Print

Print


>
>Subject: CFP: Inside Knowledge: (Un)doing Methodologies, Imagining 
>Alternatives (Netherlands) (10/1/06; 3/28/07-3/30/07)
>From: "Boletsi, M." <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Call for papers
>
>
>
>Inside Knowledge: (Un)doing Methodologies, Imagining Alternatives
>
>
>
>The Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA) invites proposals for =
>an=20
>international workshop, INSIDE KNOWLEDGE, to be held at the University =
>of Amsterdam on March 28-30, 2007.
>
>
>
>We welcome proposals from a range of disciplines, including (but not =
>limited to) art history and theory, literary studies, cultural studies, =
>film and media studies, theatre, dance and performance studies, =
>philosophy, history, gender studies, queer theory, art and design, =
>musicology, anthropology, sociology, political science, geography, =
>religion studies, and linguistics.
>
>
>
>Scholars think of themselves as having "inside knowledge" or being =
>"inside" knowledge. The state of being inside can be interpreted as a =
>comfort zone or privileged position, or on the other hand, a trap =
>excluding other ways of knowing. Is being inside knowledge a kind of =
>all-compassing frame forming our subjectivity or are scholars active =
>agents in this process? Do we discover or invent knowledge? While the =
>myth of knowledge as objective and neutral appears to have been =
>debunked, a question remains unresolved: If not objectivity, then what?=20
>
>
>In search for an answer to this question, academic disciplines today =
>often find themselves trapped between relativist and essentialist =
>tendencies. Faced with the new multiple and complex realities of =
>globalization, cross-cultural encounters and conflicts, the inadequacy =
>of old approaches to knowledge underscores the need for either radical =
>revisions of traditional modes of knowledge production, or alternative =
>ways of doing and thinking knowledge. Disciplines therefore appear to be =
>in need of specific methodologies, which could function across =
>disciplinary borders and provide (tentative) grounds for inter- or =
>transdisciplinary communication.
>
>
>
>The previous ASCA workshop focused on specific issues of commitment and =
>complicity for self-reflexive, engaged and responsible scholarship. This =
>year, we have decided to make knowledge itself an issue. In dedicating a =
>whole workshop to the admittedly vast issue of knowledge, we intend to =
>bring practices and theories of knowledge to the foreground, thereby =
>making knowledge a starting point for critical discussion and =
>interrogation, rather than a pre-given fundament of our academic, =
>scientific and everyday practices.=20
>
>=20
>
>By revisiting the theme of knowledge, we wish to challenge, question and =
>resist existing methodologies; revise traditional modes of knowledge =
>production; revisit the histories of knowledge and epistemologies of the =
>past and the present; culturally contextualize and situate knowledge; =
>discuss new emerging regimes of knowledge and the power relations that =
>they (re)inscribe; imagine different ways of experiencing and doing =
>knowledge; and, finally, dare to envision the future of our various =
>disciplines through different ways of knowing.=20
>
>=20
>
>In light of the above, we encourage workshop participants to explore the =
>issue of knowledge through the following panel themes:
>
>=20
>
>1. Knowledge production: conversation or conservation?
>
>2. Configurations and practices of knowledge
>
>3. Resisting knowledge
>
>4. Alternative sites for knowledge
>
>5. Corporeality and the senses as sites for knowledge
>
>6. Technologies and methodologies of knowledge
>
>=20
>
>For more on each thematic panel, see below.
>
>=20
>
>This conference is the latest in a series of ASCA International =
>Workshops and is inspired by the 2005-2006 ASCA theory seminar on Ways =
>of Knowing, organized by Mieke Bal. Please send your one-page proposal =
>(500 words maximum) and a short biographical note by 1st October 2006 to =
>the ASCA office:  [log in to unmask] =
><mailto:[log in to unmask]:%20CFP:%20Sonic%20Interventions%20(T=
>he%20Netherlands)%20(10/1/04;%203/29/05-3/31/05)&In-Reply-To=3D%3c2004071=
>[log in to unmask]> , Dr. Eloe Kingma =
>(managing Director ASCA), Oude Turfmarkt 147, 1012 GC, Amsterdam., tel: =
>+31 20 525 3874. Please indicate in your proposal which panel theme (out =
>of the six mentioned above) you believe your proposal would best fit in.
