The Prehistory of the Autonomy of Science 2mmSemantic

The Prehistory of the Autonomy of Science
Semantic Differentiation between
Antiquity and Renaissance
David Kaldewey
Forum Internationale Wissenschaft (FIW),
University of Bonn
Presentation for the CASTI Workshop in Berlin,
Humboldt University, 15-17 June 2015
Socio-Structural and Semantic Definitions of Autonomy
• Socio-structural conception: An autonomous space is free from constraints
(›negative freedom‹)
– Heteronomy = Social structures are »constraining«, they restrict an agent in his
freedom of action
– Autonomy = Social structures are »enabling«, they provide the agent with
possibilities and opportunities
• Semantic conception: An autonomous space constitutes its own law
(›positive freedom‹)
– Which concrete forms of action and communication emerge in a social space
that is free from external constraints?
– What is meant in a material sense, rather than in a purely formal sense, when
one speaks of the »autonomy of science«?
Thomas Gieryn’s Definition of Science as an »Empty Space«
• »But what is ›science‹? Nothing but a space, one that acquires its authority
precisely from and through episodic negotiations of its flexible and
contextually contingent borders and territories. Science is a kind of spatial
›marker‹ for cognitive authority, empty until its insides get filled and its
borders drawn amidst context-bound negotiations over who and what is
›scientific‹.« (Gieryn 1995: 405)
• Gieryn delineates the space of »science« in purely negative terms. He
ignores that this empty space (as a semantic space) has a history.
• The highlighted »until« implies that first there is a (socio-structural) space,
and then it gets filled with (semantic) meaning.
The Emergence of an »Empty Space«?
Or: An Onomasiological Reconstruction of what Today We
Conceptualize as »the Autonomy of Science«
Five discoursive contexts and the respective semantic fields are examined:
• ›Theoria‹ and ›praxis‹ as forms of life in the Athenian democracy
• ›Otium‹ and ›negotium‹ in the Roman republic
• ›Catharsis‹ and ›contemplation‹ in Neo-Platonism
• ›Vita activa‹ and ›vita contemplativa‹ between Early Christianity and
Scholasticism
• Differentiation and Secularization of forms of life in the Renaissance
Semantic Field I:
Theory and Practice in the Athenian Democracy
Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle proposed an autotelic life
dedicated to philosophy (›bios theoretikos‹) and claimed that this form of life is
as valuable and as autonomous as the practical-political life of their fellow
citizens (›bios praktikos‹).
Semantic Field II:
Otium and Negotium in the Roman Republic
In the Roman Republic, political philosophers such as Cicero, Sallust, or
Seneca valued the the vita activa higher than the vita contemplativa. However,
within the semantic space of the political life, they distinguished between ›otium‹
(leisure time dedicated to philosophical studies) and ›negotium‹ (official duties,
political affairs).
Semantic Field III:
Catharsis and Contemplation in Neo-Platonism
In Neo-Platonism, contemplation (›theoria‹), understood as the vision of the
absolute, is accorded primacy over all other forms of life. The active life is
devalued and reconceptualized as mere preliminary stage, a life of purification
(›katharsis‹).
Semantic Field IV:
Vita Activa and Vita Contemplativa in Early Christianity
Building on the Neo-Platonic tradition, early Christian theology, patristics, and
scholasticsm extensively reflected the relationships between ›vita activa‹ and
›vita contemplativa‹. The two forms of life marked two distinct semantic spaces:
The one oriented towards this world (immanence), the other aiming at the
hereafter (transcendence).
Semantic Field V:
Differentiation and Secularization in the Renaissance
In the Renaissance, ancient, medieval, and scholastic discourses converged
and gave rise to a a new kind of reflection on the value a philosophical life has
for society. The ›vita activa‹ experienced a positive revaluation, while the ›vita
contemplativa‹ was not devaluated, but transformed, differentiated, and
secularized.
The Semantic Space of Politics in Diachronic Perspective
The Semantic Space of Science in Diachronic Perspective
Conclusion I
Discourses on Autonomy as »Preadaptive Advances«
• The emergence of modern science depended on a previous differentiation
of a semantic space in which a quest for truth, relieved of the pressure of
practice, and an adequate mode of communication could be consolidated
and legitimized.
• Thus, in the terminology of evolutionary theory, the discourses on
autonomy reconstructed here can be interpreted as »preadaptive
advances« in terms of evolutionary theory, that is, as »solutions for
problems that do not yet exist« (Luhmann 2005: 219).
Conclusion II
The Böckenförde Dilemma
• Due to the fact that the semantic space of science gained its momentum
and its autonomy while it was still embedded in a wider religious semantic
field, one can assume that the notion of an autonomous
philosophical-scientific quest for truth ultimately benefits from another,
older notion of autonomy grounded on the absolute value of the
contemplation of God.
• Following the political philosopher Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, »the
liberal, secularized state is nourished by presuppositions that it cannot itself
guarantee. That is the great gamble it has made for liberty’s sake« (1991:
45). – The same goes, as we may now assume, for modern, secularized
science: its autonomy is rooted in traditions and in a moral substance that it
cannot ensure itself.
Conclusion III
The Co-Construction of Socio-Structural and Semantic Spaces
• None of the discourses on autonomy that have been discussed here can be
fully understood in isolation, i.e. detached from the contemporary societal
structures and social positions of the respective authors. Thus, we have to
conceive of socio-structural and semantic spaces as co-constructed.
• It would not be valid, or a materialistic fallacy, to regard the semantics
discussed here as merely an effect or representation of social structures;
and it would be equally problematic to view all institutions of knowledge
simply as materializations of the respective discourses.