Beyond the subject–object binary: Towards cosmopolitan knowledge

• Published in: Theory & psychology Vol. 30; no. 3; pp. 448 - 454
• Main Author: Neilson, David
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.06.2020; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Articulation; Epistemology; Imperialism; Intersectionality; Knowledge; Objectivity; Social sciences; praxis; epistemological violence; subject–object relation; class; intersectionality
• ISSN: 0959-3543; 1461-7447
• DOI: 10.1177/0959354320920943

Rather than distinguishing, as Held’s (2020) article does, between “subjective” and “objective” forms of knowledge, this commentary makes the counter argument that the subject–object relation is an integral feature of all forms of knowledge, which can be more usefully distinguished according to differences in the form of the subject–object relation. I specifically differentiate the subject–object relation of Western social science from those of everyday knowledge and non-Western forms of knowledge. Western social science’s epistemological violence to other(ed) forms of knowledge is enabled, this commentary argues, by the false assumption that it is a subject-less objectivity while other forms of knowledge are subjective. The alternative epistemological subject position introduced here contrasts the epistemic imperialism of Western social science with a cosmopolitan vision of a dynamic global knowledge driven by the constructive articulation of differently limited knowledge forms. I then discuss this paper’s epistemological subject position in relation to class and intersectionality theory.