Critical epistemology

This paper presents a novel conceptualization of a type of untruthful speech that is of eminent political relevance but has hitherto been unrecognized: epistemically exploitative bullshit (EEB). Speakers engaging in EEB are bullshitting: they deceive their addressee regarding their unconcern for the very difference between truth and falsity. At the same time, they exploit their discursive victims: they oblige their counterparts to provide unacknowledged and emotionally draining epistemic work to educate the speakers about the addressees' oppression, only to discredit their epistemic trustworthiness. I argue that EEB is irreducible to various recently discussed untruthful speech, and in particular to Frankfurtian bullshit, as well as to epistemic exploitation or other epistemic injustices. Taking inspiration from Sartre's analysis of anti-Semitic discourse, where bullshitting and epistemic exploitation are essentially interlinked, I rather suggest that recognizing the distinctiveness of EEB allows for a more refined conceptualization of these discursive phenomena. Specifically, I show how bad faith and the ensuing collective diffusion and delegation of epistemic responsibility play a so far neglected but key role here. Ultimately, I demonstrate that with Sartre we can better grasp than with the lens of analytic or critical epistemology alone how the existential, interpersonal and the institutional dimensions in the negotiation of truth seamlessly intersect. "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. (...) If then (...), the anti-Semite is impervious to reason and to experience, it is not because his conviction is strong. Rather his conviction is strong because he has chosen first of all to be impervious."

Conclusión inversa
Problematizando lo planteado y el diseño de investigación
“… hablar del desarrollo como una experiencia históricamente singular, como la creación de las características e interrelaciones de los tres ejes que lo definen: las formas de conocimiento que a él se refieren, a través de las cuales llega a existir y es elaborado en objetos, conceptos y teorías; el sistema de poder que regula su práctica y las formas de subjetividad fomentadas por este discurso, aquellas por cuyo intermedio las personas llegan a reconocerse a sí mismas como desarrolladas o “subdesarrolladas” (…)” (Escobar, 1996:31)