>
>Proposals will be selected according to their relevance to the topics of =
>the conference. The workshop format is designed to stimulate discussion =
>in the panels. For this purpose, participants will be asked to send the =
>final version of their papers (no more than 4000 words) two months prior =
>to the conference. We shall strictly adhere to this deadline since we =
>will prepare a reader for each of the panels in advance, to be =
>circulated before the conference. Upon permission of each participant, =
>the papers will also be placed on the official website of the workshop =
>beforehand, and will be accessible only to the participants through a =
>username and password. This way, participants can also have access to =
>papers from other panels that fall within their interest, something that =
>will hopefully encourage communication among the people of the workshop =
>and create an ongoing discussion. During the workshop, instead of =
>reading their papers, participants will give a short summary of their =
>work and make connections with other people's contributions in the =
>panel. To stimulate discussion rather than formal presentations, each =
>participant is asked to limit their presentations to 10 minutes.
>
>For more information and updates on the workshop, please visit our =
>website: www.insideknowledge.nl <http://www.insideknowledge.nl/>=20
>
>Organizing Committee: Carolyn Birdsall, Maria Boletsi, Itay Sapir, =
>Pieter Verstraete
>
>Thematic Panels:
>
>=20
>
>Knowledge production: conversation or conservation?=20
>
>Knowledge can be thought of as vertical or as horizontal. The former =
>concept implies a solidly structured knowledge based on clear =
>foundations; the latter understanding of knowledge sees it as based on =
>social negotiation and constant conversation. Whereas the "horizontal" =
>spatial metaphor has gained important currency in the various schools of =
>"theory" (Deleuze, Rorty and others), it seems that in the everyday =
>practice of most scholars in the humanities the idea of a systematic, =
>hierarchical and well-established knowledge is still the ideal model to =
>follow. And then again, many possible combinations of the two are =
>imaginable.
>
>=20
>
>This state of affairs, with its highly political ramifications, raises =
>many questions that this panel will revolve around: What are the =
>advantages and the problems of each concept of knowledge? Historically, =
>which concept of knowledge was prevalent in which kind of social and =
>intellectual circumstances, and what is the situation today? How is the =
>idea of interdisciplinary or hybrid knowledge related to the opposition =
>foundational vs. conversational knowledge? And should there be a =
>distinction between the production and the communication of knowledge in =
>this respect?
>
>=20
>
>
>Configurations and practices of knowledge
>
>
>Theory ideally does not go without practice. Cultural analysis regards =
>knowledge production as a continuous negotiation and interaction with =
>the object as a theoretical tool for analytical practice. In this =
>section we would like to reposition both knowledge in practice and =
>theoretical research as practice. Different modes of analytical =
>practice, such as the experiment, the test case or the case study call =
>for a re-examination of the positions and perspectives the analyst =
>chooses to take. Such positions could be the exterior microbe-like =
>perspective and the view-on-high of the theorist (De Certeau), or the =
>interior perspective of the fl=E2neur (Benjamin) and the artistic =
>practitioner who perform modes of knowledge by reconfiguring the =
>immediate spatial modalities. We want to examine how such performative =
>interventions can lead to new models of theory as practice, and how they =
>are positioned in practice.
>
>=20
>
>Among the many questions raised in this section are: How can artistic =
>and analytic practice today still add to the expansion of knowledge? =
>Which alternative models of knowledge have evolved from these practices? =
>To which reconfigurations have they led? And how can we conceptualize =
>practicing modes of knowledge?
>
>=20
>
>Resisting knowledge
>
>Knowledge, especially since Foucault, has been indissolubly linked with =
>discursive regimes of power. It does not pose as the expression of a =
>truth that exists "out there", but is filtered, mediated, and subject to =
>processes of cultural translation.  Locating knowledge within discursive =
>limits also entails that there is an outside to the "knowable," which =
>resists appropriation by existing modes of thought. In order to resist =
>knowledge, we sometimes have to refashion the configurations of =
>knowledge that we inhabit, in order to occasion "the other's irruption =
>into the settled order" (Derek Attridge) and dare to walk on what =
>Rebecca Saunders has called "a zone of error":  the zone of the foreign, =
>the erroneous, the anomalous, the barbaric. One question we would like =
>to pose in this panel is: what do we do with the unknown, the (absolute) =
>other, the unintelligible - that which exceeds the limits of our =
>discourse? And, perhaps most importantly, what does the unknown or =
>foreign do to us? If we resist our impulse to decipher and appropriate =
>the unintelligible into our own modes of knowing, how could we still =
>turn the encounter with the "unknowable" into a productive experience, =
>without having to make sense out of it?=20
>
>=20
>
>To resist knowledge could also mean to resist the comfort of remaining =
>within one cultural/social system, and to provoke encounters among =
>different modes of knowing; to stand at the "significatory boundaries of =
>cultures", which is where, according to Homi Bhabha, "meanings and =
>values are (mis-)read or signs are misappropriated". In this case, the =
>other of our mode of knowing could be that which subscribes to another =
>culture, social group, discipline, methodology or code.
