ENTRE LO INTERDISCIPLINARIO, LA INDISCIPLINA Y LA NO DISCIPLINARIEDAD: RIESGOS Y VIRTUDES DE LOS CRUCES TEÓRICOS Y PRÁCTICOS ENTRE LAS DISCIPLINAS ACADÉMICAS
Main Article Content
Abstract
The idea, then, is to propose a series of possible view that allow us to see those objects of study that in the past seemed to be the patrimony of a single discipline under a different light. This is why it will be necessary to look for a paradigm different from that of interdisciplinarity, a paradigm not so based like interdisciplinarity on a loyalty to the disciplines in contact or in dialogue; to the protocols and rules of their disciplinarity past and present. The idea is, then, to de-discipline disciplines, to make them more porous but also more indisciplined. That’s why in this paper I advance the following hypothesis: the current status of academic discipline does not allow them, even if the cross pollinate each other, will not be able to produce an ethically acceptable knowledge if they are not strongly informed by a subalternist inflection. That is to say, any interdisciplinary or non-disciplinary project will end up being unsatisfactory if it does not rest on a fundamental principle: the mandatory and collaboration with the subaltern peoples related to the places and events of the past studied by academics. This is why the studies that I imagine as the future of interdisciplinarity or, better yet, nondisciplinarity, must be inspired by an spirit, by a sort of indiscipline, buy a rebelliousness against the form in which we understand knowledge production both in our current academic disciplines and in archaeology
Downloads
Article Details
References
Bernstein, Richard y J. Beyond (1983). Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press.
Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. From the Big Band to Black Holes. Bantam
Heidegger, Martin (2006). Ser y Tiempo. Trad. Jorge Eduardo Rivera C. Madrid: Trotta.
Heidegger, Martin (2008). “La cosa” Trad. Eustaquio Barjau. En: http://www.heideggeriana.com.ar/textos/la_cosa.htm (último hit: 14 de junio, 2008).
Hodder, Ian (1999). The Archaeological Process. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hodder, Ian and Scott Hutson (2003). Reading the Past. Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Inwood, Michael (1997). Heidegger. A Very Short Introduction. London: Oxford UP.
Mignolo, Walter (1983). “Comprensión hermenéutica y comprensión teórica”. Revista de literatura XIV, 90: 1- 35.
Mignolo, Walter (1985) “Dominios borrosos y dominios teóricos: Ensayo de elucidación conceptual”. Filología XX: 21-40.
Rabasa, José, Javier Sanjinés y Robert Carr (1994 [1996]). “Introduction: The Politics of Subaltern Studies”. Dispositio/n 19.46: v-xi.
Searle, John R (1975). “The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse”. New Literary History 6: 619-632.
Sokal, Alan D (1996). “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”. 14.46-47: 217-252.
Tilley, Christopher (1994). A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.
Verdesio, Gustavo (2009). “Esto no es una pipa: el discurso sobre la cultura material de los constructores de montículos de tierra en los Estados Unidos y Uruguay”. In Maria Alba Bovisio and Marta Penhos, El “arte indígena”: apropiaciones, confrontaciones y disgresiones conflictivas (Catamarca, Argentina: Universidad de Catamarca Press) 73-84.