Plante-ando el problema
¿Acaso será pertinente establecer alguna consciencia del límite ante el desaforado fiordo del excurso del desarrollo? Y patentar desde ahí, un margen, los elementos constituyentes que provisionalmente se podrán nominar como preocupaciones de origen, el substrato epistémico de los discursos desarrollistas, la inquisitio  sobre fundamentos, saberes y problemas semánticos, y ante ello queda preguntarse si ha de entenderse este en tanto discurso o acontecimiento histórico, pero la disyunción resulta insuficiente, si a ella se opone como punto de partida en la elaboración el supuesto de que todo discurso pertenece a una trama histórica, y la historia en tanto tal tiene discursos, narraciones y sujetos desde quienes se enuncia y escribe.
Por ello, la propuesta de pensar la temática desde las narrativas del desarrollo  pasa por des-entrecomillar la cuestión , el debate entre que ubicaba como punto de inflexión la pregunta: ¿Desarrollo como narrativa o narrativa del desarrollo? la pregunta deviene en movimiento, pues increpa a partir de los discursos fundacionales de las “geografías imaginarias” que inventaron terceros mundos  de espacios geopolíticos. No obstante, esta lectura que se pretende sin thelos, post-histórica en su posicionamiento con respecto a los acontecimientos, presenta límites con respecto a la materialidad de los sujetos y las instancias que producen estos discursos –e implementan prácticas y procedimientos relacionados con el “desarrollo”-, o bien ante las dinámicas de desigualdad, acumulación y distribución sobre las que se ha teorizado con contundencia para situar el problema del “desarrollo” y del “desarrollismo” en América Latina. Podrían incluirse también las omisiones gnoseológicas en la crítica a otros correlatos presentes en la urdimbre de acontecimientos, como lo son el liberalismo, el evolucionismo –como correlato científico, el neocolonialismo y el necesario debate de los aportes de las posiciones marxistas latinoamericanistas y las del populismo; pero también de la discusión de los puntos de (des)encuentro entre las teorías decoloniales y las teorías de la dependencia, las cuales unas por su parte, articulan elementos críticos con respecto a la episteme, las relaciones poder/saber y las cuestiones culturales e identitarias que les son inherentes en sus discusiones y, por otro lado, las relacionadas con una teoría de la dependencia que en los últimos años ha sido revisada  como parte las lecturas que tratan de dar cuenta de una crítica profunda a los fundamentos del sistema en su organización económica y los mecanismos que devienen en la creación de emplazamientos diversos relacionados con los procesos de acumulación y con lo que otrora se identificó como una dicotomía entre espacios periféricos y centrales, y que hoy tendría eco si se tiene en cuenta la necesidad del capital de trascender los límites que encuentra como establecidos, y por ello deviene en reinvenciones espaciales, que pasan por el discurso, las representaciones y las narrativas.
Las narrativas del “desarrollo” trascenderían el planteamiento antes criticado en su exacerbación del pantextualismo , y en este sentido refiere a prácticas de apropiación del discurso y de las prácticas desarrollistas que en esta investigación se revisan a partir de un interrogatorio al caleidoscopio de fragmentos y a la trizada especularidad que pone la noción “desarrollo” en todas partes y en ninguna a la vez, a través de una maquinaria de procedimientos, desplazamientos, sedimentación y mimetización en el entramado de poderes y representaciones sobre el desarrollo en América Latina, las rutas que delimitan su cartografía reinventando límites para las mercancías y socavando entre lodo y sangre proyectos propios que no se correspondan con la matriz de prescripciones en los distintos instrumentos.
Para ello, el tránsito sugerido es de la narratividad del desarrollo a la narratividad de las teorías, y las narrativas serían pensadas como un espacio donde se articulan sintaxis y semántica de una teoría, espacio productor de sentidos para proposiciones teóricas (lógica de la teoría) y metateóricas (presuposiciones y fundamentos de la teoría), y donde se supera el bricolage posmoderno y las tentaciones del post-positivismo epistémico.
La apuesta epistémica pasa por la revisión crítica de los fundamentos y las discursividades “desarrollistas”, pero con la aspiración de aportar a la construcción de una semiótica del desarrollo, que lea contextual e históricamente los referentes, espacios y mediaciones del discurso  y prácticas del desarrollo en la cultura.
Entendida de esta forma, la lectura de las narrativas del “desarrollo”, es una lectura del substrato epistémico de los discursos desarrollistas, sus fundamentos, saberes, problemas semánticos y la propedéutica en el caso del Consenso de Washington, que a su vez tendría estaría de las primeras aproximaciones al análisis de los discursos institucionalizados del desarrollo.

This article presents Foucault's governmentality as an analytical framework that is useful for interpreting and using empirics toward critical theory. Although Foucault viewed the discipline of geography narrowly regarding spatial patterns, his geographic sensibilities connect with contemporary critical human geography, which examines processes relationally from a topological, non-Euclidean view of space. Further, Foucault's novel approach to multiscalar analysis offers critical insight into one debate: whether scale as an analytical concept unproductively reifies hierarchy and obscures the mobilization of power. Foucault's ascending analysis clarifies how scale-sensitive analysis can illuminate the mobilization of power regarding its targets (as per techniques of biopower and disciplinary power) and its diffuse sources, and how actors' practices can become unchained from normalizing societal pressures. Foucault's early scholarship on governmentality represents actors as unconscious of the regulatory framework with which they implicitly are complicit, but his later work on resistance emphasizes reflexivity and the proactive constitution and transformation of the self. The earlier framework on the governance of populations suggests that mentalities and related discourses produce practices, whereas the later framework on the governance of the self suggests the reverse, therein holding important clues for critical theory and the proactive construction of transformation based on a critique of the past and present. The article "assembles" Foucault's scholarship on governance and ethics over the course of his career to present an overall framework that is useful for analyses concerning a variety of questions. Analytical points are exemplified with reference to urban, race-related issues, drawing in part from my own research.

