The American Sociologist

, Volume 42, Issue 2–3, pp 207–219

Truth, Knowledge, Narratives of Selves

An Account of the Volatility of Truth, the Power of Semantic Agency, and Time in Narratives of the Self
Article
  • 261 Downloads

Abstract

Starting with a distinction of two types of discourse analysis—the analysis of a discourse and discursive analysis—the article discusses an analytical genealogy of truth and knowledge production, that can fulfill both empirical and archival requirements. The model’s main purpose lies in understanding diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making in doctor–patient interactions. Historically, diagnostic and therapeutic discourses, in particular in “experimental medicine and medical theory”, used to be part of natural philosophy in the 18th and 19th century in the form of dietetics, respectively, psychosomatic medicine and medical semiotics, as well as proto-semiotic philosophy and proto-pragmatism did belong to the same discourses. Subsequently, pragmatic and semiotic social sciences should be enabled to invoke this conceptual legacy to build a bridge between contemporary medical practice and semiotic theories. In discussing the genealogical model in light of the discourse of Norbert Wiley and Margaret Archer, it will be made clear that the model, combined with a deeper understanding of the history of ideas, and a combination of archival and empirical attitude in research, is an effective tool for sociologists of knowledge and medicine.

Keywords

Truth production Knowledge regime Discourse analysis Semiotic self Doctor–patient interactive decision-making Norbert Wiley Michel Foucualt Pragmatist semiotics 

