[Asis-l] Re: call for new sig interest and membership--interdisciplinary "critical theory"

[Ralph Dumain]

What about the Arts & Humanities SIG?  Has that ceased to exist?  Its 
original mission statement, BTW, included the application of critical 
theory.  That was already a dead letter when I was running SIG/AH during a 
slice of the 1980s.  Please remind me again why a new SIG is needed?

At 03:08 PM 10/28/2002 +0100, R.L. Hunsucker (UvA/UBA) wrote:
>May I make two very brief comments concerning this most interesting
>question ?
>
>-  It seems to me that the great value of the term "human sciences"
>is that it incorporates both "social sciences" and "humanities". Such
>a term (and concept) is welcome and IMHO nowadays indeed essential.
>The epistemological progress of the last few decades would, I hope,
>suggest that many of you will agree on this. I see no added value in
>using "human sciences" as an alternative for "humanities" and then
>contrasting social to human.
>
>-  Regarding HFIS, I'll have to agree with Michel -- or rather more
>precisely, with his implication that in principle there should be no
>need for a new SIG along the lines suggested. I would even go
>further and argue that it should almost necessarily be more
>beneficial and effective for all parties concerned to (further)
>integrate the (extremely important) concerns expressed below by
>RD into the thinking and activities of an existing SIG which after
>all already claims to be concerned with "fundamental concepts",
>"theoretical frameworks" and "philosophical, semiological, ...
>psychological and sociological disciplines" -- and, I would hope,
>with a 'critical' orientation toward all of these. (Whatever may have
>developed over the years as received practice.) To do otherwise
>seems a less fruitful route toward dialogue (much needed) and an
>encouragement of fragmentation and perhaps even factionalism.
>
>With apologies for this intervention by a concerned observer who is
>for practical reasons only a *former* member of the society.