin if you would spell it out, as you mentioned.
I started this 'mess' with the questions whether there is a limit to apply
the discourse model to design, whether we think design discourse, a
discourse of design or a discourse for design reflecting on Nigel Cross
model to differentiate between design science, a science of design or even a
science for design.
Jurgen
|