Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Orhan Pamuk and The Good of World Literature by Gloria Fisk (review)

Orhan Pamuk and The Good of World Literature by Gloria Fisk (review) symplokeˉ 549 of knowledge, which in turn sheds light on what we know and how we know it. Moreover, Graff’s introduction suggests that it is a mistake to seek an essential form or method for interdisciplinarity. His argument is reminiscent of a trend in academic thought is sometimes called “anti-theory” or “anti- essentialism,” i.e., arguments against reducing some domain of interest to an essential form. Graff’s central claim on this is that, “Despite the rhetoric, there is no one form of interdisciplinarity. We must adopt distinct approaches to interdisciplinarity in different fi elds or disciplinary clusters” (3). Graff denies that ID work is separable from the evolution of special disciplines; rather ID and disciplinarity evolve together, defaulting to special disciplines where problems allow a narrower focus, but expanding to include the ID perspective when problems demand a convergence of concepts and methods. Thus, “interdisciplinarity is part of the historical making and ongoing reshaping of modern disciplines. It is inseparable from them, not opposed to them” (5). Both the special disciplines and ID, therefore, are historical and institutional constructs of convenience (12). The record of attempted interdisciplines shows that “interdisciplinarism has generally been problem driven, and problems…have their own life http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png symploke uni_neb

Orhan Pamuk and The Good of World Literature by Gloria Fisk (review)

symploke , Volume 26 (1) – Nov 28, 2018

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-nebraska-press/i-orhan-pamuk-and-the-good-of-world-literature-i-by-gloria-fisk-review-W8vmfHkurY
Publisher
University of Nebraska Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 symploke.
ISSN
1534-0627

Abstract

symplokeˉ 549 of knowledge, which in turn sheds light on what we know and how we know it. Moreover, Graff’s introduction suggests that it is a mistake to seek an essential form or method for interdisciplinarity. His argument is reminiscent of a trend in academic thought is sometimes called “anti-theory” or “anti- essentialism,” i.e., arguments against reducing some domain of interest to an essential form. Graff’s central claim on this is that, “Despite the rhetoric, there is no one form of interdisciplinarity. We must adopt distinct approaches to interdisciplinarity in different fi elds or disciplinary clusters” (3). Graff denies that ID work is separable from the evolution of special disciplines; rather ID and disciplinarity evolve together, defaulting to special disciplines where problems allow a narrower focus, but expanding to include the ID perspective when problems demand a convergence of concepts and methods. Thus, “interdisciplinarity is part of the historical making and ongoing reshaping of modern disciplines. It is inseparable from them, not opposed to them” (5). Both the special disciplines and ID, therefore, are historical and institutional constructs of convenience (12). The record of attempted interdisciplines shows that “interdisciplinarism has generally been problem driven, and problems…have their own life

Journal

symplokeuni_neb

Published: Nov 28, 2018

There are no references for this article.