>
>=20
>
>Alternative sites for knowledge
>
>In academic practices of knowledge production, we are confronted with =
>the difficulties in the task of "thinking otherwise". This is especially =
>the case, Gayatri Spivak reminds us, when scholars from privileged =
>backgrounds attempt to represent and "know" the experiences of others. =
>For this reason, it is essential to probe assumptions about knowledge as =
>objective or "value free". When considering the situatedness of the =
>scholar and their academic practice, we might turn to Donna Haraway's =
>notion of the "privilege of partial perspective" (1991), where gender is =
>one of the many important and necessary interventions in standardised =
>forms of knowledge production.=20
>
>=20
>
>Among the many approaches to "ways of knowing", this panel could prompt =
>a discussion of how non-Western contexts or alternative forms of knowing =
>interact with dominant frameworks of knowledge production. What methods =
>can be employed to reflect on the "situatedness" of the scholar, along =
>with his/her relation to disciplinary and institutional contexts? How =
>might an investigation of subcultures, social practices or material =
>cultures engage in the production of new forms of knowledge? What =
>alternatives are available to the scholars who want to participate in =
>radical scholarship or academic practices of discovery?=20
>
>=20
>
>
>Corporeality and the senses as sites for knowledge
>
>
>Knowledge can be regarded as an effect (Althusser), whereby ideology =
>produces and conditions our modes of knowing. In this sense, knowledge =
>can also 'affect' the filtering processes of our senses and bodies. This =
>section places knowledge on and in the body, thereby highlighting the =
>spatial and corporeal dimensions to knowledge production. We want to =
>space out the topographies, stratifications, and borders of the sensing =
>body with both its atavistic and surface levels: the flesh, the skin, =
>the 'five' senses, affects and emotions as tools for producing, =
>filtering and storing knowledge. This mapping of the body will be =
>critically assessed by the question of what it means to know the world =
>through our senses. The human senses and their intersensory nature could =
>be discussed in terms of "embodied knowledge", a perceptual and =
>corporeal knowing ("habitus", literacy and competence), and an =
>(en)gendered knowledge, including queer, transsexual and other bodies as =
>sites for knowledge and contestation. These sites seem nowadays to reach =
>beyond the senses towards a concept of "posthumanism" (Niklas Luhmann, =
>among others).
>
>=20
>
>Working through cultural objects in relation with the (post-)human =
>experience invites us to reflect on the following questions: How do we =
>perform forms of knowledge through sights, smells, sounds, touch? How do =
>we conceptualize intersensory and transsensory experience?  What kinds =
>of conceptual tools can the body and the senses offer us through =
>embodied knowledge and corporeal memory? And how could gendered bodies =
>contest the established theoretical frameworks, narratives, and =
>categories of analysis?
>
>=20
>
>Technologies and Methodologies of Knowledge
>
>Discussions about the nature of knowledge can serve as the basis for the =
>actual elaboration of new methodologies for academic =
>knowledge-production. Thus, this panel will centre on concrete =
>strategies and technologies of knowledge in the aftermath of the =
>undecided debates between poststructuralists and traditionalists, =
>postmodernists and humanists, rationalists, psychoanalysts, =
>post-colonialists, and so forth. We propose to consider the following =
>questions: How do research methodologies in the Humanities reflect =
>different concepts of knowledge? How can we invent new methodologies =
>that avoid epistemological problems of existing ones? What are - and =
>what could be - the procedures of legitimation for new methodologies?
>
>=20
>
>While theoretical frameworks are indispensable, we are looking in this =
>section, for new propositions concerning "the know-how of knowledge", =
>concrete and case-related ways of knowing that can innovate the research =
>programs of different disciplines - and, indeed, of not-yet-existing =
>inter-disciplines.
>
>

*******************
The German Studies Call for Papers List
Editor: Stefani Engelstein
Assistant Editor:  Megan McKinstry
Sponsored by the University of Missouri
Info available at: http://www.missouri.edu/~graswww/resources/gerlistserv.html