The conversation between different fields of scientific and scholarly inquiry, philosopher Gilles Deleuze poignantly put it in the interview “The Brain is the Screen” (2000), “doesn’t take place, when one begins to reflect on the other.” It starts “when one discipline realizes that it has to resolve, for itself and by ist own means, a problem similar to one confronted by the other” (367).
Since many, if not most research questions cannot be resolved by one singular discipline, interdisciplinary dialogue is indispensable for productive work in the humanities as much as in the social and natural sciences. This, however, is easier said than done, given the fact that different disciplines define alike concepts in rather distinct ways, work with seemingly incompatible methodological approaches, and frame their inquiries with theories that appear opaque to specialists from other departments. As a consequence, questions concerning concepts and methods tend to get sidelined, even in designs of interdisciplinary research projects and proposals. Does interdisciplinary research therefore need a shared terminology, a common language, as some do argue, or do we need to understand that different disciplines use different terms for comparable processes and phenomena? In other words: How do we make sense between and across disciplinary lines?
Read more information about this event here: https://hanse-ias.de/veranstaltungen/detail/event/206
Spatializing ‘Intelligence’
Katherine Sammler
Scholars are increasingly invoking notions of intelligence in analysis of evolving sociotechnical assemblages, with little to no discussion as to what it means. Yet, Enlightenment theories of intelligence rely on mind/body and human/nature dualisms that have long been used to justify deeply racist, gendered, colonial, ableist projects. Geographers can play an important role by questioning the spatialities through which particular definitions of intelligence become operationalized and shape worlds in relation to power.
saltygeographies 