Enmarcada en mi tesis doctoral, que explora las particularidades de la migración indocumentada centroamericana contemporánea desde la postcolonialidad, presento una propuesta metodológica que pretende dar centralidad al conocimiento, discurso y experiencias de las personas que migran en esta situación. El paradigma postcolonial, en particular el emanado de las Escuelas de Estudios Subalternos asiática y latinoamericana, plantea la posibilidad y necesidad de nuevas miradas para el análisis de problemáticas contemporáneas. La postcolonialidad como paradigma epistémico, que cuestiona no sólo las múltiples permanencias de dominación germinadas desde el inicio del colonialismo ibérico en nuestra región sino las formas en que desde entonces se define el discurso y el conocimiento " universal " , nos empuja no sólo a buscar otros marcos de entendimiento de los fenómenos contemporáneos, sino sobre todo a contar, reconocer y dar espacio a las personas/sujetos subalternizados. En sus prácticas y experiencias, fuente de otro tipo de conocimientos tan válidos como el científico/académico, se encuentra la posibilidad de generar alternativas frente al proyecto hegemónico de la modernidad occidentalizada y eurocéntrica. A través del trabajo de campo realizado en el albergue para migrantes de San Luis Potosí, y tomando como base la propuesta de cartografía colectiva del colectivo argentino Iconoclasistas, presento los primeros resultados de los Mapeos Migrantes, una propuesta que toma en consideración las particularidades de esta población situando su conocimiento en el centro del análisis, desplazando por tanto el eje epistemológico tradicional. De la interrelación entre migración-territorio-cartografía, y desde la centralidad del conocimiento subalterno, se busca configurar un punto de encuentro para un diálogo imprescindible no sólo entre disciplinas académicas sino ante todo entre quienes estudiamos la migración y las personas migrantes.

Resumen El artículo persigue en los escritos de Louis Althusser de los años sesenta y setenta, algunos de los elementos que permiten leer la gravitación spinoziana en su lectura de Marx, a propósito de una pregunta por los vínculos entre filosofía, ciencia y política. El recorrido se organiza en torno al denominado "momento de autocrítica" de la escritura althusseriana, en el que la definición de filosofía se ensancha para volver pensables sus vínculos con la ciencia y la política; esto, con el fin de indagar las posibilidades y tensiones de un materialismo capaz de alojar simultáneamente la preocupación por la objetividad y la asunción de la politicidad inherente a la filosofía. En este sentido, el ensayo se propone desplegar algunas de las posibilidades abiertas para el pensamiento materialista por la insistencia de la figura paradójica de una "ciencia revolucionaria" haciendo pie en dos principios que toman fuerza en la temprana lectura althusseriana de Marx pero se despliegan en sus consecuencias en el desarrollo de su movimiento de autocrítica: el criterio epistémico de interioridad de las prácticas teóricas y el principio histórico del primado de las relaciones de producción.

The culture of white supremacy includes what Saidiya Hartman calls a “nexus of pleasure and possession.” Whites are free to enjoy their property, which of course includes their slaves. At the same time, enslaved Black people are compelled to dissimulate enjoyment of their bondage. The nexus of pleasure and enjoyment also has an epistemic component. If truth is not enjoyable, whites are free to choose something else. Both ethical and epistemic responsibility are subordinated to affect. The pursuit of happiness is never marred by concern with the plight of the slave. Afropessimism demands a challenge to the epistemic hegemony of affect, rescuing affectively uncomfortable but historically well documented truths from the oblivion of acquiescence to fragility.