References

  1. Archer, M. (2004). Structure, agency, and the internal conversation. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, M. (2010). Routine, reflexivity, realism. Sociological Theory, 28, 272–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bevir, M. (1996). The individual and society. Political Studies, 44, 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bevir, M. (1997). Mind and method in the history of ideas. History and Theory, 36, 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bevir, M. (1999). The logic of the history of ideas. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  6. Bevir, M. (2008). What is genealogy. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 2, 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloor, D. (1997). Remember the strong program? Science, Technology, and Human Values, 22, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford UP. Google Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). Invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  10. Camic, C., & Joas, H. (eds.). (2003). The dialogical turn. Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  11. Canguilhem, G. (1991). The normal and the pathological. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  12. Collins, R. (2001). The sociology of philosophies. Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, R. (2003). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  14. Czarniawska-Joerges, B., et al. (2000). Symbolism and Organization Studies (with a commentary by Karin Knorr Cetina). In G. Ortman (Ed.), Theorien der Organsiation (pp. 360–387). Opladen: Westdt. Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. DuBrin, A. J. (2008). Political behavior in organizations. Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Esposito, E. (2004). Soziales Vergessen. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  17. Fine, G. A. (2010). The sociology of the local. Sociological Theory, 28(4), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1963). Die Geburt der Klinik. Eine Archäologie des ärztlichen Blicks. (Naissance de la Clinique; Presses Universitaires de France). Fischer, Frankfurt aM, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1966). Les Mots et les Choses. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1968a). Sur l’archéologie des sciences. Réponse au Cerlcle d’épistémologie. Cahiers pour l’analyse, 9, 9–40.Google Scholar
  22. Focault, M. (1968b). Reponse a une question. Esprit Nr, 371, 850–874.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1969a). L’archeologie de savoir.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1969b). Qu’est-ce qu’un auteur? (pp. 73–104). LXIII: Bulletin de la societe francaise de philosophie.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1972). Mon corps, ce papier, ce feu. Appendix II in: Histoire de la Folie 583–603.Google Scholar
  26. Grant, I. H. (2000). The chemistry of darkness. Pli, 9, 36–52.Google Scholar
  27. Grant, I. H. (2011). Schellingianism & Postmodernity, The Paideia Project, Proceedings of the 20th World Philosophy Congress, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html, retrieved on Dec. 6Th, 2009 at: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cult/CultGran.htm, no date.
  28. Grant, I. H. (2006). Philsophies of nature after schelling. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  29. Grant, I. H. (2008). Being slime. The mathematics of protoplasm in Lorenz Oken’s ‘physio-philosophy’. In Collapse IV: Concept Horror,Urbanomic.Google Scholar
  30. Henrich, D. (1991). Konstellationen. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  31. Henrich, D. (2004). Grundlegung aus dem Ich. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  32. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  33. Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4).Google Scholar
  34. Knorr Cetina, K. (2009). The synthetic siuation. Symbolic Interaction, 31(1), 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lakoff, A. (2000). Adaptive Will. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 36.Google Scholar
  36. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Mark Johnson. Metaphors we live by. Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  37. Langer, E. (1990). Mindfulness. Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
  38. Langer, E. (2009). Counterclockwise: Mindful health and the power of possibility. Ballantine BooksGoogle Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body. Body&Society, 10(2/3), 205–229.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (2006). Reassembling the social. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  41. Lenoir, T. (1982). The strategy of life. Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  42. Levine, D. (1995). Visions of the sociological tradition. Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  43. Levine, D. (2006). Somatic elements in social conflict. In C. Shilling (Ed.), Embodying sociology: Retrospect, progress and prospects. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Levine, D. (2007). The Aiki Path to Therapeutic and Creative Intersubjectivity. Lecture at conference on “Living Aikido: Art of Movement, Art of Life,” Aiki Institut, Schweinfurt, Germany, May 18, 2007.Google Scholar
  45. Luhmann, N. (2000). Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen: Westdt Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Luhmann, N. (2009). Zur Komplexitaet von Entscheidungssituationen. Soziale Systeme, 15(1), 3–35.Google Scholar
  47. Mackey, S. (2009). A semiotic view of Dewey’s times and Habermas’s lifeworlds. Cosmos and History, 5(2), 178–190.Google Scholar
  48. Manning, M., & Manning, R. (2007). Legion theory: a meta-psychology. Theory and Psychology, 17, 839–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marquard, O. (1986). Apologie des Zufaelligen. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  50. Marquard, O. (1989). Farewell to matters of principle. Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  51. May, C. (2007). The clinical encounter and the problem of context. Sociology, 41, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mulsow, M., & Stamm, M. (Eds.). (2004). Konstellationsforschung. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  53. Pape, H. (1989). Erfahrung und Wirklichkeit als Zeichenprozess. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  54. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Free Press.Google Scholar
  55. Pollilo, S. (2004). The network-structure of the self. Paper Presented at the ASA 2004, retrieved at allacademic.org on March 23, 2010.Google Scholar
  56. Oberschall, A. (1992). Social movements. Edison: Transaction.Google Scholar
  57. Pocock, J. G. A. (1985). State of the art. In J. G. A. Pocock (Ed.). Virtue commerce and history (pp 1–36). Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  58. Pocock, J. G. A. (1987). The concept of a language and the Metier d’Historien”. In A. Pagden (Ed.), The languages of political theory in early modern Europe (pp. 19–38). Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  59. Pocock, J. G. A. (1989). Languages and their implications. In J. G. A. Pocock (Ed.), Politics, language, and time (pp. 3–41). Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  60. Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  61. Rabinow, P. (1996). Essays on the anthropology of reason. Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  62. Rabinow, P. (2003). Anthropos today. Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  63. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Towards a history of epistemic things. Stanford UP.Google Scholar
  64. Rheinberger, H. J. (2006). Epistemologie des Konkreten. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  65. Roberts, R. J. (2002). The romantic conception of life. Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  66. Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights. Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  67. Schachtner, C. (1999). Aerztliche Praxis. Die gestaltende Kraft der Metapher. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  68. Schoenrich, G. (1990). Zeichenhandeln. Untersuchungen zum Begriff einer semiotischen Vernunft im Ausgang von C.S.Peirce. Frankfurt aM: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  69. Shapin, S. (1992). Discipline and bounding: the history and sociology of science as seen through the externalism-internalism debate. History of Science, 30, 333–369.Google Scholar
  70. Sinding, C. (1996). Literary genres and the construction of knowledge in biology: semantic shifts and scientific change. Social Studies of Science, 26, 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sloterdijk, P. (2005). Atmospheric politics. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public (pp. 944–953). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  72. Strati, A., et al. (2000). Davide Nicolini, cognitivism in organization studies. In G. Ortman (Ed.), Theorien der Organsiation (pp. 388–416). Opladen: Westdt. Verlag.Google Scholar
  73. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Thornton, T. (2006). Tacit knowledge as the unifying factor in evidence based medicine and clinical judgment. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 1(2).Google Scholar
  75. Valsiner, J. (2005). Scaffolding within the structure of the dialogical self: hierarchical dynamics of semiotic mediation. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind. Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  77. von Uexkuell, T. (1997). Psychosomatic medicine. Muenchen: Urban &Schwarzenberg.Google Scholar
  78. Velasco, H. (2009). Compelxity, sustainability, justice and meaning: chronological versus dynamical time. Cosmos and History, 5(2), 108–133.Google Scholar
  79. Weick, K. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Weick, K. (2000). Making sense of the organization. Wiley.Google Scholar
  81. Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, J. (2007). Managing the unexpected. Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  82. Weick, K. (2009). Making sense of the organization, volume 2. Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Wiley, N. (1994). The semiotic self. Chicago UP.Google Scholar
  84. Wiley, N. (2006). Pragmatism and the dialogical self. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 1(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
  85. Will, F. (2009). Temporal foundations in the construction of history: two essays. Cosmos and History, 5(2), 161–177.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transcultural Health Sciences (INTRAG)European University ViadrinaFrankfurt an der OderGermany

Personalised recommendations