Crítica de la razón (Moderna, Occidental) impura

Este artículo plantea una serie de preguntas muy directas, cuando no simples. ¿Cómo y por qué asumimos que el conocimiento moderno es universal, pese a su genealogía europea y su procedencia histórica reciente? ¿Qué justificación tenemos para considerar tal cosa superior a los conocimientos premodernos de Occidente, y a los conocimientos autóctonos del no Occidente? ¿Tenemos, en resumen, motivos para suponer que el conocimiento occidental moderno trasciende las circunstancias de su surgimiento histórico y geográfico y de ese modo que las ciencias sociales son «verdaderas» para cada quien, aun cuando hacerlo sea privilegiar lo moderno y lo occidental, sobre lo premoderno y lo no occidental

Which past? Whose transcendental presupposition?

This paper starts from the presumption that historiography is not the objective retelling of a self-evident object?'the past'?but is rather a 'code', one that constitutes its object. The central element in this code, it suggests, is humanism/anthropology. It is not because man is a meaning producing being, who leaves behind traces of himself, that history-writing is possible; rather, it is historiography that helps secure this humanist/anthropological presumption. Moreover, the presumption that Man is a culture secreting and meaning producing being is not universally 'true', is not (pace Weber) a 'transcendental presupposition', but is rather a specifically modern and presumption. History-writing, the essay concludes, is not always adequate to non-Western pasts

Analysis of manufacturing strategy involving flexibility and centralized manufacturing

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/96937/1/MBA_SethSu_1999Final.pd

Reconceiving the Practice of History: From Representation to Translation

Arguing that history is not the application of a rigorous method to sources bequeathed to us from the past but rather a practice of coding that constructs “the past” in particular ways, this article seeks to delineate the key elements of this coding. Modern history treats past objects and texts as the objectified remains of humans who endowed their world with meaning and purpose while constrained by the social circumstances characterizing their times. This time of theirs is dead, and it can only be represented, not resurrected; the past is only ever the human past, and it does not include ghosts, gods, spirits, or nature. If, as argued here, “the past” does not exist independently of the means by which it is known and represented, then the many different modes of historicity that human beings developed and deployed before the modern form of history became dominant cannot be measured against “the” past in an effort to compare their accuracy or adequacy in representing it. The concluding section of this article asks what we are doing when we write the history of those who did not share the presumptions of the modern discipline but who had their own mode(s) of historicity. What, it asks, is the character and status of the knowledge produced when we write histories of premodern and non-Western pasts

Historiography and Nonwestern Pasts

no abstrac

Beyond belief: secularism, religion and our muddled modernity

This article argues that the very idea of religion, as the genus of which the various ‘world religions’ are the species, is a modern invention, and thus comparisons between religions – including those pertaining to their capacity to recognize and adapt to the necessary distinction between matters of religion and matters properly belonging to secular society and the state – rest upon a deep conceptual error. Religion is made or produced, it goes on to show, in part by the interventions of the state; the claim that secularism is the process by which politics and religion come to be ‘separated out’ is therefore untenable. It concludes by asking how we might understand religion and secularism in the light of this, if it is no longer possible to understand them in the conventional way; and also what the implications of such alternative understandings might be for the narrative of modernity of which the secularization thesis is a part

State-Level and County-Level Estimates of Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity.

IntroductionFood insecurity, or uncertain access to food because of limited financial resources, is associated with higher health care expenditures. However, both food insecurity prevalence and health care spending vary widely in the United States. To inform public policy, we estimated state-level and county-level health care expenditures associated with food insecurity.MethodsWe used linked 2011-2013 National Health Interview Survey/Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (NHIS/MEPS) data to estimate average health care costs associated with food insecurity, Map the Meal Gap data to estimate state-level and county-level food insecurity prevalence (current though 2016), and Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care data to account for local variation in health care prices and intensity of use. We used targeted maximum likelihood estimation to estimate health care costs associated with food insecurity, separately for adults and children, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsAmong NHIS/MEPS participants, 10,054 adults and 3,871 children met inclusion criteria. Model estimates indicated that food insecure adults had annual health care expenditures that were $1,834 (95$1,073-2,595, P < .001) higher than food secure adults. For children, estimates were 80 higher, but this finding was not significant (95% CI, -$171 to$329, P = .53). The median annual health care cost associated with food insecurity was $687,041,000 (25th percentile,$239,675,000; 75th percentile, $1,140,291,000). The median annual county-level health care cost associated with food insecurity was$4,433,000 (25th percentile, $1,774,000; 75th percentile,$11,267,000). Cost variability was related primarily to food insecurity prevalence.ConclusionsHealth care expenditures associated with food insecurity vary substantially across states and counties. Food insecurity policies may be important mechanisms to contain health care expenditures

Unemployment Insurance, Health-Related Social Needs, Health Care Access, and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic

More than 30 million jobs have been lost during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.1 Unemployment insurance (UI) was temporarily expanded by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,2 but further reform is under debate. Key CARES Act provisions were adding $600 weekly federal payments to state payments (Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation), longer benefit duration (Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation), and broadened eligibility for minimum-wage, self-employed, contract, and gig workers (Pandemic Unemployment Assistance)