The authors argue that interdisciplinarity, together with the more recent notion of transdisciplinarity, can be seen as a coherent attempt not so much to reassemble the fragmented structure into a whole, as to create a fruitful collaboration and integration among different disciplines that takes into account their specificity. At the threshold of the Modern Age, a series of paradigm shifts in Western thought caused its fragmentation into a variety of academic subdisciplines. Such diversification can be considered the result of epistemological shifts and changes
in the division of intellectual labor. Which semantic horizons can this new approach open, and on which theoretical foundations could a dialogue between disciplines be produced? The growing importance
of this problem is evidenced by the emergence, during the last decades,
of philosophical reflections on the interactions among different research
fields.The possibility of transdisciplinarity in modern science finds its theoretical premise in M. Foucault’s seminal work on the organization of knowledge, The Order of Things, which hinted at the existence of gaps in the grid of knowledge, leading, as a result, to the possibility of creating transdisciplinary connections.
The paper aims to contribute to the contemporary discussion of the need to overcome boundaries between disciplines. Consequently, it has both a methodological and theoretical impact, since all branches of knowledge aspiring to go beyond their traditional theoretical boundaries would benefit from a coherent theoretical perspective which tries to reconceptualize the transfer of knowledge from one field to another.
The authors’ critical discussion of transdisciplinarity aims to revive the French epistemological tradition that in the last decades has often been rejected by researchers as not being rigorous nor analytical. This choice is motivated by the belief that at the basis of this tradition lies a genuine theoretical intention that does not take for granted the possibility of transcending the usual division of intellectual work. In addition, the authors offer a brief account of the Russian conception of transdisciplinarity, relatively little studied in the West, which is presumed to integrate and solve the difficulties of other similar models.

Knowledges from academic and professional research-based institutions have long been valued over the organic intellectualism of those who are most affected by educational and social inequities. In contrast, participatory action research (PAR) projects are collective investigations that rely on indigenous knowledge, combined with the desire to take individual and/or collective action. PAR with youth (YPAR) engages in rigorous research inquiries and represents a radical effort in education research to value the inquiry-based knowledge production of the youth who directly experience the educational contexts that scholars endeavor to understand. In this chapter, we outline the foundations of YPAR and examine the distinct epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical contributions of an interdisciplinary corpus of YPAR studies and scholarship. We outline the origins and disciplines of YPAR and make a case for its role in education research, discuss its contributions to the field and t...

Learning about feminism can be a revelation for many students. However, for others, it can be a confounding, troubling experience. These difficulties return as problems for the teacher: how to help sceptical, resistant students understand the theory. Moreover, understanding what can be so troubling about learning feminism helps us to better understand the situation of feminist modules in the contexts of broader humanities curricula. Obviously, these are complex issues, and I wish to focus on just two specific points: how feminist theories make critical claims and the challenges that emerge for students as a result; how feminist theory claims find challenges in student certainty. Firstly, feminist theory claims, which describe sociocultural states of affairs while at the same time destabilising them, are operating with critical norms. These critical norms are at odds with norms of descriptive theory claims that students find elsewhere in their curriculum. As such, I want to explore the effects of this clash in student learning experience, and the difficulties that teachers face a result. In the second part of the article, I use Wittgenstein's analysis of certainty to explore how feminist theory claims often challenge the very foundations of students' understanding of themselves, and the world around them. As such, learning in the feminist classroom is not merely an issue of learning about and then adjudicating between theories. Feminist theories implicate the way in which we live, and the conditions of intelligibility for theories as such. In light of my discussions , I do not think there are onesize solutions to these issues. However, I think that recognising these problems in theory can help us to articulate them in the classroom, and this might go some way to alleviating the structural challenges faced by teachers of feminism.

Knowledges from academic and professional research-based institutions have long been valued over the organic intellectualism of those who are most affected by educational and social inequities. In contrast, participatory action research (PAR) projects are collective investigations that rely on indigenous knowledge, combined with the desire to take individual and/or collective action. PAR with youth (YPAR) engages in rigorous research inquiries and represents a radical effort in education research to value the inquiry-based knowledge production of the youth who directly experience the educational contexts that scholars endeavor to understand. In this chapter, we outline the foundations of YPAR and examine the distinct epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical contributions of an interdisciplinary corpus of YPAR studies and scholarship. We outline the origins and disciplines of YPAR and make a case for its role in education research, discuss its contributions to the field and t...

