The Function of Bachelardian Epistemology in the Post-colonial Project of Mohammed ‘Abed al-Jabri

This paper explores the function of historical epistemology in the thought of Gaston Bachelard (1884–1962) and Mohammed ‘Abed al-Jabri (1935–2010). Attributing thought with a particular function challenges our tendency to explain the development of thought in other socio-historical contexts in terms of mere conceptual influence. Available English-language literature on al-Jabri commonly references Bachelard’s concept of epistemological rupture as a source of inspiration. Though the reference is astute, this term remains poorly understood and has long been overshadowed by Thomas Kuhn’s notion of ‘paradigm shift’. The broader function of Bachelard’s thought as a renegotiation of time, place, subject, and reason in the natural sciences has been largely neglected in historiographies of the philosophy of science outside of France. This paper emphasizes the level of insight and ingenuity with which al-Jabri employs the function of Bachelard’s epistemology by re-interpreting it within the framework of his own socio-historical context. Far from reducing al-Jabri’s thought to a mere programmatic reproduction of French thought, I suggest that al-Jabri was among the most astute interpreters of this long-misunderstood theorist

Mereotopological Connection

The paper outlines a model-theoretic framework for investigating and comparing a variety of mereotopological theories. In the first part we consider different ways of characterizing a mereotopology with respect to (i) the intended interpretation of the connection primitive, and (ii) the composition of the admissible domains of quantification (e.g., whether or not they include boundary elements). The second part extends this study by considering two further dimensions along which different patterns of topological connection can be classified—the strength of the connection and its multiplicity

A pragmatic methodology for studying international practices

Practice turn marks an important advancement in International Relations theorizing. In challenging abstract meta-theoretical debates, practice theorizing in International Relations aims to get close to the lifeworld(s) of the actual practitioners of politics. Scholars from different positions such as constructivism, critical theory, and post-structuralism have critically interrogated the analytical framework of practices in international politics. Building upon these works, we are concerned with a question of how to examine the context of international practices that unfolds in multiple ways in practitioners’ performances. Our central thesis is that a distinct pragmatic methodology offers an opportunity to keep with the practice turn and avoid the problematic foundational moves of mainstream practice theorizing. This involves foregrounding three interrelated processes in examining practices: the role of exceptions in the normal stream of performances, normative uptake of the analysts, and the semantic field that actors navigate in political performances. We argue that this methodology is predicated on its usefulness to interpret practices through reflective social-science inquiry

The Janus head of Bachelard’s phenomenotechnique: from purification to proliferation and back

The work of Gaston Bachelard is known for two crucial concepts, that of the epistemological rupture and that of phenomenotechnique. A crucial question is, however, how these two concepts relate to one another. Are they in fact essentially connected or must they be seen as two separate elements of Bachelard's thinking? This paper aims to analyse the relation between these two Bachelardian moments and the significance of the concept of phenomenotechnique for today. This will be done by examining certain historical uses of the concepts of Bachelard have been used from the 1960s on. From this historical perspective, one gets the impression that these two concepts are relatively independent from each other. The Althusserian school has exclusively focused on the concept of 'epistemological break', while scholars from Science & Technology Studies (STS), such as Bruno Latour, seem to have only taken up the concept of phenomenotechnique. It in fact leads to two different models of how to think about science, namely the model of purification and the model of proliferation. The former starts from the idea that sciences are rational to the extent that they are purified and free from (epistemological) obstacles. Scientific objectivity, within this later model, is not achieved by eradicating all intermediaries, obstacles and distortions, but rather exactly by introducing as many relevant technical mediators as possible. Finally, such a strong distinction will be criticized and the argument will be made that both in Bachelard's and Latour's thought both concepts are combined. This leads to a janus-headed view on science, where both the element of purification (the epistemological break) and the element of proliferation (phenomenotechnique) are combine