Rethinking the "production of knowledge" as a methodological approach in historical research


Views: 69 / PDF downloads: 7

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32523/2616-7255-2024-146-1-26-44

Keywords:

subjectivity, discourse analysis, deconstruction, knowledge production, the Russian empire, colonialism, orientalism, methodology, methodological approaches, cliché

Abstract

The article is devoted to theoretical approaches in contemporary works of foreign authors who study the issues of "knowledge production" within the constructivist methodology. The historiography of this topic is quite extensive. It is based on the study of the relationship between science and power. One of the main aspects of this problem is the consideration of scientific interpretations that could serve to justify political regimes or the transformation of knowledge to serve the interests of power. Especially the study of this aspect of the connection between knowledge and power was expressed in studies on the interaction of authorities with the scientific community, which ensured the interests of empires in the conquered territories.

In the proposed analysis of articles, attention is focused on the sources of clichés that were formed within the framework of evolutionary theory, colonial explanatory schemes, which have not yet received a complete rethinking. In this regard, the article mentions the theoretical roots of discourse analysis. The attention is paid to the study of the British scholar Bernard Cohn, who undertook a study of the imperial practices of the British in India. The article also analyzes the works devoted to the rethinking of statements relating to some pages of the history of Kazakhstan, formulated in the colonial period. The relevance of popularizing the deconstruction of colonial knowledge lies in the fact of its presence in contemporary interpretations of history in a huge range of topics that require critical analysis. In this regard, the analysis of foreign works, including those related to the history of Kazakhstan, is likely to be useful and increase interest in such studies

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bhabha Н. К. The Location of Culture. – London: Routledge, 2004. – 440 p.

Campbell Ian W. Knowledge and the Ends of Empire. Kazakh Intermediaries and Russian Rule on the Steppe, 1731–1917. – Cornell University: Itaca and London, 2017. – 273 p.

Cohn S. Bernard. Colonialism and its forms of knowledge. The British in India. – New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1996. –189 p.

Cooper Frederick. Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. – 327 p.

Johnson, T., Dandeker C., Ashworth C. Empiricism. // The Structure of Social Theory. Contemporary Social Theory. – London: Palgrave, 1984. – P.24–74.

Knight N. Grigor’ev in Orenburg, 1851–1862: Russian Orientalism in the service of Empire. // Slavic Review. – №1(59). – 2000. – P. 74–100.

Marshall Alex. The Russian General Staff and Asia (1800–1917). – London, New York: Routledge, 2006. – 263 p.

Suman Sett. Putting knowledge in its place: science, colonialism, and the postcolonial. // Postcolonial Studies. – № 4(12). 2009. – P. 373–388.

Бассин М. Россия между Европой и Азией: Идеологическое конструирование географического пространства // Российская империя в зарубежной историографии. – М.: Новое издательство. – 2005. – С.277–303.

Вен П. Фуко совершает переворот в истории // Как пишут историю. Опыт эпистемологии. – М.: Научный мир, 2003. – С. 350–391.

Георги И. Г. Описание всех обитающих в Российском государстве народов: их житейских обрядов, обыкновений, одежд, жилищ, упражнений, забав, вероисповеданий и других достопамятностей: монография в 4 т. Т.2. О Народах татарского племени и других не решенного еще происхождения северных Сибирских. – СПб.: Императорская Академия Наук, 1799. – 178 с.

Миллер Г.Ф. История Сибири: монография в 3 т. под ред. Н.А. Баклановой и А.И. Андреева. – М.: Восточная литература, 2005. — 598 с.

Паллас П.С. Путешествие по разным местам Российского государства по повелению Санкт–Петербургской Императорской Академии наук: монография в 6 т. — СПб.: Императорская академия Наук, 1773 – 1786. – 606 с.

Саид Э. Ориентализм. Западные концепции Востока. – Санкт–Петербург: Русский мир, 2006. – 637 с.

Сартори П., Шаблей П. Эксперименты империи. Адат, шариат и производство знаний в казахской степи. – Москва: Новое литературное обозрение, 2019. – 280 с.

Слезкин Ю. Естествоиспытатели и нации: русские ученые XVIII века и проблема этнического многообразия // Российская империя в зарубежной историографии. – М.: Новое издательство. – 2005. – С. 120–154.

Спивак Ч. Могут ли угнетенные говорить? // Введение в гендерные исследования. – Харьков: ХЦГИ, 2001. – С. 649–670.

Фуко М. Власть и знание // Интеллектуалы и власть. Избранные политические статьи, выступления и интервью. – М.: Праксис, 2002. – 384 с.

Published

2024-03-30

How to Cite

Jampeissova Ж., & Bizhigitova К. . . (2024). Rethinking the "production of knowledge" as a methodological approach in historical research. Bulletin of L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Historical Sciences. Philosophy. Religious Studies Series., 146(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.32523/2616-7255-2024-146-1-26-44

Issue

Section

Historical Sciences