Dentro de las formas de violencia que afectan a las identidades socialmente marginadas, la violencia epistémica probablemente sea una de las menos abordadas, en favor de otras más directas o espectaculares. Sin embargo, se trata de un fenómeno político, ético y epistémico que afecta desde los vínculos cotidianos hasta la práctica profesional, desde el activismo de base hasta el derecho internacional. La violencia epistémica amenaza la integridad de individuos y comunidades y juega un rol clave en sistemas de poder tales como el sexismo, el colonialismo, el capacitismo, entre otros. Este trabajo ofrece una caracterización del fenómeno como un tipo de “violencia lenta”, y un análisis de algunas de las formas en las que se presenta. Posteriormente, se analiza el vínculo entre violencia epistémica e identidad, y se considera la posibilidad de un sistema epistémico libre de violencia. Se espera con ello ofrecer herramientas para comprender de manera más profunda e integral esta forma de violencia y para abordarla en los distintos espacios en los que se expresa.

This paper analyses the social class struggles concept with an interdisciplinary approach to be used by theorists and practitioners of library and information science (LIS). This concept emerged as part of the theoretical framework employed by the author in his doctoral thesis (Muela-Meza, 2010): An Application of Community Profiling to Analyse Community Information Needs, and Providers: Perceptions from the People of the Broomhall Neighbourhood of Sheffield, UK. This concept is complemented from philosophy (Marx and Engels, [1848] 1976a), and the natural sciences (Hauser, 2006; Sagan and Druyan, 1992), and it served the author to understand better the bigger dimensions of the underlying issues behind social classes and human conflicts. It also served to understand better the contradictions between people (e.g. LIS users with contradictory and mutually exclusive information needs to be provided by libraries and other institutions of information recorded in documents), and how these intensify when these are interrelated with the social class they belong to (Muela-Meza, 2007). This paper also criticises some competing views whose proponents by pretending fallaciously and deceitfully to deny the presence of social class divides in society, such as those rhetorical ploys of post-modernism that propose capitalist-class-driven ideologues of “community cohesion” based on “social capital” (Putnam, 1999). It shows evidence of how those followers (e.g. Pateman, 2006; Contreras Contreras, 2004; Bryson, Usherwood and Proctor, 2003) of capitalist-class ideologues, by doing so they aligned their discourse to that of dominance hierarchies and hegemony against working class people, in LIS and other sciences, and the humanities. It also criticises the postmodern pseudoscience because it pretends to undermine the logical rationality fundamental in LIS and all other sciences. It recommends that LIS theorists and practitioners employ the social class struggles concept as configured here in order to understand better contradictions, conflicts, and struggles within LIS theory and practice, and also to search for broader epistemological aims such as justice and wisdom (Fleissner and Hofkirchner, 1998), concealed by the capitalist or bourgeois and middle classes for their benefit against working class.

This paper analyses the social class struggles concept with an interdisciplinary approach to be used by theorists and practitioners of library and information science (LIS). This concept emerged as part of the theoretical framework employed by the author in his doctoral thesis (Muela-Meza, 2010): An Application of Community Profiling to Analyse Community Information Needs, and Providers: Perceptions from the People of the Broomhall Neighbourhood of Sheffield, UK. This concept is complemented from philosophy (Marx and Engels, [1848] 1976a), and the natural sciences (Hauser, 2006; Sagan and Druyan, 1992), and it served the author to understand better the bigger dimensions of the underlying issues behind social classes and human conflicts. It also served to understand better the contradictions between people (e.g. LIS users with contradictory and mutually exclusive information needs to be provided by libraries and other institutions of information recorded in documents), and how these intensify when these are interrelated with the social class they belong to (Muela-Meza, 2007). This paper also criticises some competing views whose proponents by pretending fallaciously and deceitfully to deny the presence of social class divides in society, such as those rhetorical ploys of post-modernism that propose capitalist-class-driven ideologues of “community cohesion” based on “social capital” (Putnam, 1999). It shows evidence of how those followers (e.g. Pateman, 2006; Contreras Contreras, 2004; Bryson, Usherwood and Proctor, 2003) of capitalist-class ideologues, by doing so they aligned their discourse to that of dominance hierarchies and hegemony against working class people, in LIS and other sciences, and the humanities. It also criticises the postmodern pseudoscience because it pretends to undermine the logical rationality fundamental in LIS and all other sciences. It recommends that LIS theorists and practitioners employ the social class struggles concept as configured here in order to understand better contradictions, conflicts, and struggles within LIS theory and practice, and also to search for broader epistemological aims such as justice and wisdom (Fleissner and Hofkirchner, 1998), concealed by the capitalist or bourgeois and middle classes for their benefit against working class.

