By Peter Ekegren
Within the analyzing of Theoretical Texts writer Peter Ekegren makes use of advancements inside literary feedback, philosophy, and important conception to reclaim this examine for the social sciences and to light up the ways that assorted readings of a unmarried textual content are created and defended.
Read or Download The reading of theoretical texts: a critique of criticism in the social sciences PDF
Best other social sciences books
Within the studying of Theoretical Texts writer Peter Ekegren makes use of advancements inside of literary feedback, philosophy, and demanding idea to reclaim this research for the social sciences and to light up the ways that assorted readings of a unmarried textual content are created and defended.
This quantity includes 3 works initially released individually as store administration (1903), the foundations of medical administration (1911) and Testimony ahead of the unique condominium Committee (1912). Taylor aimed toward decreasing clash among managers and staff by utilizing clinical concept to advance new rules and mechanisms of administration.
Somewhere else 1 we have been curious about primary elements of the query how guy can understand his fellow-men. We analyzed man's subjective studies of the opposite and located in them the root for his figuring out of the Other's subjective strategies of recognition. The very assumption of the life of the opposite, even if, introduces the measurement of intersub jectivity.
- Dialoghi sulla sinistra. Contingenza, egemonia, universalità
- The American Way Of Peace: An Interpretation (Eric Voegelin Institute Series in Political Philosophy)
- Social Entrepreneurship - Gewinn ist Mittel, nicht Zweck : eine Untersuchung über Entstehung, Erscheinungsweisen und Umsetzung
- Zur Theorie der sozialen Interaktionsmedien
- The Character of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind (OPUS) 2nd (second) Edition by McGinn, Colin published by Oxford University Press, USA (1997)
Additional info for The reading of theoretical texts: a critique of criticism in the social sciences
The literary theoretical school generally known as Russian Formalism (out of which grew Prague Structuralism (see, for example, Erlich, 1981:156–63) and modern structuralism (Todorov, 1977a: 247), very much through the participation of Jakobson) consisted in fact of two heterogeneous groups, the Moscow Linguistic Circle with the linguist Roman Jakobson as one of its founders, instituted in 1915, and the Society for the Study of Poetic Language, also known by its acronym OPOYAZ, founded a year later in Petersburg, and led by the literary critic and novelist Viktor Shklovsky.
Williams, 1972:475; cf. also Greimas, 1987c:209f). 2 Similarly, White notes that although or, rather, ‘precisely because’ interpretation is ‘an irreducible and inexpungeable element’ in the historian’s craft, the problem that various types of interpretation poses has been neglected (White, 1985b:51f). This neglect has been, so White claims, in the purported interest of salvaging history’s scientific quality, by an effort to make it something more than ‘a mere interpretation, on the assumption that what is interpretation is not knowledge but only opinion and the belief that what is not objective in a scientific sense is not worth knowing’ (White, 1985b:54).
The form and technique as well as the autonomy of the literary work is in focus, at the expense, in the case of Russian formalism but not Prague structuralism, of its content. Both schools differentiate between functions of language, centred around the distinction between the poetic and the referential functions (see, for example, Jakobson, 1987c:66, 69). Merquior, ‘If we take formalism to mean neglect of content in art and symbolism in general, then the plain historical truth is that structuralism reacted against it almost from the outset’ (Merquior, 1986:20).