Aim/Purpose: The authors argue that interdisciplinarity, together with the more recent concept of transdisciplinarity, can be seen as a coherent attempt not so much to reassemble the fragmented structure into a whole, as to create a fruitful collaboration and integration among different disciplines that takes into account their specificity. Background: At the threshold of the Modern Age, a series of paradigm shifts in Western thought caused its fragmentation into a variety of academic subdisciplines. Such diversification can be considered the result of epistemological shifts and changes in the division of intellectual labor. Contribution: Which semantic horizons can this new approach open, and on which theoretical foundations could a dialogue between disciplines be produced? The growing importance of this problem is evidenced by the emergence, during the last decades, of philosophical reflections on the interactions among different research fields. The paper aims to contribute to th...

In recent decades, the literature of global ethics has promoted greater and more rigorous attention to transnational moral responsibilities. This essay argues, however, that prominent global-ethics anthologies remain burdened by Eurocentric/colonialist elements that contradict efforts to build more ethical transnational communities. Drawing on scholars of coloniality, including Enrique Dussel, Anibal Quijano, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith, the essay traces colonialist elements in deep structures of prominent global ethics texts. It examines how, even when texts argue for aid to the poor, these elements foster tendencies in the affluent world to detach from and dehumanize people on the other side of global hierarchies. They also deprive academic readers of the insights of grassroots global-justice struggles. The essay concludes by sketching some directions that those of us who study and teach global ethics might pursue in order to unsettle colonialist baggage and cultivate skills and relationships more conducive to ethical global communities.

Ulrich Sonnemanns 1969 erschienene „Negative Anthropologie“ stellt einen in der psychoanalytischen Sozialpsychologie wenig rezipierten Versuch der Vermittlung von Gesellschaftstheorie und Psychoanalyse dar. Dies irritiert, ist doch Sonnemanns Arbeit von einer hohen Präzision hinsichtlich der erkenntnistheoretischen Herausforderungen dieses Unterfangens gekennzeichnet. In meiner Masterarbeit greife ich Sonnemanns Vermittlungsbemühungen auf und entwickele sie entlang von Theorieangeboten aus der Psychoanalyse und der Gesellschaftstheorie weiter.
Das für das Vorhaben meiner Arbeit Spezifische an Sonnemanns Position ist zweierlei: Zuerst liest er, in Abgrenzung zu seiner Darstellung des Freudomarxismus, freudianische und marxistische Theorien nicht als einander wechselseitig ergänzende, sondern vor allem als einander im gegenseitigen Durchdringen kritisierende Theorien. Abgeschlossen ist diese Durchdringung für ihn jedoch nicht. Programmatisch fordert er daher einen Begriff von Gesellschaftserkenntnis, „der die Vorgänge in den Individuen, in denen sich Gesellschaftliches bricht, sich abspiegelt, versteinert oder verwandelt“, fassen kann. Ausgearbeitet hat er diesen Begriff selber nicht. Zudem räumt er der Sprache einen speziellen Status ein: Sie ist nicht nur Medium dieser Gesellschaftserkenntnis und damit Gegenstand seiner Theorie, sondern die Arbeit am und mit dem konkreten sprachlichen Ausdruck ist für Sonnemann zugleich auch Methode seines eigenen Denkens. Die vier eben genannten Metaphern haben daher einen ambivalenten Status: Sie sind einerseits Ausdruck dafür, dass die Übersetzung der Metaphern in Theoreme, die dem Versuch der Vermittlung zuarbeiten, für die Ausarbeitung des Begriffs erforderlich wäre. Andererseits findet die Vermittlung zwischen Gesellschaft und Subjekt genau ‚in’ diesen Begriffen statt. Sie also schlicht zu ersetzen, liefe damit Gefahr, das von Sonnemann intendierte Spezifische an ihnen auszustreichen. Gerade entlang dieser Herausforderung lassen sich aber die oben erwähnten Theorieangebote gut integrieren, um in der Arbeit den Versuch einer Ausarbeitung des Begriffs der Gesellschaftserkenntnis anzugehen.

ABSTRACT 2014 Canadian Society for the Study of Education/ Société canadienne pour l'étude de l'éducation www.cje-rce.ca La (re)lecture des mots, du monde et des maux des jeunes noirs : apports de la pédagogie critique à la recherche en éducation en contextes de racialisation Résumé Dans la francophonie, la recherche en éducation accorde, jusqu'à présent, peu d'attention aux problématiques raciales, ce qui constitute un obstacle à la compréhension des expéri-ences socioéducatives des jeunes noirs en contextes « racialisés ». Comment la recherche peut-elle leur donner voix et contribuer à transformer leurs réalités défavorables? La pédagogie critique et les théories postcoloniales proposent des cadres de références pour esquisser une recherche critique qui fait la (re)lecture des mots, du monde et des maux des jeunes noirs. Cet article propose une telle reconceptualisation qui pourrait fournir un cadre de recherche et d'action plus sensible aux réalités des jeunes noirs, en général, et dans le contexte francophone, en particulier.

Cet article propose une nouvelle rationalité didactique avec le concept de «didactiques critiques». Il présente un contre-relief des didactiques en débusquant des aspects souterrains qu’elles rejettent, ne perçoivent pas, ne problématisent pas, ne questionnent pas ou ne théorisent pas. Face aux crises socio-environnementales que vivent les sociétés contemporaines, et face aux enjeux et défis qu’elles représentent pour l’éducation formelle et l’enseignement-apprentissage, les didactiques ne peuvent plus se permettre de se considérer comme des domaines disciplinaires décontextualisés, asociaux et apolitiques, soumis aux critères ou mythes de scientificité (objectivité, neutralité, vérité, universalité). Les nombreux maux sociaux, tels les: classisme, racisme, sexisme , néocolonialisme, néolibéralisme, conflits armés, guerres, déplacements forcés et autres violences, donnent lieu à des dynamiques de domination et d’exclusion sociales qui se répercutent dans la situation d’enseignement-...

"This commentary, part of the book symposium on Katharina Pistor's The Code of Capital, focuses in particular on the epistemic dimensions of the phenomena she describes. Knowledge can be coded as capital, through intellectual property rights, and these can be done in ways that unjustly favor privileged actors at the cost of the common good, as Pistor demonstrates with regard to the patenting of genetic markers. Interestingly, however, knowledge can also be appropriated without the use of legal tools, simply by appropriating data from consumers, as Zuboff, for example, has argued. A second epistemic dimension of Pistor's work lies in the fact that the legal coding of capital is itself little know and receives little public discussion. This, of course, plays into the hands of those who benefit by problematic forms of such coding. By putting these issues up for debate, The Code of Capital fulfill itself an important epistemic role, which can be categorized as a form of "democratic professionalism", i.e., professionals enabling a critical public discourse about the activities in their own field." Lisa Herzog

Presented through an intersectionally framed study investigating U.S.-based transmasculine college students’ conceptions of masculinity, this paper explores a myriad of methodological and analytical queries by examining trans*ing as method. How might trans*ing taken-for-granted constructs (such as masculinity) full of unnamed ‐ and thus unchallenged ‐ assumptions resist dominant narratives that drive theorising and practice and thus seek solutions and interventions that can improve everyone’s lives? What possibilities lie in the asterisk’s disruptive potential that can cause us to ‘pause in order to reach beyond’ (Patel, 2016, p. 88) hegemonic and settler colonial structures of masculinity? How might attending to the relationality of trans identities (Catalano, 2017; Jourian, 2017a; Nicolazzo, 2017), the relational nature of research (Patel, 2016), and the ‘process-oriented rather than end-oriented’ (Spade, 2015, p. 189) nature of critical trans politics allow us to resist normative and positivistic analytical practices that distill complex data and people into simplistic models and understandings? Divergent and disruptive thinking and arriving at these constructs from unexpected starting points exposes tensions and false binaries in them, points of excess that then have to be transformed to have meaning, driving scholarship and practice towards liberatory potentials.